After the revolution of 1917, the life of the country began to be led by the Bolshevik Party, which won its power in the Civil War. Later the Bolsheviks began to be called communists. The Soviets became the main link in government. Therefore, the new government began to be called Soviet.

Consider the map of the USSR (c). Find the republics that were part of the Soviet Union.

RUSSIAN SOVIET FEDERAL SOCIALIST REPUBLIC (RSFSR) Estonian SSR Latvian SSR Lithuanian SSR Belorussian SSR Ukrainian SSR Moldavian SSR Georgian SSR Armenian SSR Azerbaijan SSR Turkmen SSR Uzbek SSR Kazakh SSR Tajik SSR Kyrgyz SSR

In the early 90s, a large-scale campaign began to restore the Cathedral of Christ the Savior on a historical site. Currently we see a greatly “improved” copy of the former temple.

1.What state was formed on the territory of the former Russian Empire? 2.In what year was the Soviet Union formed? 3.How have people's lives changed? 1.What state was formed on the territory of the former Russian Empire? 2.In what year was the Soviet Union formed? 3.How have people's lives changed? 17 Oksana Vladimirovna Panova, primary school teacher, MAOU “Gymnasium 4”, Veliky Novgorod Personal website:

Date of publication or update 06/17/2017

Contents: Book “Church of the Holy Trinity: Past and Present”

Village life after the revolution.

After the October Revolution and the adoption of the decree “On Land,” the Soviet government allocated additional land to rural peasants. At the same time, while cultivating the land, the peasants did not receive the expected fruits from their labor. Hunger reigned everywhere, and at the same time various kinds of discontent reigned. Bread cards for workdays were sometimes the only salvation from hunger. God's wrath manifested itself in all spheres of life of the people deceived by the Bolsheviks, seduced by false promises of creating an earthly paradise.

A hard life, more like survival, constantly tested people. One resident of the village. Troitskoye told how she once, as a seven-year-old girl, went to receive the daily quota of bread for her family. Having received it, she ate it on her way home, feeling hungry, and when she came home, she confessed to it. Her parents did not scold her, but tears involuntarily flowed from their eyes. There were many such examples.

Despite all the difficulties, life continued in the village of Troitskoye; in addition to agriculture, there were industrial enterprises and a blacksmith shop. To the east of the temple, where the waters of the canal now splash, there was Tsyganov’s plant, which consisted of two buildings. Trays were made there, which were then transported on carts to the other side of the Klyazma River in Zhestovo and painted there. Later this enterprise was completely moved to Zhestovo.

The first communist in the village of Troitsky was Gaidamakov, he was also one of the first chairmen of the village council, even before the formation of the collective farm.

In 1925, in the village of Troitskoye, at a spinning and cloth factory, a weaving artel was formed, which was led by its creator Alfred Yakovlevich for many years.

This artel was located in a two-story building, the first being stone and the second wooden. At the end of the 20s, the second floor burned down. More than 100 people worked in the artel. It produced various kinds of cord, braid and silk ribbons, and during the war, overcoat belts, gas mask braid and parachute cord.

The Ryabushinsky house housed FZO (factory training), where street children were trained in various crafts, and in the summer this building was used as a pioneer camp.

The once formed Troitskaya volost existed until 1924, with its center in the village of Troitskoye.

Later, from 1924 p. Troitskoe became part of the Communist volost of the Moscow province (since 1929, the Moscow region), having a volost administration building and a prison, which were located behind a modern grocery store, to the west of the temple.

In 1935, a club was organized in the prison building, and at that time there was a playground on the site of the store. On it, closer to the temple, a platform was placed and various ceremonial events were held.

Subsequently, a canteen was established in the club building, where collective farmers were fed free of charge 3 times a day. In the 1950s, the club reopened its doors to residents of the village. Trinity and nearby villages.

Until 1928, a forestry was located on the territory of the village, which included, in addition to the village of Troitskoye, the villages of Novoseltsevo, Aleksandrovo and Chiverevo.

In the village of Troitsky there was also a school with primary education, which before the revolution housed a parish church. Its location was 100 meters west of the temple, at a road intersection. Until 1929, the rector of the Trinity Church, Archpriest Pyotr Kholmogorov, taught children to read and write there until his arrest. Before him, his predecessors were engaged in this work of God, teaching children the “Law of God,” reading and writing, as well as other sciences. This was the case in Rus' in most villages, where the priest was not only a shepherd of verbal sheep; but also a teacher in every way. The clergy were sometimes the only literate people in the villages, and therefore, in addition to their pastoral responsibilities, they also took on the responsibilities of a teacher.

The building in which the school was located was divided into two parts, in one half there were two classrooms, and in the other half the teachers lived. After the arrest of Father Peter, she was moved to the house where he lived, and subsequent priests who served in the Trinity Church no longer lived in it. The farm owned by Fr. Peter was taken by the collective farm. Thanks to the school, the priest's house survived and was maintained in good condition for many years. In the former school building, a kindergarten was formed, the first head of which was Praskovya Alekseevna Lobik.

At the new location, in the building of the priest's house, the school had not two, but already four classes and about 100 children studied there. Since 1937, students have been able to receive a five-year education at the school. One of the first directors of the school was Arbenina Maria Mikhailovna.

In 1927, general collectivization began in the village of Troitskoye with the formation of the Krasnaya Gorka collective farm. This collective farm was subsequently transformed into a larger association - “Red October”, which existed until 1948. Remembering past years, Ivan Andreevich Slesarev, former director of the Trinity School, teacher of physics, mathematics, drawing and drawing, and his wife Nadezhda Matveevna Slesareva, teacher of Russian language and literature, said; like in 1927 in Troitsky, 5-7 houses united and formed the Krasnaya Gorka collective farm on a voluntary basis. In total there were about 50 houses in the village. In 1929 Almost the entire village was already on the collective farm.

No one was forced into it, it was just easier to work on the collective farm. Collective farm lands occupied the place where the Klyazma boarding house is now located (there was a stream on the site of the Kashinsky ravine). The collective farm had a canteen where everyone, young and old, came to eat. One day, collective farmers had the idea to make a water supply system in the dining room, with a water tower on the bell tower. These were the first thoughts about the uselessness of the temple and its “useful” use. The idea remained unrealized.

The first collective farmers brought the most valuable thing to the collective farm - horses. There was a groom in the horse yard, but each owner came to his horse and fed it something tasty. We made a stable for 40 horses. In 27, the collective farm was given an American Fordson tractor. They weren’t releasing their own back then.

Another tractor appeared when the question of boundaries arose; people were fighting on strips for land. It was necessary to make new fields - a sowing wedge. The landscape of the village consisted of meadows, bushes and ravines.

It was very difficult to cultivate the land on which shrubs grew in abundance. Then this second powerful giant tractor appeared in the village. To start it, 3-4 men came and rocked two huge flywheels. It had huge wheels that resembled a roller rink and 6 plowshares. They drove the tractor through borders and bushes. He was removing the bush by the roots. The noise was incredible.

After the horses, the other remaining livestock was taken to the collective farm: cows, sheep, but not for long, soon the collective farm had its own herd - 60 cows and 100 pigs. The sows reached 1.5 meters in length and gave birth to up to 22 piglets. Stables, a chicken coop, a pigsty - all this was located where the mini-market is now located.

When there was no collective farm, people were afraid that there would not be enough grain for the winter (there were large families), and it was not customary to lend in the villages. It was also very difficult to maintain a horse, because she is a wet nurse.

It's hard to survive alone. The only thing they did was help each other with mowing. The meadows were common, divided among each family. During the summer it was necessary to mow horses, sheep, cows, and also sow, grow and thresh rye. It was impossible to get sick.

Previously, before the Bolshevik revolution, when there was not enough anything to maintain their own farm, the owners of the lands on which they lived always came to the aid of the peasant.

All the difficulties associated with maintaining a personal farm were specially arranged by the Soviet government and therefore, being in this hopelessness, the peasants went to the collective farm.

In addition to livestock, when the collective farm was formed, property was also socialized. This was done by Komsomol activists. In the village of Troitsky, the secretary of the Komsomol organization Mikhail Khrunov was engaged in such a thankless task. In 1930 he was 18 years old.

It was very difficult to take away the necessary things from poor people and people with many children. He was a conscientious man; it was extremely difficult for him to force people to rob his fellow villagers.

In addition, he fell in love with a teacher who was older than him and did not reciprocate. All this taken together prompted Mikhail to commit suicide. The young man shot himself.

This was an event that shocked the entire village. He was buried very magnificently, since he held a high position, and his brother Ivan was the chairman of the village council. The coffin stood in the former priest's house and, despite all the pomp of the funeral, there were slogans condemning his act.

In 1929, the collective farm began to be named after the murdered first secretary of the Komsomol organization - named after. Pavlov, (whose murder served as a pretext for the arrest of Father Pyotr Kholmogorov).

In the 1930s, the persecution of the church especially intensified, but, despite this, the Church of the Holy Trinity was always full of parishioners. Old-timers say that people from all directions from neighboring villages came to the Divine service as if it were a demonstration. They emphasized their solemnity with their appearance, dressing in the best clothes. The temple lived a full parish life. Divine services were held and, overcoming the barriers of the authorities, the clergy and parishioners were able to make religious processions with icons in neighboring villages, awakening the fatherly faith in people.

Once upon a time, a revolution radically changed the course of Russian history and largely influenced world history, marking the beginning of a new era. For a hundred years, opponents and supporters of the revolution have been arguing about how the fate of our country would have developed if not for the significant events of February 1917. However, a revolution is not always a political phenomenon: sometimes we are faced with dramatic changes, breaking foundations in everyday life. How our respondents, participants in the XIV All-Russian Championship of Business Games for Schoolchildren and Students, feel about the global “shake-ups” and how they feel about revolutions in history and life, “Monday” looked into it.

Text: Dina Okhtina, Anastasia Tuchkova

1. How do you feel about revolution as a phenomenon? Do you think that revolutions are an integral part and engine of history?
2. Do you like dramatic changes in anything? Do you consider yourself a revolutionary at heart? Could you stand at the head of a social movement, for example?
3. Can you highlight particularly significant, revolutionary events in your life? Do you think that it is events like these that shape our character and help us grow as individuals?
4. Do you think the future lies in revolutions? Or are they becoming less relevant these days?

Mikhail Simanin,
29 years old, English teacher:

— I don’t treat revolutions as well as reforms. This is too categorical a method to change anything. I think gradual transformations are possible if you do everything thoughtfully and don't get carried away.

I approach drastic changes with caution and distrust; my experience shows that they often have negative consequences. I myself am rather a reformer. I could lead the movement, but what is important is what it is.

There were no revolutionary changes in my life, but these changes were still more often spontaneous than planned by me. Of course, such events change a person and help him grow.

I think small revolutions will always happen, they have not lost their relevance. And someone in the future will certainly have to lead some kind of revolution.

Marina Tovmasyan,
22 years old:

— I believe that there must be revolutions, because after them something changes in society. And this prevents stagnation, even if something changes for the worse. However, I do not believe that revolutions should be destructive, leading to casualties. Accordingly, I do not want there to be an armed revolution in the world during my existence. It turns out that such revolutions are not an integral part of any period in history. I don’t consider myself a revolutionary, but I could stand at the head of the movement. I don’t like changes, but I consider myself to be a person with changeable opinions. A significant event for me is moving to St. Petersburg and entering a university in this city. The future lies in revolutions, because many institutions of society are not without flaws, something needs to be changed all the time. And sometimes - radically!

Boris Stolyarov,
14 years old, student at the “Vzmakh” school:

— Revolution as a phenomenon is an effective way of radical change of power. Legalized actions, rallies and the like lead to nothing, because they are still carried out within the framework of existing procedures. In any period of history, only a revolution can truly change something. Both at the moment and at any other time.

In general, it seems to me that no one likes change. Especially if everything is good: in order for you to want to change something, it must become bad. Personally, I am not a revolutionary and, probably, I could not lead any movement - I do not have the necessary qualities.

Were there any revolutionary events in my life? Probably yes. Transition to the school "Vzmakh". I got ready and did it. And now everything is fine. Such events greatly change both life and personality. I have changed. In my opinion, revolutions are both the past and the future.

Ivan Usachev,
21 years old:

— Revolution as a phenomenon is a natural process in the development of society, thought, and creativity. You can treat it differently, it’s stupid to deny it. A revolution brings dramatic changes to any sphere - and not always positive ones. If we talk about a political and social revolution, then this is a colossal destabilization of society. A revolution, even in the minds of its creators, does not always have a single goal, since revolutions with one iconic figure are the lot of the 20th century. Now the revolution is being driven by mass media and the Internet. Of course, there are bright personalities, but this is not the work of one person. A revolution is neither good nor bad, because if it happened, then monstrous mistakes were made in management, which means that the old way of life turned out to be unviable.

In any period of history there are, have been and will be revolutions. The only question remains is what it will be called in the future. The overthrow of power is a revolution. New technology is a revolution. The new administration is a revolution. There are many options for the name of this process, but the essence is unlikely to change much.

Inertia is inherent in every person to one degree or another. The question is again in the idea. I don't think it's worth making small changes and wasting your life on them. If you make changes, they should be colossal—relatively speaking, dividing your life into “before” and “after.” Extreme measures, radical changes - whatever you like. “They stopped throwing garbage on the streets throughout the country” or “they began to follow traffic rules”, “the laws began to work” (the consciousness of all the people of this country has changed) - a good change. And half-hearted measures at the level of “don’t litter, and everyone won’t”, “don’t break things, and everyone won’t” will ultimately lead to nothing except your personal changes - these are bad changes.

I don't consider myself a revolutionary. Social movements are a waste of time. If you want to change something, you will in any case need power or at least cooperation with it. With power comes the power to change anything.

For me, significant events are those that happened for the first time. Plus I would add here the factor of success in any first business. What type of change the future holds depends on the scope of the revolution. For a person, a revolution can be a child, for a state - a new system, for art - a new direction, it all depends on the situation. But in the future, of course, there will be more and more innovators, not revolutionaries. And for now, apparently, these people will only be in the West.

Julia:

— A revolution can affect both the country and the individual, both good and bad. On the one hand, this brings some innovations, on the other, it can lead to destruction and even death. I have a double feeling, but revolution is an integral process, without it there would not be the history that we have now.

My attitude towards changes depends on the changes themselves - whether they are positive or negative. But I believe that even if something seems to happen by chance, it is not by chance. I'm a revolutionary at heart. I want to change the world. Of course, I cannot say that at this point in my life I could become the leader of any movement, but I would like to do it. Of course, there is some fear of overestimating one’s strengths. Being a leader is difficult. This is a big responsibility.

There have been important events in my life, but they can hardly be called revolutionary. For example, I do equestrian sports and recently discovered new directions for myself. For me it was a kind of rethinking of the equestrian world, and it means a lot to me. I believe that revolutionary events in our lives shape character and personality. I think revolutions have not become less relevant, but I would not say that revolution is the future. History can also be changed through smooth reforms.

Ruslan Bekkuzin,
student:

— I am rather a supporter of gradual reforms. Yes, revolution is an integral part of the historical process. Without it, movement in history occurs, but not as dynamically. Dramatic changes... Difficult question. I am ambivalent about everything. Subjectively, I don’t like it when, for example, I am evicted from my home. But objectively I understand that this teaches independence. I myself am not a revolutionary. Revolution presupposes that you must be able to suppress others. What does it mean to lead a movement? Lead by example, rise above others and be responsible for the people you lead. It's complicated. Significant changes often occur in my life. For example, I left the university after six months of studying, worked in unexpected positions and was recently evicted from my home. Subjectively, I don’t like it, but on the other hand, it’s an invaluable experience. There is nothing clear-cut in the world, in my opinion. Theoretically, you can do without a revolution, but in practice, I think, more than one revolution will happen on our Earth.

Aigul Dresvyanina,
20 years:

— I have a negative attitude towards the revolution as a phenomenon. In my opinion, this is a kind of war, a rebellion. And this does not end well for individuals. But revolution is part of the historical process. It was thanks to her that we were once able to change the country and the world.

I usually change something because I really want to. And sometimes it's very cool! But when it’s not me doing it, I feel uncomfortable. I can’t say that I’m a revolutionary at heart, but at the same time I have a habit of flying to another country just like that, without planning, and I can also cut my hair without any prerequisites. And yes, I probably could lead a riot or a social movement if something touched me to the core.

In my opinion, if we talk about the country as a whole, we live in peace and at a time when there are few wars. I believe that we should not resort to revolutions, because there are more humane ways. Why subject people to such torture? Although in order to radically change something, perhaps sometimes a revolution can be considered justified.

Shamima Nurmamadova,
23 years old:

— I regard revolutions as a certain period in any developing society. It seems to me that the revolution creates history, and therefore is an integral part of it. Regarding changes, I can say that I love them if they are really necessary. But at the same time, I would not be able to lead any movement, because I am not as brave as I should be for this. Revolution means a turn, a revolution, a transformation, a conversion. My arrival in St. Petersburg and studying here is a revolutionary event in my life.

In my opinion, whether revolutions are the future or not depends on the direction in which the actions of potential revolutionaries are directed and why this is all happening. If it is for the good of the country or the world, then, of course, they will always be relevant.

Venus,
55 years old, theater director:

— Revolution, on the one hand, is very good, because it carries a strong energy charge, on the other hand, it can destroy everything in its path. But you can’t go anywhere without her. Everything must develop, and when it happens that energy accumulates, but obstacles arise to its implementation, a revolution occurs. Reforms require wise rulers, but they are often not ready to make concessions.

I approach changes differently, depending on what kind they are. I’m probably a revolutionary at heart and could lead some kind of movement. This is typical for me.

There was such a thing in my life that I could break everything and start doing something completely new. Such events shape personality and change life. But I would like everything to go smoothly, although sometimes a revolution is simply necessary. I hope that the future lies in human wisdom, and not in revolutions.

Elizabeth:

- Any process without sharp leaps, such as a revolution, cannot have progress. Without declines and rises, the development of the state is impossible.

I don’t like constancy and immutability, and I’m afraid of drastic changes. The fear is that you have to adapt to something new, and this is not always easy. I’m a little bit of a revolutionary, but I couldn’t lead any movement, because it’s a big responsibility. I would rather stand behind someone's back and help. A social movement can lead to the decline of the state and society, and I am not ready for this.

Significant events have occurred in my life, but they are related to spiritual and psychological development. After adolescence, a certain revolution occurs inside, and you change. I agree that such events build character. If a person does not make any changes within himself, then he will not be able to further develop, explore the world and create new things.

The future is revolution, definitely! Now there is a certain illusion of freedom that in reality does not exist. When a revolutionary is found who can change everything, a new future will begin.

Artem Sorokov:

— Unfortunately, I have a good attitude towards the revolution. Previous revolutions changed a lot in history. They are part of historical development, because it makes society move, leads to change. I'm not a revolutionary at heart. I could lead the movement, find the right people, but in fact, it’s difficult to get people to do something like this now.

There have not yet been events in my life that I could call revolutionary. But in general, I think such events make you live on. And they teach you to live differently!

Revolution is an integral part of history, and I believe that significant steps will be taken in this way in the future. But in our country, I hope, changes will occur through innovation, that is, the partial introduction of something new.

Anna Patrakova,
literature teacher:

— It’s good to study revolutions, to look at them from the outside, but living during revolutions is bad. That's why I'm ambivalent about them. As a historian, the revolution interests me, but as a person I am afraid of it. Unfortunately, throughout its history, humanity has proven that it is impossible to educate or train it. It can only rebel and begin to live in a new way.

I love change and at heart I can call myself a revolutionary. But to lead the movement... I am more of a follower than a leader and transformer. But I really like going to rallies and being charged with the energy of people from the podium. I had a favorite revolution - the French one, and I knew a lot about it. But that was in my youth, and in our youth we all love revolutions.

Moving to the Vzmakh school was one of the most revolutionary events in my life. It changed me a lot, I became more free and liberated.

I think that the future lies in revolution; it is already being predicted in our country. Unfortunately, it is impossible to radically change something peacefully. It is only necessary to change sharply and radically.

Anastasia Tarasova:

— I have a very ambivalent attitude towards revolutions; they have both good and bad sides. Revolution is, first of all, change. They arise when people are not happy with something. I think revolutions can occur in almost any period of history. Sooner or later, any system fails or reaches a dead end - and then the time for revolution comes.

Whether I like changes or not depends on their nature. I am not a revolutionary at heart; it seems to me that I would not be able to fundamentally change even my way of life, not to mention changing society as a whole. I would not be able to lead the movement - I do not see leadership qualities in myself.

There have not been any revolutionary events in my life yet. Revolutions are part of history, and therefore the future lies with them. I would really not like a revolution to happen, but it is very possible that it will happen, and maybe even in our country.

Ilya Ochkovsky,
15 years:

— A revolution is a twofold phenomenon, it all depends on the position from which you view it. If you are a revolutionary, then it is good, if you are a ruler, it is bad. Also, a revolution always involves sacrifices, but without this you cannot achieve victory.

Changes in the life of society do not affect me yet, so I am neutral about them. Whether I am a revolutionary or not depends on the circumstances. Now, while everything is fine, no. But I could lead a social movement. Leadership skills, influence, public speaking skills, ability to win, trust - these are what a leader needs, and I have them all.

I think revolutions will never lose their relevance, because there will always be discontent and conflicts in society. Of course, it is possible to make changes through reforms, but those in power will not want to change the regime that is comfortable for them, so the only option left is revolution.

Yuri Radaev,
head teacher of the school “Vzmakh”:

“I recognize and consider only one type of revolution legitimate—revolution in human consciousness.” I hope everyone has experienced a moment when it becomes obvious what you were wrong about before. The transition from misunderstanding to understanding is revolution. Any other types of revolution that occur outside of a person, as a rule, are associated with sacrifices, but do they justify the result? Therefore, I am for a revolution in knowledge. I wish myself and those around me more such revolutions in themselves. If such changes occur in each of us, then the world around us will also be better. Long live the world revolution within us!

The historical process, like any other, is impossible without revolution. This is always a transition from quantity to quality. New signs accumulate, and when there are a lot of them, a sharp transition occurs - that is, a revolution. On the other hand, traits must accumulate evolutionarily, that is, gradually, naturally, without external influence.

If such internal revolutionary changes occur to a person, this is reflected in his lifestyle. Yes, I am a revolutionary, I love to change, but, of course, this does not always work out. Social movement... I've already had all this, and I consider it a delusion. All social upheavals occur not because people want to unite, but because they want to be like someone else, and this changes these people. I would not want to lead such a movement.

There have been many revolutionary events in my life - both external and internal. They always accompanied each other. It is always a rethinking of something, a transition to something new. I don't regret anything. Such events bring nothing but growth.

The socialist revolution led by Vladimir Lenin in 1917 is a revolution that changed the lives of different peoples and became a refuge for them, a leader for peoples and those who wanted their lives to change. Revolutions, coups, demonstrations and protests occurred all over the world. In every country there were secret and open parties, political movements and political groups that swore allegiance to the idea of ​​revolution. Many supporters and sympathizers of the revolution did not fight among themselves, but fought as a united front, hiding from those who did not agree with such an idea. But each of them said that he was the most devoted adherent of the values, the chosen path and the first who understood the essence of the revolution.

Thus arose the doctrine of revolutionaries, reformers and innovators throughout the world.

I think that these people firmly believed that revolution was the only way to get a decent life, and that it was impossible to achieve this goal so quickly by any other means. So the revolution managed to take control of one third of the world, put another third on the brink of control, and in the last third began a revolution, which for me did not end in the twentieth century. The whole world lives under the conditions of a socialist system, this is what they think about, what they see and what many of the ideologists and pioneers of socialism believe in. And there is no doubt about it.

Context

The real purpose of the 1917 revolution

AgoraVox 08/25/2017

In Russia, Lenin is turning into an attraction

La Croix 08/28/2017

This anniversary is worthy of deep mourning

Aftenposten 08/28/2017 At that time, I read what the ideologists and leaders of socialism offered - about the great achievements of socialism and its inevitable victory. Of course, I believed this and therefore did not trust anything the opposition said against these provisions. I even ridiculed the arguments of some people who said that there would be a major collapse in the socialist camp, especially in the Soviet Union. I said that these are rumors spread by American intelligence and enemies of socialist regimes.

Days passed and the loud collapse of the so-called socialist camp came as a surprise to many followers of the socialist doctrine. It was a powerful shock that froze their minds and did not allow them to move or think. Thus, those who predicted the collapse of the socialist camp turned out to be right, and everyone else was lying.

I do not want the people of Russia to greet the Socialist Revolution in 1917 with such indescribable joy. He lost his mind and control over his actions, attacking the palace of the royal family and killing all its members and the people who were with them.

This is what happened to the ruling family in Iraq after the July 1958 revolution. Then people, full of joy, came out of their homes, looking for the leaders of the previous regime. They dragged them into the streets, killed them and hung their bodies.

One hundred years after the Socialist Revolution in Russia, Russians are experiencing grief, remorse and want to atone for their sins for the murder of the ruling family. Thousands of Russians took part in a religious procession on the anniversary of the death of the royal family. The Church canonized the royal family as saints.

They ignored the October Revolution and the joyful celebrations for over 75 years because they were preoccupied with the murder of the ruling family that took place that day. The Russians were in a state of deep remorse and sadness, saying: “If we had not had a revolution, we would not have killed the ruling family.”

But they looked at the revolution and its leader, Lenin. Quite by chance, the police saw Lenin poor and drunk, so they easily allowed him to pass that night, which changed the course of history.

What lessons have we learned from the so-called old and modern revolutions, especially from the October Socialist Revolution?

Life moves forward regardless of circumstances, and supporters and opponents of this have nothing to do with it.

They say that revolutions transfer society from one state to another, but this is a fatal mistake. The leaders of these revolutions and coups impose their values ​​and worldview on people by force and thus chaos and failure flourish. And this is what happened in all the old and modern revolutions and upheavals in the world.

In addition, it has been proven that a person is never satisfied with one ideology, one ruler or one party, whatever that ideology, ruler and party may be. But, building a new life and happiness for a person is the end result of all ideas and opinions in the world community.

To do this, it is necessary to open the door to all opinions, ideas and trends and allow them to interact with each other absolutely freely and, naturally, new ideas will arise as a result of this interaction. These new ideas that will be born will be the very ideas that will build a better life and make a person happy.

The task of every person who loves life and people is not to allow different ideas to conflict with each other, thereby destroying lives and bringing suffering, but to force them to interact with each other.

InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.

After 1917, the nobility, which did not leave Russia, was faced with two tasks: to adapt to new conditions and, when adapting, not to lose traditions.

After the October Revolution

According to the census document in 1897, 125,640,021 people lived in the Russian Empire, of which 1.5% were the noble population, or 1,884,601 people. During the first wave of White emigration, most of the nobles left Russia, which means, according to rough estimates, about 500-600 thousand people of noble origin remained.

In 1917, after the Great October Revolution, the nobility as a class disappeared. The “Decree on Land,” which was adopted on October 25, 1917, deprived the nobles of their main source of livelihood, since the lands were confiscated by the state. It followed from the document that the estates were passing into the hands of peasant deputies. The law introduced an egalitarian principle of land distribution. Now the right to use was given to those who cultivated the land with their own labor. On November 10, 1917, the Council of People's Commissars issued a decree “On the abolition of estates and civil ranks.”

The archives of the Solokhta estate in Cherepovets district (today the Vologda region) contain documents that show that furniture, outbuildings, grain and flour supplies were sold for next to nothing, rented out and transferred to government agencies. After the revolution, the Ignatiev landowners left their estates and left in an unknown direction. Their estate in Ugryumov was confiscated by local authorities and an agricultural commune was created there. It is also known that the nobles were left with small plots of land to cultivate on their own.
Another example of the tragic fate of the noble family of Galsky. After being evicted from a mansion on the banks of the Sheksna River, they were forced to move from apartment to apartment, as a result the family broke up, and the Soviet authorities fabricated a case against Maria Alekseevna Galskaya as an “enemy of the people” and exiled her to Eastern Siberia at the age of 60.

The “former” nobles were looking for sources of new ways to earn money. But the search for work was complicated by the fact that the nobles were subject to class discrimination, and high positions were closed to them. Therefore, each nobleman searched for a “place in the sun” for a long time, using connections and remembering acquired skills. The nobles who remained in Russia gradually adapted to the new living conditions.
For example, in the village of Klopuzovo, Uloma volost (Vologda region), two landowners organized an inn. True, in February 1925, two protocols were drawn up against them for the fact that the entrepreneurs did not pay taxes. The case was transferred to the people's court.
Prince Ukhtomsky in 1924 created a workers' artel in the Vladimir region. And the Soviet authorities again hindered the development of “business” and decided to abolish the artel due to the fact that “the artel is organized from a non-labor element.”

Who's left?

The princely family of Golitsyn is one of the most prominent aristocratic families in Russia, also the most numerous. The Golitsyn family tree (compiled by Prince Golitsyn at the end of the 19th century) shows 1,200 people.
The Khilkov family, on the contrary, is the smallest aristocratic family.
The Aksakovs are the oldest noble family, whose history dates back to the 11th century. The famous writer Sergei Timofeevich Aksakov belongs to this family. The Zvorykins, on the contrary, are a young surname, known since the 18th century.
The main problem of noble families is the lack of career aspirations, because previously it was “not appropriate” for an aristocrat to work and become a professional in his field. It was difficult to rebuild my thinking in a new way. But among the representatives of the nobility there were professionals in their field: Nikolai Vladimirovich Golitsyn was a major scholar-archivist, spoke 11 languages, and before the Revolution took office as director of the Main Archives in St. Petersburg. Kirill Nikolaevich Golitsyn dropped out of his studies at the Architectural Institute in 1923, but later worked as a graphic designer. Since 1932 he worked in Moscow: he designed museums, exhibitions and worked part-time in publishing houses. Sergei Mikhailovich Golitsyn, Kirill’s cousin, graduated from Higher Literary Courses and in the 1930s published children’s stories in the magazines “Murzilka” and “Chizh”. In addition to writing, Sergei Mikhailovich worked as a topographer and in the 1930s participated in the construction of the Moscow Canal. Young representatives of noble families were more flexible and quickly adapted to new conditions.

Khilkovs

The princely family of the Khilkovs, despite their relative “youth,” also quickly adapted to new living conditions. Boris Dmitrievich Khilkov, after military service in 1920-1930, received a job as a senior editor in the legislative department of the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR. Then he was engaged in agriculture, working as an accountant on a collective farm - until he was executed in 1938. Boris's brother, Alexander, worked as a model carpenter at a carriage repair plant in Leningrad. He also wrote articles for the magazines “Abroad”, “Around the World”, “Rabselkor”, “Vagonostroitel”. In his free time, he even managed to write the novel “Naked Roots,” and this work (or rather, two parts of it) was published in 1940

Mikhail Khilkov, the son of Boris, graduated from the Far Eastern Rice Reclamation College in Ussuriysk and worked on a rice state farm. There, in Ussuriysk, he studied topography. Representatives of the Khilkovs showed themselves to be very active, but their careers were “hampered” by their noble origin and repression.

Aksakovs

The most active representative of the Aksakov family was Boris Sergeevich Aksakov. A former officer, he worked on the Syzrasn-Vyazemskaya railway, went to Kazakhstan for agricultural work. In the 1930s he worked as an economist. Boris's sisters - Ksenia, Nina and Vera - also found something to do. Ksenia worked in the public education system, Nina worked as a deputy head in the Personnel Sector of the State Planning Committee. Vera received a position as a typist at Zhirtrest. Under Soviet rule, both men and women of the Aksakov family found something to do and were able to competently adapt to the new society.

Zworykins

The Zvorykins are interesting because it was they who so vehemently opposed the working nobles. The loss of real estate as a source of money was especially painful for them. But they were able to turn their hobbies into a profession. For example, Nikolai Zvorykin was fond of hunting, and under Soviet rule he got a job in the Forestry Union, and since 1925 he published stories in hunting magazines. Fyodor Zworykin wrote foxtrots for singers and artists in the 1920s. But things were not going very well, so Fedor completed foreign language courses and taught English. Nadezhda Zvorykina gave private English lessons, and Ksenia Zvorykina worked as a librarian at the Smolny Institute.