Heat-color (shine-color, king-light, Perunov color) Heat-color (light-color, king-light, Perunov color) - in myths and legends a fantastic flower, a metaphor for lightning. It blossomed with a bang, with a wonderful brilliance and brightly illuminated everything.

Revolutionary passion Napoleon Bonaparte gazed in fascination at the hilt of his ceremonial imperial sword. How brilliant was the idea of ​​decorating it with the “jewels of the revolution”, headed by the “Regent”. This stone was worthy of the greatness of a brilliant commander. And everyone

Revolutions Austrian (1848–1849) English (17th century) Belgian (1830) Hungarian (1848–1849) German (1848–1849) Greek (1821–1829) Italian (1848–1849) Spanish (1808–1814) Spanish (1820) –1823)Spanish (1834–1843)Spanish (1854–1856)Spanish (1868–1874)Spanish (1931–1939) July (France;

No matter what anyone says, 100 years is the date, so today there will be a lot of the October Revolution, or a coup, as you like. Those who lived in the USSR remember that November 7 was one of the most important holidays in the country. Much more significant than May 1, or even Victory Day. Well, at least for the state and its officials. But, surprisingly, there were not so many signs and symbols associated with this holiday. Let's remember them first.

Below, in addition to a short overview of the symbols themselves, you will find a selection of Soviet holiday postcards, the October Revolution in paintings by Soviet artists, and even more rare posters from the Civil War.

So, the first and main thing was the cruiser Aurora. It’s not entirely clear why exactly this happened, to be honest. So they decided that the “Aurora” would be the symbol and that’s it) Although in the fall of 1918 they even planned to scuttle the cruiser in the fairway in the Kronstadt area so that potential interventionist ships would not make their way to Petrograd. It worked out.

It began to be actively promoted as a symbol of the Revolution after 1927. Although the ship was still underway and took part in campaigns, including foreign ones. Although the ship was outdated, and by 1941 they planned to exclude the Aurora from the lists of the fleet, but the war prevented this from happening.
The ship was in Oranienbaum and took part in the defense of the city. The 130mm guns were removed from the ship and installed as a separate battery (artillery battery "A"), and the ship served as an air defense point. And I must say, de facto the Germans practically sank the ship.

In August 1944, a historic decision was made. The Executive Committee of the Leningrad City Council of Workers' Deputies adopted a resolution according to which the Aurora was to be installed near the Petrogradskaya embankment as a museum-monument to the history of the fleet and a training block of the Leningrad Nakhimov Naval School. The ship was raised, cleaned and towed to the site. There it stands to this day, except for 2 repairs in 1984 and 2014. And to be honest, there is almost nothing left of Aurora.

Another interesting point - on February 22, 1968, by decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Red Banner cruiser "Aurora" was awarded the Order of the October Revolution, becoming the only ship in the country twice awarded the order. Moreover, the cruiser itself is depicted on the order))

Red clove.
Another symbol that was present everywhere on this holiday. On postcards, in movies, at demonstrations and parades. Even in the buttonholes of the top officials of the state on this day one could see this particular flower.

I always thought why is this? And most likely, these are allusions to another symbol that was present in 1917 - the red bow. For revolutionary-minded individuals wore either red ribbons or a red bow. Moreover, the second one was preferable. This was the case during the February Revolution, and it reached the point of insanity. When, with a red bow at the head of the Guards naval crew, the Emperor’s cousin, Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich, paraded through the streets. The same one who in 1924, in exile, proclaimed himself Emperor of All Russia Kirill I, and whose daughter and grandson we constantly see in our country as supposed contenders for a hypothetical throne.

In late Soviet times, the bow was not entirely in fashion, but carnations became a serious symbol. Although they hung bows. Some even a lot. Like, for example, Chernenko:

Revolutionary sailors. A bunch of films showing and telling us that the revolution was made by sailors. The canonical image was something like this:

But the fact is that 80% of the sailors were adherents of anarchism, and could not in any way be counted among the supporters of the Bolsheviks. There was just a riot, and they took part in it. And it certainly cannot be said that they were the only revolutionary force in the city. For a large number of ground forces of the St. Petersburg garrison, including the Lithuanian Life Guards Regiment, took part in the mutiny. But this is exactly how it turned out - the revolutionary sailors subsequently became one of the main symbols of the Revolution.

Armored car.
Why these uber-weapons were so valued in those days, I cannot fully understand.

Although wheels, some kind of armor and machine guns were appreciated. Especially in local conflicts. Again, in the spring, when Ilyich returned from emigration, he skidded onto the armored vehicle from which he was carrying some kind of garbage. He presented the “April Theses” in the evening from the balcony of the Kshesinskaya mansion, and not at the Finlyandskaya station, as is commonly believed. Although the monument stands, and even the turret of the armored car can be seen.

So people have everything mixed up in their heads

Well Smolny. Until 1917, this beautiful building, built by the famous Quarenghi, housed the Smolny Institute of Noble Maidens - the first women's educational institution in Russia, which laid the foundation for women's education.

However, in October 1917, the institute was transferred to Novocherkassk, after which the headquarters for preparations for the Bolshevik uprising, led by the Petrograd Military Revolutionary Committee, was located in the empty building. In principle, this was the brain and heart of the entire revolution (rebellion). It was there that Lenin made his way from the safe house.
The military-revolutionary committee included representatives of the Central Committee, and Petrograd and military party organizations of the parties of the left Socialist Revolutionaries and Bolsheviks, delegates of the presidium and soldiers' section of the Petrograd Soviet, representatives of the headquarters of the Red Guard, Tsentrobalt and Tsentroflot, and factory committees. As part of the MRC, the MRC Bureau was organized, which carried out operational work. The Bureau of the Military Revolutionary Committee included the left Socialist Revolutionaries Lazimir and G.N. Sukharkov, the Bolsheviks Podvoisky and Antonov-Ovseenko. The Bureau of the Military Revolutionary Committee and the Military Revolutionary Committee itself was formally headed by the left Socialist-Revolutionary P.E. Lazimir, but often decisions were made by the Bolsheviks: L.D. Trotsky, N.I. Podvoisky, V.A. Antonov-Ovseenko. Therefore, we can say that the uprising was led primarily by the “pariah of the revolution” Leon Trotsky.

Since 1918, the building has been occupied by city government bodies - the Leningrad City Council of Workers' Deputies and the city committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) / CPSU (until 1991). Since 1996, Smolny has served as the official residence of the governor of St. Petersburg.

Some types of art, visual agitation, propaganda.
Or simply Happy Holidays to all those who consider this a holiday.
Leningrad, cruiser "Aurora", postcard from the publishing house "Planet", 1987.

Pocket calendars, I don’t think I have the whole series in my collection, but here’s what I have, for the 70th anniversary of October.

The most popular and recognizable ship in the world.

October Revolution in painting

For the centennial anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, a selection of paintings dedicated to the fateful October 1917, which changed the history of Russia and all of humanity. It was on this day that the path that led the Soviet soldier to Berlin and the Soviet man into space began.

Lenin and Stalin at the end of the summer of 1917 in Razliv.

Deciding on an armed uprising.

Alexander Kerensky.

Kerensky on the eve of the revolution.

How to get to Smolny.

Smolny in the days of October.

Lenin in Smolny.

Great night.

Left march.

On Winter.

Stalin as the organizer of the October Revolution.

October Eve.

Before the assault.

Aurora.

Aurora's salvo.

Aurora's salvo. In the Winter Palace.

Aurora's salvo. Smolny.

Kerensky's last exit.

Arrest of the Provisional Government.

The revolution has won.

Proclamation of Soviet power. This is an original painting, Stalin was glossed over in the editing from the time of Khrushchev.

Long live the October Revolution.

Revolutionary Petrograd.

Red Guards of Petrograd.

Revolutionary sailor.

The first decree of Soviet power.

Lenin and the revolutionary sailors.

Lenin's speech at one of the Petrograd factories.

Lenin in the edition of Pravda.

Peace to the peoples!

Decree on peace.

Decree on peace.

Soldier of the Revolution.

Patrol.

Pogroms of liquor stores.

On the streets of Petrograd.

At the Petrograd defense headquarters.

Presentation of the decision on the formation of the Cheka to Dzerzhinsky. There is another version of this picture, where Stalin is not present.

Yakov Sverdlov.

Decree on land.

Dzerzhinsky.

We are ours, we will build a new world!

Happy holiday, comrades! Happy Great October Day!

Civil War Posters

It’s especially interesting on the topic of Ukraine and Donbass.

15-12-2015, 17:39

The symbol in the form of a five-pointed star appeared, of course, long before the 1917 revolution. And in every time, for every culture, it had its own, very specific meaning. The star symbol, first endowed with a semantic load in ancient Sumer, has gained unprecedented popularity.

The star was first used as a military insignia in France, shortly after the Great French Revolution. Then other countries adopted the symbol. The Russian Empire was no exception.

In 1827, by decree of Nicholas I, golden stars decorated epaulettes, and after their abolition they migrated to shoulder straps. In various forms, stars, as insignia, existed until the February Revolution, after which the Provisional Government abolished the shoulder straps. True, having disappeared from the shoulder straps, the five-pointed star briefly moved to the naval caps, where it was given a place directly above the anchor.

But soon another revolution happened, the October Revolution, and after it the star became truly widespread.

The five-pointed star, already well-known to everyone, was perfectly suited to the role of a distinctive sign of the Red Army. It is generally accepted that the red star first appeared as a distinctive sign of the Red Army on December 15, 1917. The symbol was quite convenient in many respects: firstly, it was first used by the French revolutionaries, for whom the new government had sympathy; and secondly, despite the fact that the stars were still on the shoulder straps of the officers of the tsarist army, they were not the same symbol of the monarchy as the double-headed eagle.

The old new symbol became widely known after it was mentioned in the Izvestia newspaper on April 19, 1918. The note stated that the Commissariat for Military Affairs had approved a drawing of a new sign in the form of a red star with a golden hammer and plow. The red star was officially approved by his order L.D. Trotsky. It happened on May 7, 1918. The order clearly stated that “the Red Army badge belongs to persons serving in the Red Army.” All those who were not in the ranks of the Red Army had to remove their insignia in the form of a red star: for failure to comply with the order, the perpetrators could be transferred to a military tribunal.

An incident immediately happened with the new symbol: haters of the new system, seeing the new sign, immediately remembered both Satanists and Freemasons. The reason, by the way, was given by the Bolsheviks themselves: on the first breastplates (before the star migrated to headdresses, it was worn on the chest) the star was located with two rays upward. Soon after this, the star will be given the correct position, and the commissars themselves will rush to explain the meaning of the new sign to everyone: “The Red Star of the Red Army is the Star of Truth. The red star depicts the plowman-peasant's plow and the hammer-worker's hammer (...) this means that the Red Army is fighting for the star of Truth to shine on the peasant-ploughman and the hammer-worker (...) She is the star of happiness for all the poor, peasants and workers "

But the story of the Red Star does not end there.

In January 1919, sewn stars were finally fixed on the headdresses of Red Army soldiers. Not only the location, but also the very appearance of the star will change: first the plow will replace the sickle, and a little later the design of the rays will change - they will become straight, and not rounded, as in the first versions. It is in this form that the star will finally gain a foothold, first in the Red Army, and then completely become one of the components of the coat of arms of the USSR (though without the image of tools, so as not to repeat the military emblem).

Symbols of the Revolution. November 6th, 2017

Hello dears.
Tomorrow is our “red calendar day” :-) No matter what anyone says, 100 years is the date, so tomorrow I’ll be posting all day about the October Revolution (or the coup, if you prefer). So get ready :-))
Well, I'll start today.
Those who lived in the USSR remember that November 7 was one of the most important holidays in the country. Much more significant than May 1, or even Victory Day. Yes, there was such a thing :-))
But, surprisingly, there were not so many signs and symbols associated with this holiday.
Let's remember them.

So, the first and main thing was cruiser Aurora". It’s not entirely clear why exactly this happened, to be honest. So they decided that the “Aurora” would be the symbol and that’s it :-)) Although in the fall of 1918 they even planned to scuttle the cruiser in the fairway in the Kronstadt area so that potential interventionist ships would not make their way to Petrograd. It worked out.

It began to be actively promoted as a symbol of the Revolution after 1927. Although the ship was still underway and took part in campaigns, including foreign ones. Although the ship was outdated, and by 1941 they planned to exclude the Aurora from the lists of the fleet, but the war prevented this from happening.
The ship was in Oranienbaum and took part in the defense of the city. The 130mm guns were removed from the ship and installed as a separate battery (artillery battery "A"), and the ship served as an air defense point. And I must say, de facto the Germans practically sank the ship.

In August 1944, a historic decision was made. The Executive Committee of the Leningrad City Council of Workers' Deputies adopted a resolution according to which the Aurora was to be installed near the Petrogradskaya embankment as a museum-monument to the history of the fleet and a training block of the Leningrad Nakhimov Naval School. The ship was raised, cleaned and towed to the site. There it stands to this day, except for 2 repairs in 1984 and 2014. And to be honest, there is almost nothing left of Aurora.

Another interesting point - on February 22, 1968, by decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Red Banner cruiser "Aurora" was awarded the Order of the October Revolution, becoming the only ship in the country twice awarded the order. Moreover, the cruiser itself is depicted on the order :-)))

Red clove.
Another symbol that was present everywhere on this holiday. On postcards, in movies, at demonstrations and parades. Even in the buttonholes of the top officials of the state on this day one could see this particular flower.

I always thought why is this? And most likely, these are allusions to another symbol that was present in 1917 - the red bow. For revolutionary-minded individuals wore either red ribbons or a red bow. Moreover, the second one was preferable. This was the case during the February Revolution, and it reached the point of insanity. When, with a red bow at the head of the Guards naval crew, the Emperor’s cousin, Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich, paraded through the streets. The same one who in 1924, in exile, proclaimed himself Emperor of All Russia Kirill I, and whose daughter and grandson we constantly see in our country as supposed contenders for a hypothetical throne.

In late Soviet times, the bow was not entirely in fashion, but carnations became a serious symbol. Although they hung bows. Some even a lot. Like, for example, Chernenko:

Revolutionary sailors. A bunch of films showing and telling us that the revolution was made by sailors. The canonical image was something like this:

But the fact is that 80% of the sailors were adherents of anarchism, and could not in any way be counted among the supporters of the Bolsheviks. There was just a riot, and they took part in it. And it certainly cannot be said that they were the only revolutionary force in the city. For a large number of ground forces of the St. Petersburg garrison, including the Lithuanian Life Guards Regiment, took part in the mutiny. But this is exactly how it turned out - the revolutionary sailors subsequently became one of the main symbols of the Revolution.

Armored car.
Why this uber-weapon was so valued in those days, I cannot fully understand :-)

Although wheels, some kind of armor and machine guns were appreciated. Especially in local conflicts. Again, in the spring, when Ilyich returned from emigration, he skidded onto the armored vehicle from which he was carrying some kind of garbage. He presented the “April Theses” in the evening from the balcony of the Kshesinskaya mansion, and not at the Finlyandskaya station, as is commonly believed. Although the monument stands, and even the turret of the armored car can be seen.

So people have everything mixed up in their heads :-)

Well Smolny. Until 1917, this beautiful building, built by the famous Quarenghi, housed the Smolny Institute of Noble Maidens, the first women's educational institution in Russia, which laid the foundation for women's education.

However, in October 1917, the institute was transferred to Novocherkassk, after which the headquarters for preparations for the Bolshevik uprising, led by the Petrograd Military Revolutionary Committee, was located in the empty building. In principle, this was the brain and heart of the entire revolution (rebellion). It was there that Lenin made his way from the safe house.
The military-revolutionary committee included representatives of the Central Committee, and Petrograd and military party organizations of the parties of the left Socialist Revolutionaries and Bolsheviks, delegates of the presidium and soldiers' section of the Petrograd Soviet, representatives of the headquarters of the Red Guard, Tsentrobalt and Tsentroflot, and factory committees. As part of the MRC, the MRC Bureau was organized, which carried out operational work. The Bureau of the Military Revolutionary Committee included the left Socialist Revolutionaries Lazimir and G.N. Sukharkov, the Bolsheviks Podvoisky and Antonov-Ovseenko. The Bureau of the Military Revolutionary Committee and the Military Revolutionary Committee itself was formally headed by the left Socialist-Revolutionary P.E. Lazimir, but often decisions were made by the Bolsheviks: L.D. Trotsky, N.I. Podvoisky, V.A. Antonov-Ovseenko. Therefore, we can say that the uprising was led primarily by the “pariah of the revolution” Leon Trotsky.

Since 1918, the building has been occupied by city government bodies - the Leningrad City Council of Workers' Deputies and the city committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) / CPSU (until 1991). Since 1996, Smolny has served as the official residence of the governor of St. Petersburg.

That's how things are.
What symbols of the Revolution do you remember?
Have a nice time of day.

The work of the American historian Alexander Rabinovitch is a dense, richly textured political history of the period from the July Days of 1917 to the October Revolution. The main focus of his attention is the events in Petrograd and the role of the Bolshevik party in them. The American researcher has been studying this topic for more than half a century. Written on the basis of memoirs, newspapers, and Western archives (Soviet ones were closed to Rabinovich), the book “The Bolsheviks Come to Power” was published in English in 1976. It met with a hostile reaction from official Soviet historical science, since it contradicted the dogmatic interpretation of the history of October. With the advent of perestroika, however, the book became the first major study of the revolution to be translated into the USSR, coming from a Western academic environment.

Rabinovich describes the revolution not as a sudden event - a coup or conspiracy, but as a long process, during which a variety of, often random, circumstances came together and moved history forward. The most important role in this “revolution from below” was played by the masses, who were not only used by the Bolsheviks to achieve political goals, but also used them themselves. In many ways, the growth of the influence of the Bolshevik Party was due to the fear of the masses of workers, soldiers and peasants of reaction. The seizure of power itself in October was, according to the scientist, provoked by the beginning of the offensive of the Provisional Government against the extreme left forces. However, the subjective factor in the revolution was also important - Rabinovich does not hide his respect for Lenin and his leadership qualities: “It is hardly possible to find an example in the recent historical past that more clearly and convincingly shows what a huge, even decisive role can be personalities in history."

The internal party democracy of the Bolsheviks of the 1917 model, described in detail by Rabinovich, echoed perestroika. Various groups and organizations within the party had their own interests, motives and ideological aspirations, and this was very different from the iron cohort of executors of Lenin’s brilliant will created by Soviet historiography. Along the way, the author deals with a number of smaller historiographical myths, for example about the Bolshevik initiative in creating the Military Revolutionary Committee - and that it was originally intended to overthrow the Provisional Government. The revolutionary democracy of 1917 was not limited to the Bolsheviks, who had to resort to the help of allies, such as the Left Socialist Revolutionaries or anarcho-syndicalists. They were not blind executors of Lenin’s will - for them it was more important to protect councils, committees and other bodies from counter-revolution.

“From the convenient position of a later witness, it is clear that those who, in the mid-summer of 1917, so easily wrote off Bolshevism as a serious political force, completely did not take into account the basic interests, the significant potential strength of the Petrograd masses and the enormous revolutionary attractiveness of the revolutionary political and social program proposed by the Bolsheviks. In addition, these gullible people were undoubtedly misled by the stream of harshly worded decrees coming out of the Winter Palace. They gave the actions of the Provisional Government the appearance of purposefulness, strength and energy, which it did not possess. Despite the fiery rhetoric, almost none of the major repressive measures taken by the cabinet during that period were fully implemented or produced the desired results.”

Vitaly Startsev. “Storm of Winter. Documentary essay" (1987)

The popular science book by Vitaly Startsev, published on the 70th anniversary of the October Revolution, was, as stated in the annotation, “aimed at being an ideological asset.” However, the work, which describes in detail “the main event of the October armed uprising in Petrograd,” is of interest even now. Despite the fact that the event itself in the country’s ideology lost its sacred status, and the giant panel near the Lanskoy station with Lenin’s route to Smolny, mentioned by Startsev, has now been destroyed Until the end of the 2000s, the end of house No. 2b on Serdo-bolskaya street near the Lanskaya station in the Vyborg direction was decorated with a panel with images of workers, a soldier and a sailor, as well as the route along which Lenin got to Smolny on the night of October 25 -barking from his last safe house, located in the building opposite..

Vitaly Startsev was one of the leading representatives of the so-called Leningrad school of historians of the revolution, formed in the 1960s. This group of researchers, working at the Leningrad branch of the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences, relied on a critical perception of sources and strived for an objective reflection of events. The only and constant correctness of Lenin’s position and the course of the Bolshevik Party had to be recognized. However, the authors of the Leningrad school also presented the argumentation and point of view of the opponents and competitors of the Leninists.

A dense network of events, a comparison of memoirs, documentary and other evidence, verification of their reliability with objective data - all these are the undoubted advantages of the book. Thanks to the scrupulously reconstructed chronology of the Petrograd events, Startsev convincingly shows the initiative of the Provisional Government in unleashing hostilities. The work is largely based on the use of urban geography data, almost to the microtopographic level. Startsev relied on interviews with witnesses and consultations with Hermitage specialists, who even tapped the walls of the Winter Palace. Geographical data, for example, gives the author the opportunity to show: the turn of the Bolsheviks and their allies to offensive actions on the evening of October 24 was caused by the fact that Lenin managed to reach Smolny from the Vyborg side just then. The Winter Palace - as it was at the end of October 1917 - becomes a kind of character in the book, largely determining the logic and sequence of actions of both the defenders and the participants in the assault.

“Seven decades have passed since then, and hundreds of artists have already captured the storming of the Winter Palace on their canvases. We see on them the figures of sailors, soldiers and Red Guards in poses of a mighty impulse, grenades in muscular hands, ready to be thrown, crimson reflections on the low dark gray clouds of the night sky, crossed searchlight beams, puffs of smoke, probably from cannon shells, frightened figures of young -kers covering their faces with their hands. This is how artists imagine this event. And they are right in their own way. This is how they convey their feelings to the audience and solve artistic problems. You can admire their works, discuss how the light sources are located, how the picture is composed, how they managed to convey in the movement and figures of people the feelings and impulse of the heroes of the storming of the Winter Palace. But you can’t study history from these paintings. The greatness of the event is not diminished by the fact that there were most likely no searchlights over Palace Square, and that the grenades were tied to belts and not in hands. The smoke also had nowhere to rise. And finally, there were no longer any cadets or shockwomen left at the palace. What was said above about artists fully applies to filmmakers. They say that when Sergei Eisenstein, who was filming the famous film “October” in 1927, was brought to the scene of the events and shown him the October Staircase, he refused to film the assault on this particular staircase, because it was difficult to turn around there. extras." And he filmed the movement of the revolutionary masses in the palace along the wide and very beautiful Jordan stairs. But in 1917 it actually only led to the hospital! This innovation of our director, who has now become a classic of Soviet cinema, was then repeated by dozens of other directors. And again and again the rays of searchlights crisscrossed the sky, again smoke rose up, sailors ran along the Jordan Stairs, hung for some unknown reason on the main gate...”

Heinrich Ioffe. “The Year Seventeen: Lenin, Kerensky, Kornilov” (1995)

The last monograph so far by one of the founders of the scientific study of the counter-revolutionary White movement in Russia. Genrikh Zinovievich Ioffe presents the history of revolutionary upheavals - from the beginning of 1917 to the first months of 1918 - through an analysis of the actions of the three main political forces. For the sake of clarity, far-left radicalism is personified in the figure of Vladimir Lenin - but is by no means reduced to it. The right-wing, conservative forces of the revolutionary ecosystem are shown through the activities of the general and his associates. Finally, democratic, moderate socialist centrism is associated with personality.

The choice facing the country between three leaders was not simply a choice between three individuals. The personal qualities and views of Kerensky, Kornilov or Lenin were not the only important factors in comparison with social and economic forces, foreign and domestic political circumstances. It was they, their complex relationships, that provided various leaders with more or less support in the political bodies of the country, among enthusiastic or hostile street crowds, from armed people at the front or in the capital. All three leaders were potential Bonapartes, but only Lenin managed to create a stable dictatorship - perhaps due to the initially leader-like nature of the Bolshevik party he led.

The maneuvering of the government center between the right and left weakened the position of democratic, moderate forces. The July days and the unsuccessful armed uprising in Petrograd seemed to put an end to the political prospects of the Bolsheviks and other extreme leftists. However, the very next month, an attempt to establish a military dictatorship (Kornilov's speech) undermined faith in the government both among the right, who suspected a provocation, and among the left, who accused government circles of pandering to Kornilov. Society has become increasingly polarized, and democratic forces have become weaker. The overthrow of the Provisional Government and the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly was relatively easy for the Bolsheviks and their allies. But on the political scene, with the loss of mass support by the centrists, only irreconcilable opponents remained, the extreme right and the extreme left, and Kornilov clashed with Lenin. The revolution moved into . This was a natural, but not the only possible outcome.

“Truly amazing! Leader of democracy, idol of the people Kerensky; The Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian army, a man who claims to be the savior of the country, General Kornilov; a former terrorist on an all-Russian scale, who almost shook the foundations of the empire, Savinkov and many other national figures, through complex political combinations, built a structure that, according to their calculations, was capable of stopping the collapse of a huge country, preventing its drift into the abyss...
But a certain V. Lvov appears, a man who evokes a “understanding” smile in many, rushing between Zimny ​​and Headquarters, conducting non-binding negotiations to no one... The shocked leader of democracy, the Prime Minister interrogates the Supreme Commander-in-Chief as a guilty lieutenant at the police station, he answers him with something not entirely intelligible. And the structure, so carefully built in the name of saving the country, collapses with the speed of a house of cards.”

Vladimir Buldakov. “Red Troubles. The Nature and Consequences of Revolutionary Violence" (1997) In 2010, the second edition was published, swelling to almost a thousand pages due to the involvement of new sources, but the author’s main arguments have changed little.

Vladimir Buldakov's book is written more in the genre of essays than as an academic work. However, behind the shockingness of the verbal embodiment there is scrupulous research. Buldakov strives to understand the psychology of the revolution, relying on rich and varied sources. They allow Buldakov to describe the forms of revolutionary violence, which he considers generated primarily by the First World War. In the conditions of the collapse of the paternalistic imperial system, the marginalized masses (the crowd, the mob, the okhlos) were obsessed with political psychosis, which, according to the researcher, created the “hysterical polyphony of the revolution.”

It is the revolution with its breaking of restrictions that allows the barbaric nature of man, especially the man of the crowd, to reveal itself. During the period of the black re-partition, the communal revolution in the village, when the whole family killed their neighbor with pitchforks and axes for a plowed strip of disputed land, this was “a moral dislocation of plunder, typical of the psychopathology of the revolution.” The brutal murders of officers in the army and at the front, especially numerous in the first days of February, could well have had a rational motivation: they were killed for attempts at resistance, they attacked those with German surnames, who were seen as traitors. But often the massacres in which crowds participated turned into manifestations of “mass frenzy or criminal courage.”

“In essence, the nature of the unrest is the same - the psychosis of rebellion, caused by the everyday pain of feelings of imperfection of power. Now, through terrible trial and error, the ideal, or rather its appearance, was sought. At the same time, it was easier to accept wishful thinking the more tangible the sacrifices were.”

. “Symbols of power and the struggle for power. Towards the study of the political culture of the Russian revolution of 1917" (2012)

“The revolution cannot be understood without studying the political symbols of the era,” says Boris Kolonitsky, a professor at the European University in St. Petersburg. And using many living and vivid examples from documents, letters, literature, memoirs and the press, he shows the role of the symbolic aspects of the 1917 revolution. Symbols serve the researcher as “peculiar keys for interpretation” of its political culture. Sometimes they acted as an indicator of mass sentiment, sometimes they were used as a tool in the struggle for power, and sometimes they themselves could provoke political conflicts.

The spontaneous struggle around symbols, for example, speeches by lower ranks against the “gold chasers,” was used by military committees and councils to mobilize supporters. Symbols, such as songs, also served to shape mass political culture. Their influence made politics more accessible than even popular propaganda materials. Well, the old imperial symbols - the coat of arms with a crown, the anthem “God Save the Tsar!” etc. - were clearly rejected by the revolution that overthrew the Romanov dynasty. Adherence to “outdated” state symbols caused acute conflicts: for example, there are numerous cases of murders by soldiers and sailors of officers who did not want to give up their shoulder straps. The restoration by the Provisional Government of old symbols, such as the naval flag, was perceived by “carriers of revolutionary political culture” as a reactionary activity.

The royal flags and anthems, names of ships and awards were replaced not by some liberal-democratic symbols, which would seem natural given the bourgeois-democratic character of February. These were symbols of the revolutionary, socialist underground - red flags, the Marseillaise, the Internationale. Even conservative politicians and military men, such as Minister of War Alexander Guchkov or General Lavr Kornilov, wore red bows. The dominance of such signs, with their characteristic language of class struggle and civil war, helped strengthen the far left before October, since the Bolsheviks and other supporters of revolutionary maximalism were perceived as the legitimate bearers of revolutionary culture.

“In 1917, the political revolution was intertwined with the religious revolution. Under these conditions, revolutionary symbols and the language of revolution penetrated the life of the Russian Orthodox Church and were actively used in intra-church conflicts by opposing groups. The flip side of the politicization of religious life was a special sacralization of politics, the sacralization of revolutionary symbols. For many supporters of the revolution, who held different political views, they became sacred symbols. But at the same time, for opponents of the revolution, the political struggle, and in particular the struggle against revolutionary symbols, also acquired a deep revolutionary meaning.”

“Critical Dictionary of the Russian Revolution: 1914-1921” (2014) / “Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution 1914-1921” (1997)

The list of authors of this fundamental work is a kind of directory of who is who in the research of the Russian revolution: it contains fifty specialists from different universities, scientific schools and countries. This research environment arose largely thanks to the series of international colloquia on problems of the history of the revolution that began in Leningrad in 1990, the participants of which created the “Critical Dictionary”.

The book was originally published in English in 1997, and for the Russian edition that followed some time later it was somewhat supplemented and revised by the authors. Contrary to the title, this is not so much a dictionary as an analytical reference book, presenting the views of the world's leading experts on the Russian revolution on its individual aspects (social, military, political), events (from prerequisites and consequences to individual turning points), actors (social, religious and ethnic groups, political parties, institutions, etc.) and individual figures. An article about Lenin, for example, was written by the author of a two-volume scientific biography of the Bolshevik leader Robert Service. About factory committees - one of the world's leading experts on the labor movement in revolutionary Russia, Steve Smith. The events associated with the transition of Soviet Russia to the NEP were outlined by Sergei Yarov, the author of several monographs in the early 1920s.

At the same time, the Critical Dictionary does not pretend to close the topic. According to co-editor Edward Acton, one of the goals of the work is to “identify the limits of current knowledge, unanswered questions, and challenges for future research.”

“Understanding the Russian Revolution requires ... not only knowledge of the major events, parties, institutions and figures, the description and analysis of which by leading scholars form the bulk of this volume, but also an effort to reveal the meaning of hopes and disappointments, pain and anger - constant companions of revolutionary change. These subjective feelings not only connected psychological and physical manifestations of cruelty and atrocities with various social and political tensions in society; they played a significant role in the transition from conflict to action; they also gave events and actions their own special (and often contradictory) meaning, which is often not obvious, or even attested in any regular way.”

William G. Rosenberg. " Interpreting the Russian Revolution" // "Critical Dictionary of the Russian Revolution"