Sovereign and revolutionary

The documentary of Vladimir Chernyshev "Lenin. Red Emperor", shown on NTV by the 90th anniversary of the death of the Bolshevik leader, was clearly made with propaganda subtext. The main idea comes down to the fact that Lenin is bad as a “red” and a revolutionary, but it’s good as a statesman who first destroyed the Russian Empire, but immediately gathered in its place a new power in the form of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

In support of the fact that the figure of Lenin is still relevant, it is said that several Leninist monuments have just demolished in Ukraine. But why this happens, the audience is not explained. Meanwhile, in Eastern Europe, monuments to Lenin demolish primarily not as symbols of communism, but as symbols of former Soviet domination, that is, the empire. Chernyshev is trying to combine the old Soviet stamps with modern realities to brand today's revolutionaries. But at the same time, the history of the Leninist time, the author of the film knows badly and approximately. Hence the numerous mistakes.

So, habitually comparing Russia and the United States (only for some reason not in the traditional 1913, but in the military 1915) and noting that in the shower national income, America had superiority several times, the author notes that the United States was far from the most developed country in the world. Meanwhile, according to all existing estimates, America then ranked first in the world both in terms of national income and in a shower indicator. So, according to Paul Kennedy, in 1914, the US Dushvoy National income was $ 377, and Russia - $ 41, which gives a difference of 9.2 times (I note that over 70 years of communist rule this difference was almost not reduced: in 1984, according to my calculations, the United States exceeded the USSR in the shower of the shower of about seven times).

When it comes to the Brest world, the film states that after signing the world in March 1918, German troops suddenly began the offensive and easily defeated both the remnants of the old army and new Red Guard detachments, which forced Lenin to transfer the capital to Moscow. The capital was really transferred in March, but the Austro-German offensive began not in March, but in February, not after signing the world, but before. Just this offensive forced the Bolsheviks to sign the "obscene" Brest world.

The author of the film and his consultant, historian Valery Solovye belong to the Brest world, purely negatively: they say, Lenin gave Germany to Ukraine, the Baltic states and a third of European Russia - and all then to keep his power. They are trying to inspire the audience that Lenin did not assume that the Brest world would last only eight months, and the quick collapse of Germany became a happy chance for the leader of the Bolsheviks. But in fact, Lenin and Trotsky expected that soon a revolution would occur in Germany. So the Bolsheviks did not intend to give away anything for a long time and seriously. Nevertheless, the merit of Lenin is put by the fact that he then returned everything lost in Brest. Well, to put it, the majority still had to be given-Poland, Finland, Western Ukraine, Western Belarus, Bessarabia, the Baltic states and the region of Armenia and Georgia border with Turkey.

In general, it is impossible to understand from the film what exactly was Lenin’s policy after coming to power, with whom he had to fight, between whom and whom the civil war was going on. But there are beautiful formulas. For example, it is explained that Lenin and the Bolsheviks cannot be blamed for the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly, since they never had respect for parliamentarism and the program was listed in the program. But then, probably, Hitler cannot blame that he forbade all opposition parties, threw their leaders into concentration camps, and turned the Reichstag into the decoration.

In the same way, the “Red Terror” proclaimed by Lenin explains. Say, in reality, Terror reigned in the country immediately after the February Revolution and the Bolsheviks had no choice but to lead it to protect the state from anarchy. Chernyshev sees the main merit of Lenin in the fact that he managed to curb the peasant riots that flashed after the end of the civil war, and, introducing the NEP, to prevent the new Pugachevshchina. At the same time, it remains incomprehensible why the peasants suddenly rebelled against the Bolsheviks. It is as if they want to explain the natural anarchism of the Russian people, since nothing is said about the surplus, nor about the ban on trade, or other delights of military communism, which led to a terrible hunger in the Volga region and a number of other regions.

The author of the film solidarizes with the opinion of the founder of the National-Bolshevism of Nikolai Ustryalov (whom he mistakenly considers to be sent from Russia along with other passengers of the "philosophical ship"), who claimed that Lenin and the Bolsheviks expressed the national interests of the Russian people. In this regard, the second main merit of Lenin in the film is the creation of the USSR - and especially the fact that he applied the principle of the right of nations to self -determination in such a way that he managed to preserve a single state. Here, Lenin is, as it were, is opposed to those who ruined the union in 1991. True, as is evident from the film, when the union agreement was signed, Lenin was almost incompetent due to illness. Therefore, it is necessary to assume that Stalin, Zinoviev, Trotsky and other leaders of the Bolsheviks played a more noticeable role in the formation of the USSR.

In connection with Leninist disease, the bike is repeated that Brezhnev ordered to explore Lenin’s brain in order to refute the rumors spread by enemies that the leader of the world proletariat died of syphilis. But actually, syphilis is determined by the reaction of Wasserman, and this analysis was not done either during illness or immediately after death - just out of fear that the reaction may be positive.

One of the few truthful moments in the film is the statement that the execution of the royal family could hardly occur without Lenin's sanction. And then it is noted that Ilyich perceived the news of the death of the emperor and his loved ones surprisingly indifferently. The leitmotif of the "Red Emperor" is the thesis that Lenin was generally indifferent to everything except power. It is directly stated that sex for Ilyich did not exist, since power was a much stronger pleasure. Probably, there is something from Soviet times, when the vast majority of citizens simply could not imagine Lenin having sex. Meanwhile, although Casanova Ilyich was not, he was not limited to relations with Krupskaya. Apparently, with Inessa Armand, contrary to what is affirmed in the film, Lenin’s friendship was by no means Platonic. There was another mistress, a certain Elizabeth K., whose correspondence with Ilyich in the mid-30s unsuccessfully tried to buy Bukharin.

The film ends with the words of Patriarch Tikhon said after Lenin’s death that the leader of the Bolsheviks had never left the church and that it was a Christian and kind person. I wonder how many minutes the patriarch would have lived under the arrest and investigation if he risked the curse of the Red Leader who had late in Bose? It seems that now the authorities are most suitable for Lenin-state in the national-Bolshevik interpretation. It is just worth remembering that Nikolai Ustryalov did not survive the big terror.