Analysis of the uprising

In Soviet times, the Decembrist theme was a kind of outlet for historical science. Since Lenin called the Decembrists the first Russian revolutionaries who woke Herzen, they, like the author of the “past and thoughts”, could be written a lot and relatively objectively - we recall at least wonderful books and lectures by Nathan Eidelman. The Decembrists turned into romantic heroes, advocates of freedom and radio studies for the people's good, although, according to the Leninist definition, they were terribly far from the people. On their example, generations of the Soviet intelligentsia were brought up, as before, generations of the Russian intelligentsia.

In the new Russia, the attitude towards the Decembrists, at least among the elites and the intelligentsia serving it, has undergone a striking evolution. Literally in the first days after the collapse of the USSR, when the issue of the oath of the former Soviet Army was resolved to the new Russian state, opponents of such a step claimed that it was unacceptable that a military man, they say, swear allegiance only once in a life. And then the first Minister of Foreign Affairs of Independent Russia Utled the opponents, referring to the Decembrists: they say, they looked at the question of the oath in a completely different way. It doesn’t matter here that Andrei Kozyrev was mistaken: the Decembrists just opposed the fact that the troops, who had already swore allegiance to Emperor Konstantin, urgently rejoined Emperor Nicholas. More importantly, in 1991-1993, both for the authorities and for society, the Decembrists were a positive historical example that did not need justification. But gradually the situation has changed. As authoritarianism was stronger in Russia, the Decembrists from the heroes turned into enemies of Russia. And the next round anniversary of the uprising (185th anniversary) remained almost unnoticed. Of the public events, only the modest picket of “right -handed” on Pushkinskaya Square in St. Petersburg. After all, the Decembrists are after all the revolutionaries, and the revolution is the only thing that the current government is truly afraid of. Therefore, probably, there is no state order for films and series about the Decembrists. But with pleasure they shoot series about the brave royal detectives, successfully fighting the intrigues of revolutionaries.

Today, Dmitry Bykov looks at the uprising of the Decembrists as a "riot of Elite". And he enters him into his own four -stroke theory of Russia's development through an ever -repeating cycle: revolution - frost - thaw - stagnation. Say, at a fracture from the revolution to frost, an elite riot always happens. True, it is not clear what is understood by the revolution - is it really the murder of Paul I? But then there were such revolutions in Russia of the 18th century from half a dozen. And to follow each of them a similar four -stroke cycle is unlikely to be able to. Typologically, the riot of the elites, or rather, the rebellion of the most freedom -loving part of the elites, directed against the upcoming “frost”, the bulls are subjected to Artemia Volynsky, executed by Anna Ioannovna, and Marshal Tukhachevsky, executed by Stalin, against which he, by the way, never fronted. But in both cases there were no real conspiracies. The first was invented by Biron, the second - Stalin. I think that after Lenin it is not necessary to come up with a theory for the Decembrists, covering times from Ivan the Terrible to Vladimir Putin. The Decembrists are interesting and on their own.

But interest in them today is quite specific. The popular newspaper devotes a whole turn to the opus calling himself the historian of Nikolai Starikov, who claims - of course, without any evidence, that the abbrous of the Decembrists was led by a foreigner, that the hands of Ryleyev and Pestel, the evil West thought to ruin Russia. The old people say: “After the destruction of Napoleonic France in 1814, Russia became the strongest power on the continent. Work began against it. The blow to our country was to be delivered from all sides. In 1825, the DEMBITISTOVENT. In 1826, the next Russian-Persian war began. It ends in 1828. And the Russian-Turkish war of 1828-1829 will begin. Any historian of any historian. He will tell you that the main inspirer of all the wars of Russia with the southern neighbors was the British, money, weapons came to the Persians and Turks from London ... Despite the defeat of the Decembrists, despite the fact that they could not overturn Russia in chaos, the wars began "strictly" on the schedule. Here, however, it turns out, a little inconsistency. The Russians fought with the Turks with the British, and the Russian and British fleets jointly destroyed the Turkish fleet in the Navarinsky Bay in 1827. And in the paper version of the material, the newly -minted historian of Decembrism generally claimed that the five main Decembrists were shot. After sarcastic comments on the forum in the Internet version, they “shot” replaced with “execution”.

And another publicist in another popular publication claims that "the palace coups in Russia is an ordinary thing. This did not disdain - from the early collectors of Russia to the Communists. But the Decembrists were the first to decide to open it openly and with a bit of law. Beautifully attracting attention to the general public." How the palace coup can be prepared openly, almost making a PR action from it, is a great secret. The failure in this case is written off that where two Russian intellectuals gathered, three different opinions arise there. Yes, and no one wants to stain his hands, and without this, coups are not made. And then the possibilities that the Decembrists were allegedly made are listed: to quietly kill Nicholas; Press the Constantine and make him accept the throne. Or, finally, use the confusion and take power into your own hands. But all such fantasies are designed for readers who do not know who the Decembrists are at all. Firstly, they were not simply intellectuals because such a social layer in the first quarter of the 19th century did not exist yet. The Decembrists were mostly military, and those civilians, who played a noticeable role among them, like Ryleyev and Kakhovsky, also wore a uniform in the past. And the saying about two people and three opinions not about Russians, but about Ukrainians and Poles.

The Decembrist performance does not pull the palace conspiracy, since several thousand troops were attracted to the case, and several hundred people participated in the conspiracy. At the same time, the uprising of the Chernihiv regiment in Ukraine generally suggested an uprising of the entire army, which was supposed to go to Moscow and St. Petersburg. The palace coup is when a dozen conspirators kill Emperor Paul I. The Decembrists' movement is something much more than a palace conspiracy. No wonder Decembrism, unlike all palace coups, left a rich tradition that still affects Russian social thought. I'm not talking about the tradition of cultural - how many verses, novels, performances, films were created on the Decembrist theme.

That none of the Decembrists wanted to scatter their hands with blood is historically wrong. Testing was seriously thought of both Pestel and Ryleyev, and Kakhovsky tried to implement the regicide in practice, but managed to shoot only the St. Petersburg governor General Miloradovich and the commander of the Life Grenadier Regiment of Sturler. In total, when suppressing the uprising on Senate Square, 1271 people died, of which 903 were attributed to the "mob". The vast majority became the victims of not the buckshot of government troops, but a terrible crush that arose after the first artillery shots. The crowd surrounding the Decembrists rushed at the ice of the Neva, which could not stand it, and many died in ice water.

And how could the Decembrists quietly kill Nikolai? In the intimate friendship with him, it seems that none of the Decembrists was consisted. And how could the Decembrists put pressure on Constantine? Indeed, the adjutant of Tsarevich was Decembrist Lunin. But curious how modern authors imagine this pressure. Probably like this: Lunin instructs Konstantin a pistol and threatens: "Do not dare to renounce the throne, otherwise a bullet in the forehead." And if Konstantin from the principle did not take the renunciation that Lunin would have shot him? But then the throne would very legally moved to Nikolai, against which the Decembrists fought just.

And to take power to the Decembrists prevented, among other things, a chain of accidents. Shortly before the performance in Senate Square, a number of denunciations were received on them. The authorities were afraid that some kind of performance could follow, and therefore hurried to take the oath of the majority of the guards regiments and the Senate. The most decisive leaders of the Decembrists were either arrested (Pestel) or were in the south, far from St. Petersburg (Sergey Muravyov-Apostol), and those who were appointed leaders did not reach the Senate. But under more favorable circumstances, the rebels had any chances of success in St. Petersburg. And even the enemies of the Decembrists admitted that they did not pursue any selfish interests and were not going to remain in power for a long time. Count Fedor Rostopchin commented on the events on December 14, 1825 on Senate Square: "In the era of the French Revolution, shoemakers and rags wanted to become counts and princes; we had counters and princes to become rags and shoemakers." The Decembrists of democratic freedoms, elected power, the abolition of serfdom and recruitment sets, the establishment of a constitutional monarchy or the republic demanded. We agree that these aspirations are consonant with the requirements of the modern Russian opposition. And it is no coincidence that today the pro -government publicists want to make foreign agents from the Decembrists or the conspirators who tried to arrange the next palace coup.