And the celebrations in honor of the action — and then, and at the moment — fully deserved and justified. After all, like it or not, but it is largely caused our whole life for a few decades. Namely, modern analysis proves: Without this revolution, we are guaranteed to have lost the war, during which a parade. Lost by a very common and very sad reason, discussed a couple of times in my own publications and co-workers: our country to this revolution every year lagged behind much of the world and behind each year on.
This may seem weird, since very often we litsezreem links to statistics: the revolution to our country nearly four decades, was the first in the world in the rate of economic development. Yes, the statistics really is — but for all that our lag behind other leading nations without annoying grew.
In fact, immediately began a rapid economic development in three large countries. In 1861, the year in Russia abolished serfdom, before which prevented the development of approximately one third of the population — and the development of the whole country (and not just this one-third) has accelerated sharply. In 1865, the year ended with plainclothes war in the United State of America, and in the course of this war, civilian canceled thence slavery — in 1863, two years later than in Russia abolished serfdom (and it is, frankly, not far slavery) — and there is also accelerated development. In 1870, almost all German countries, except Austria, so any little things like Luxembourg, the Netherlands yes, merged into the German Empire: out single market with a single policy — and there is also accelerated development. Beginning with these main points to the beginning of the First World War, all the formal parameters of the highest rate was in the Russian Empire. But at the same time the Russian economy in 1913 was the smallest share of the German or American, than 4 decades earlier. We kind of ran faster others — and at the same time the other behind.
Why did it happen? For many reasons. But the bulk of these circumstances — that the economy of the Russian Empire in the four decades has evolved in the main on borrowed funds, and the funds were directed to where it was necessary to our creditors, and not we ourselves.
For example, in the two decades before the First World War, the French built a huge amount of loans to Russian railways. The speed of their construction we set record after record. But after the revolution we had in the same areas where these roads were built, the latest finish building the road system. After all, the French have invested almost exclusively in the road, coming from the depths of the country to the west — so that in the event of war, we could as quickly as possible redeploy its troops to the German border. And complementing the network of roads, extending along the parallels, the network of roads, extending along the meridians, is built in the Russian time. Since this network of roads, stretched along the meridians, was necessary for the development of our its economy, and the French development of our economy was not necessary, because these roads it is not funded.
You can still bring a lot of other examples — but even from this single is already seen a general principle: development zabugornye on investment — this development as an appendage to the sources of investment, so that even the formal development of the high speed only increases the backlog.
So, here, is that there was a revolution — with all its numerous and often very severe side effects — has led to the fact that in the forthcoming when we are in the late 1920s and early 1930s took zabugornye loans to the latest industrialization, these loans directed to where it was necessary to ourselves, and not where it was necessary to our creditors. Because our country has developed not just a super-fast, but also because it was necessary to us — namely, was the defenses.
What's all the same for the revolution as a whole — the latest book by Yegor Gaidar, published during his lifetime, was called "the Troubles and institutions." She carefully made out preconditions that revolution — Even if the charge is progressive — accompanied by such destructive phenomena that the fruits of the revolution could seriously use only subsequent to her generation. Gaidar argued that, in the main, by the example of the revolution in our country. And along the way (I do not know, wanting it or not) thoroughly revealed: our revolution contains within itself a positive charge: it certainly led the country on the path of progress: those misfortunes that often and with pleasure outline criticism of socialism and revolution in general — particularly those inevitable side effects that he himself learned, and after these side effects have been overcome, we have a country really began to develop a progressive way. I repeat — this follows from the work of Yegor Gaidar, who was supposed to have today considered indispensable authority on the economy and politics.
Next, another significant detail. In the arguments of the Russian Federation, which we have lost, usually they say about the standard of the Russian Federation in 1913 — the last year in our successful pre-revolutionary history. But in-1's, this year has been pretty serious internal contradictions, which ultimately led to the revolution. And in-2, more significantly, the October revolution was still not in 1913, as in 1917. And it took place after the February coup municipal, during which not only overthrew the legitimate government (and overthrown, as it turned out, under, to put it mildly, very made-up excuse), but vpribavok came to power such figures on whose background that the previous government looked crystal fair, incredibly generous and highly relevant operational. In fact, specifically as a result of the February Revolution, the situation has developed, similar to that in which Napoleon Bonaparte Karlovic for 100 two years before — in 1815, vorachivayas from Elba to France — said, "crown of France lying in the mud — I picked up her own sword, and the people he placed it on my head. " In fact, the then-February — the then belolentochnikov idea. And the fact that they're not then there were the South American advisers and the British — did not make themselves smarter, more honest and capable of running the state.
In fact, the enthusiasm of the UK was then obvious.
The first global war first evolved very unfavorable to the state "entente cordiale", including Russia. But by the end of the 916 th was clear that Germany has practically no chance of winning. It has been inevitably going to war Country United States. It was already quite naturally wildest economic exhaustion of the Central Powers — Germany and Austria-Hungary, who were actually in an economic blockade (their allies could assist here: Bulgaria was not noticeable source of resources, and the Ottoman Empire —
in spite of what was then the vastness of its own — poor and practically devoid of highways, so that she could not feed the senior partners). It was already clear: with smart strategy doigryvanie party guarantees total. Germany was in a position in which a self-respecting GM stops the clock, so as not to waste time and energy on quite hopeless task.
And here was the first to place a question on the implementation of the pre-war duties. After all, Russia was drawn into this war not only needs to pay off the cannon fodder for loans prior two decades, and the promise of the transfer of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. And that meant: Our home has received a guaranteed free access to the Mediterranean Sea. The entire southern part of the Mediterranean Sea was an obvious then either implicit colony of Britain and France. Accordingly, our home should have the opportunity to fight for the impact of these colonies, moreover, at a theoretical level, getting even the possibility of attacks by the Suez Canal — the main economic artery Britain. Clearly, such a promise for a good will not execute.
And here is where the uniqueness of the city is successful coup, which quite naturally involved a lot of people who loves Britain more than native Russia. Upheaval as a result of which our home is actually exhausted, for the same mechanisms that are outlined Yegor Gaidar, Britain and France had already previously explored on his his experience — and understand what turns it does not matter what kind of revolution.
For example, Nikolai Starikov says: British financed the February revolution. I'm not sure that they financed it directly — but hardly can fluctuate: they made it possible revolutionaries huge amount of relevant tips — how and why to overthrow regime.
So here, the October Revolution — quite natural act of the then opposition of the people by the then belolentochnikam. Clearly, today's fiercely belolentochniki can not stand the October Revolution. It is understood her so savagely hate and heirs of the then British and the French, who then people who found for the expression of self-interest Bolshevik Party, broke off literate far-reaching plans. But it is also clear: in our country, this revolution was the salvation of the impasse which inevitably gets at least some belolentochny coup.
It remains to place: the current impasse generated by the revolution of 1991 belolentochnym third years, we will be able to come out with light accumulations of experience — and the means with the least side effects and with even the best result.