Anders Valeria

Translator - Alex Jansen
(First publication in English)



 In M. Avrutin's book are given new views and explanations of the events, which influenced not only the history of
Russia, but also of the entire world.
The wave of revolutions gave a ride on
Europe in 17-18 centuries. It reached Russia only in the 20 century, but losses and tragic consequences of this revolutionary wave exceeded by an order all previous revolutions in Europe.

In the history there were always, there is and will remain "white spots", in spite of the abundance of studies and books for the historical themes and the accessibility to the archive materials increased recently. Historians are interested, first of all, in facts and dates, events and behavior, declararative intentions. But there still remain  true motives, intentions, purposes, reasons, which either thoroughly were hidden or simply never underwent publicity. Any documents, any archives are not able to help them, who are interest in similar questions. That, with which we will deal here the discussion, that is even not history, since  well well-known facts and events come out as the object of examination. As basic methods of study served logical analysis, comparisons and analogies.

 In this book the events, which occurred in are represented essence in pre-Soviet, Soviet and post-Soviet Russia. Briefly about the special features of the Soviet history: Soviet historians frequently wrote lies under the pressure of the regime, wrote myths,  created "great" history of the great country, extolling the role of party and its leaders. Some of such "historians" from THE KGB committed crimes; purely criminal "clearing" archives, withdrawing the "compromising" documents, in a number of cases substituting authentic documents by false.

 Fighting with the Soviet historiography began, when this became possible in the period of “perestroika”, by different methods. At first greatest activity developed "exposers". Some of them, revealing lies, exposing Soviet myths, on purpose or involuntary, "on simplicity of sincerety" created new myths. This activity caused in many readers rejection or "fatigue" reaction, in other words, history simply stopped to interest them.

        "Exposers" replaced the "creators", who again work "on order" within the lines of the program of patriotic education, and they create new lies or recreate old. Some - about great Russia, which destroyed the “Bolsheviks”, emphasizing that among them in the management predominated the Jews. Others contradicting the first,  restored myths about the great and wise Stalin, who even if ruined people, then predominantly unfit, and apropos of their quantity they indicate that it is small, and numbers about the multimillion victims hush up.

 What does bring together, in essence, new lies with the old? - substitution! They talk about composed means, completely hushing up about the purpose. And means are converted into the purpose. As before they hush up about that, for what great objective Stalin created the powerful industrial country (millions of citizens, until now, continue to pass through its lungs  hundreds of thousand tons of industrial wastes). They prefer to speak about the people, which constructed socialism in the "country, from all sides surrounded by enemies". They continue to speak about this, in spite of, it would seem, the irrefutable proofs.

 As  title is selected  "philosophy",  not "history" in order to focus attention not on the "eventfulness", in which there is nothing from "newly that opened", but to the cause-effect connection of the past events, to the motivation of behavior of those, who in essence determined the motion of history of the 20 century.

 Specifically, in this appeared the basic moments of the philosophy of tragedy, created independently of each other: in Russia - by Dostoyevsky, while in Germany - Nietzsche, if in the Soviet time were accessible at least some works of Dostoyevsky ( quieted was only his philosophy), then on Nietzsche they solidly placed the mark of the ideologist of fascism and contained his works on the special-storage, under the lock. However, “Bolsheviks” disturbed not the danger of the enthusiasm of Soviet people by the ideology of fascism. They feared, that through the philosophy of fascism could be opened the true essence of “bolshevism”.


Chapter I. Beginning of the tragedy.

 In the beginning of the past century became active the process of the discredit of tsarist surname, court and tsarist government. In these were implicated all political parties and public organizations, which frequently quarrel with each other. Intrigues and plots tear up the Russian Empire.

 Aristocracy equally frightens the moved liberal reforms, and revolution, and also, as it it seems, the insufficient activity (simply - passiveness) of the tsar under these conditions. Russia is pulled into the war with Japan. Small victorious wars were frequently examined by Russia as the means of rescue, capable of uniting the country and of raising the patriotic spirit of the population.

 But war can be turned into defeat. So it happened also this time: instead of the expected victory - defeat, and the factor of the restraining of revolution turns around by its acceleration.

 Others follow these failures. All that does not activate Nikolai II, even when it seemed undoubtedly successful of its solution,it turned into tragedies. As one of the clear examples of this type can serve the designation of Stolypin to the post of prime minister. Apparently, under the conditions of mass intrigues and total treachery not so many large mind and resoluteness are required, what undoubtedly possessed Stolypin, as other qualities, possibly, craftiness and insidiousness. The murder of Stolypin and delay with putting into action the reforms necessary for the country only aggravated  that heavy situation.

 However, all this is described by many authors and therefore it is well known. Us interests not the situation itself, but only the events, which can be accepted as the beginning of the process, which brought us to the present state.

 The existing, until now, ambiguity of the estimations of that pre-revolutionary period simply casts a spell. In this case, of course, is completely not ment the noncoincidence of Soviet estimations with all others. Interesting are different, simply polar estimations among those "others". Soviet estimations are generally not examined  for the completely intelligible and above mentioned reasons.

 But this second question about the estimations of that historical period, being undoubtedly interesting, goes nevertheless beyond the limits of the basic content and therefore it is presented by small type.

 Here are, for example, the estimations of people of not simply well known, but famous and furthermore of those belonged to one circle - nobiliary aristocratics: revolutionary- anarchist prince Kropotkin, philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev and writer Ivan Bunin. Prince Kropotkin belonged to one of the most notable families of Russia,  was at one time close to the emperor Aleksandr II,  then was absorbed in by revolution,  ran to England and returned to Russia already an old man in 1917, but still filled by hopes.He continued to hope   when the February revolution was completed by the Ocfober revolution he attained an appointment with Lenin, attempted to turn him to the way of "humanity". Did he understand, to what l will lead the revolution, about which he  did dream and to which he dedicated his entire life?

 But if the ecstasy of the old prince can be referred to the calculation of his age, then from the optimism, with which received all proceeding in those years Nikolai Berdyaev, can simply not be brushed off. How could the philosopher  and furthermore with the eschatological disposition, not  understand, to what will lead the blessed by them of freedom of the multimillion dark, illiterate, peasant Russia, on top of that well.


 People, not blinded by this thirst of revolutionary changes, disposed conservative,  were being adhered to the old, by the centuries ideals checked and traditions, not yielded to the new trends and flows, saw in that period  no intellectual explosion in Russian renaissance, I. Bunin in his recollections of the epoch between two revolutions (1905 and February revolution) and after the October revolution further already sketched by continuously black paint. And it is not possible to name all this slander, as it was accepted in the Soviet Union, where the reader was deprived of the possibility to independently be convinced of the fact that the estimations given by Bunin were based at the selection, the analysis of both the well known works of Esenin, Blok, Mayakovskiy, Babelya and other authors  practically unknown, found in the posthumous papers.

 There is a "third" view on these events, deprived simultaneousl revolutionary ecstasies, and conservative embitterednesses. This view, filled the adoption of all facts that must happen, and understanding which will happen can be something terrible, in the readiness to divide this fate. Similar was the view of Akhmatova, Mandelstam and, for sure, still many others.

 However, let us return to the basic theme. For in the beginning of the process, named "contemporary tragedy", it would be possible to accept operation on the transfer of Lenin from Switzerland to Russia in the spring of 1917. This it preceded the division of RSDRP - RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC WORKERS' PARTY in 1903 to the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks.Division occurred in essence for reasons not  political or ideological, but moral nature. The group of "comrades" headed by Lenin thought it possible to employ any means, including purely criminal, if only they contribute to reaching the final goal - revolution and the assumption of power.

 This event, whose essence consisted of the refusal of the conventional categories of good and evil, and to the overestimation of "values",  should be considered the beginning of embodiment into the life of the philosophy of tragedy.

 Further number of events can be considered as fastening and growth of this tragedy. The events this include:  numerous robberies of banks; the illegal awardings of the inheritances and other actions, with the aid of which was supplemented the party cashbox of Bolsheviks; the seizure by Lenin of the individual control ofl  this cashbox. Besides this Lenin collaborates with  Pilsudski, who consisted  the agreement with the Japanese reconnaissance, and later - with the reconnaissance of Austria-Hungary, and  obtained from them pecuniary aid in  very large sizes,  which he shared with Lenin. With this, in particular, it is explained Lenin's abode near from the headquarters of Pilsudskov in Krakow on the eve of the world war, from where it was sent into Switzerland in the beginning of war. In Switzerland Lenin with a small group of companions-in-arms proved to be in the completely miserable situation - without  money and documents. Interrupted since the beginning of the military actions from connection with Russia. Under these conditions the only method of obtaining the residence permit, and also cash resources, became for Lenin the attraction of the interest of the German government in the activity of Bolsheviks. With the aid of agents he  succeeded in generating interest of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and reconnaissance of Germany in the "defeatist" policy of its party and the program of the conclusion of separate peace. From this point on, the Germans began to render financial aid to Lenin. For the prolongation of the entire military campaign German side applied incredible efforts, missing no possibilities in order to conclude a separate peace with one of the belligerents. In this case the Germans were ready to go to  concessions, which were not small indeed. The attempt of the German command to use the allied mission of Deputies of the State Duma, which headed the Front-Bencher of internal matters Protopopov, can serve as an example. Germans communicated through him to the Tsar of the conditions of a separate peace, which not only preserved Russia in its previous boundaries, but also were added a number of territories, in particular, Konstantinopol' with the environments, Armenia, Poland whit Galiсia on the rights autonomy in the composition of Russia. The Tsar accepted these conditions as ideal, however, fearing negative reaction from the side of army, the Duma, to say nothing of allies, he rejected them.

 Political intelligence of Germany was well informed about the position of the bolshevik party in Russia and therefore the German government did not lay hopes for any significant participation of Bolsheviks in the process of the revolutionization of Russia. Lenin could play  an important role if revolution in Russia  would occur according to the ideas of Germans.

Therefore after obtaining of the first communications about the February revolution, began the preparation of Lenin's transfer nearer to Russia. Even Kaiser, after learning from the newspapers about the intention of Russian revolutionaries  returning to the native land, began to give advice, as this to arrange  "what from them to require".

 German participation in the affairs of Bolsheviks especially grew, and financial aid reached extraordinary sizes after the Germans ascertained that the provisional government intended to carry out patriotic policy and to preserve faithfulness to allies, and only "defeatist" party is the Leninist party of Bolsheviks.

 German aid did not cease also after October revolution. Only taking into account this factor it is possible to understand the sources of that confidence bordering to "nakhrapistost'yu"(convinced agression), with which acts Lenin from the moment of his first public appearance at the All-Russian congress of the councils on 26 October, when he proclaimed the overthrow of provisional government and the creation of council of peoples commissars under his management. Only by German aid, which entered personally "for Lenin", it is possible to explain the effectiveness of Lenin's threats about the resignation, with the aid of which he invariably attained the adoption of its resolutions at all sessions of council of peoples commissars, up to making of a decision about the signing of humiliating, "obscene" Brest peace with Germany.

 But after Lenin arose in the Head of The State, strongly changed his position in the international revolutionary movement, and even more its own imagination about this (position) idea. Two such strong,  occurring for so short  time  defeats as February revolution in the beginning of year and October revolution, which placed him, Lenin, in the Head of The State,  could not pass for him without leaving a trace. Allready during January of that year it, even if he could calculate, that somewhere, but not in Russia will occur a revolution, then, at best, the type of the revolution of 1905. These evenst contribute to the regeneration (if not at  became his reason) beginning in Lenin. To the regeneration, whose basic essence consisted of the refusal of the ideals of the world revolution, which he served almost quarter of century.

 Now the idea OF THE WORLD revolution, in which Russia was assigned a far from paramount role, had to be converted into that controlling and  by him, Lenin, revolution, and the leaders of national revolutions must become selected by him.

 In accordance with this, new understanding of world revolution, those revolutions, which appear spontaneously, i.e., independent of Leninist center, must be sabotaged, and their independent leaders - be removed.

 Specifically, this occurred with the revolution in Germany and with its leaders - Rose Luxemburg and  Karl Liebknecht. This new approach to the revolution makes it possible to understand Lenin's behavior in the entire time of Brest negotiations. Lenin's position was incomprehensible to anyone of his companions-in-arms. Even loyal to him Trotsky could not carry out exactly his indications and forewent the signing of peace treaty on the conditions such humiliating for Russia, after limiting to the well known formulation: "neither peace nor war".

 However, Lenin saw himself already as the head of the world community. This  gave him force and helped him to remain firm. However, when the fate of the Bolshevik government hung on a hairspring, the "Napoleonic plans" of Lenin could by no one  be perceived seriously. Lenin proved to be practically in complete isolation. Moreover, he became to seem to his companions-in-arms interference, and they (Dzerzhinskiy and Sverdlov) attempted to remove him, after the unsuccessful attempt to upset a peace treaty with Germany by means of  organizing the murder of German ambassador von Mirbakh.

History with a “rightSR” plot, in which the role of the killer of Lenin was diverted actually blind and half-crazy Fani Kaplan, was cross-linked with "white threads". That didn’t believe, of course, and Lenin, to whom moreover were known to detail the "court" above her, uncommon and prompt carryings out of sentence (in the Kremlin and by commandant of the Kremlin himself) and finally the burning of her remains. Although version itself with the “rightSR” plot, which became a copy , Lenin’s version of “leftSR” plot, untwisted here after the murder attempt on German ambassador von Mirbakh, was by him perceived, probably with the approval.

 Followed soon after Lenin's recovery the strange death of Sverdlov became first, but not last death as the method of eliminating the nearest companions-in-arms, who present danger. Thus, this purely criminal method of information of calculations was introduced to Lenin, and during Stalin's lifetime it obtained mass application.

Please login to comment

People in this conversation

  • Guest - Anders Valeria

    Dear Mark,
    much in your article to me is interesting and convincing.
    If I am correct understood, by the first steps of revolution Lenin and Bolsheviks replaced concept “happiness of people” on “the
    happiness of majority” due to the victim, donations minority (well-off to [chat] pre-revolutionary Russia from the peasantry, the so-called cams, to the aristocracy and the intelligentsia)?
    Then Bolsheviks understood the unreality of this principle, Stalin and its myrmidons personified into the life the substituted principle - “happiness of the minority”, for which they brought the thus far unprecedented multimillion victim. And as the result- destruction of dissent. Arrival for the change \ of " the Russian renaissance \ of " - grayness and monotony in the dispositions of Soviet citizens.
    Best regards,

    0 Like Short URL:
  • Guest - Anders Valeria

    It is known that much historic evidence of those times falsified or treated erroneously, deliberately incorrectly. Therefore such articles as yours, that introduce a new vision of events in the period of the cult of bloody leaders, they are of special interest for many readers. I hope that your books “Reflections about the great war” and THE RUSSIAN CATASTROPHE OF THE OF XX CENTURY will be translated into Russian language.
    I desire to you successes!

    0 Like Short URL:
  • Guest - 'Guest'

    Dear Mark,
    Thank you for your interesting article.
    This gives some new views on the history of Russia and its leaders of the last 100 years.
    It’s a pity that we can’t read the full book in English.
    Thank you and we will try to read more about this epoch.
    Best regards,
    Igor Bouhvalov.

    0 Like Short URL:
  • Guest - 'Guest'

    Dear Mr.Lessin,
    thank you for the substantial response. I hope, that answers to all your questions you will obtain at reading the subsequent chapters of the book, which will be placed during process of readiness of translation.
    Best regards,
    Mark Avrutin.

    0 Like Short URL:
  • Guest - 'Guest'

    Dear Mark,
    Thank you for interesting essay. It is a pity that by my opinion you stopped at the middle of your thoughts. Are you going to continue?
    You wrote that \"As title is selected \"philosophy\", not \"history\" in order to focus attention not on the \"eventfulness\", in which there is nothing from \"newly that opened\", but to the cause-effect connection of the past events, to the motivation of behavior of those, who in essence determined the motion of history of the 20 century. ...\" It is seemed for me that in any case, you have to deal more thoroughly in analysis of known and, may be, new historical events and to discuss them from various sides. In such a way it will be more proven and obvious for a reader. There are many visions of the revolution reasons, stages and motivations for various historical persons to act in one or other direction. These visions often have opposite views and are based on contrary hypothesizes but in their comparative analysis may be better explained a new phylosophy of this dramatic period in the world history.
    If I were you, I may be used more actively a very effective tool in the complex problem analysis: to give various available explanations for the historical event (often, opposite) and to let the reader to choose the most logic solution. By the way, as we know and as you mentioned emotions of specific persons and large masses of people are often more emotional than logical. For example, your description of the episode of Czar\'s decision to reject German suggestions for the separate peace agreement, so logically attractive for him.
    I hope to see soon new chapters in your essay.
    Good luck,
    A. Lessin

    0 Like Short URL:
  • Guest - 'Guest'

    Thank your for your answer to my previous post.
    Where could I find a complete English version of this essay? Do you have any other books that were translated?


    0 Like Short URL:
  • Guest - M.Avrutin

    Dear Mr. L. Luvishis ,
    The question of contacts between Bolsheviks and V. Lenin with Germany was seriously studied by Russian historian (not Sovjet)V.I. Nikolaevskiy. His study was unfortunately not finished at his death.He found, that the line Germany-Bolsheviks goes via Austria. From the persons, who were involved in this relation with Germany, were also Ganetsky, Radek and Vorovsky.
    Russian \"patriots\" tried to involve the name of Trotsky, but it is well known that from 10 years before the revolution he had no contact with Lenin and the Bolsheviks. And he came in Russia after revolution from USA.
    Best regards,
    Mark Avrutin.

    0 Like Short URL:
  • Guest - 'Guest'

    This is a very new look at Lenin\'s legacy and Russia\'s history in the beginning of the 20th century. The author gives Lenin a central role in this \"pro-German\" conspiracy. It would be interesting to learn who else was involved in it if any from the Bolshevik\'s high-ranking officials.

    L. Luvishis

    0 Like Short URL:
  • Guest - Hans van Wijngaarden

    Dear Mark,
    We thank You for this study, wich gives more and additional information about the dramatic events introducing the Russian revolution and the revolution itself.
    It was interesting to know, that Germany in that time supported the Bolsheviks (Lenin) with much capital for buying weapons.
    Also new for me that the Czar refused an agreement with Germany.
    His sense of honor made him te refuse this agreement since it gave to much land to Russia.
    In that case the Czar would have received much land including Constantinopel. Instead he received revolution. Naivery or stupidity ?
    When the Czar would have decided differently,
    the world history would have been different.
    It is correct that there will be allways question marks about \"facts\" which might be substitutions to cover mistakes made or the persons who were responsible for these mistakes.
    We suppose that with the time more studies will reveal these substitutions.
    Thank for this contribution.
    Hans van Wijngaarden.

    0 Like Short URL:

Latest Articles


January 2020
Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
30 31 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2


Who Is Online Now?