Igor Panarin: “In October 1917, the backup scenario of saving the country worked”

Igor Panarin: “In October 1917, the backup scenario of saving the country worked”

A well-known polit­ic­al ana­lyst on how the roy­al gen­er­als made the pro­let­ari­an revolu­tion of the 17th year and why Stalin’s real name is Przheval­sky

The cap­ture of mail and tele­graph in revolu­tion­ary Pet­ro­grad was organ­ized not by Len­in, but by Gen­er­al Pota­pov in con­junc­tion with Stal­in and Dzerzh­in­sky, said Igor Panar­in, a pro­fess­or and head of the InfoS­pet­snaz asso­ci­ation. His ver­sion of how pat­ri­ot­ic tsar­ist gen­er­als took power from Ker­ensky and trans­ferred it to the II Con­gress of Sovi­ets, was Trot­sky an agent of MI6, who stopped the Mason­ic white move­ment and what is the secret of Stalin’s birth, Panar­in told in an inter­view with BUSINESS Online.

Igor Panarin tells how tsarist generals made the 17th proletarian revolutionPRZHEVALSKY AND STALIN WAS JUST A PHENOMENAL MEMORY

- Igor Nikolaevich, today is the 101st anniversary of the Great Octo­ber Revolu­tion. Most recently, you presen­ted your vis­ion of the causes and hid­den mech­an­isms of 1917, where you men­tioned that the Octo­ber coup could be organ­ized with the help of pat­ri­ot­ic gen­er­als. In this case, you pro­ceed from the assump­tion that Joseph Stal­in was the ille­git­im­ate son of the trav­el­er Nikolai Przheval­sky. What is the basis for such a bold hypo­thes­is?

- For the first time about the strik­ing resemb­lance of Joseph Stal­in and Nikolai Przheval­sky I had a chance to think a few years ago in St. Peters­burg. I passed by the monu­ment to him, which is installed in the Alex­an­der Garden. A mar­ried couple of 40 years old walked behind me, in appear­ance, tour­ists, and I heard my wife say to my hus­band: “Oh, look, they put a monu­ment to Stal­in!” I turned to them and said: “This is not Stal­in.” “And who?” They were sur­prised. “Przheval­sky”.

But I remem­ber that I was struck by the dif­fi­cultly explain­able resemb­lance of the great trav­el­er to the “lead­er of nations”: the same recog­niz­able pro­file, lush mus­taches, freely stretched shoulders with gen­er­als epaul­ets, which, when viewed from afar, can be mis­taken for gen­er­alis­simo epaul­ets. Of course, there is no doc­u­ment­ary evid­ence of the blood rela­tion­ship between Przheval­sky and Stal­in. No archiv­al inform­a­tion with stamps has been pre­served … How­ever, when I became inter­ested in this top­ic, I received inform­a­tion from a per­son I trust — that Nikolai Mikhail­ovich Przheval­sky really res­ted in Gori in the early spring of 1878, and stopped for a rest just there where Eka­ter­ina Geladze, the future moth­er of Stal­in, served as a maid. How­ever, dis­putes about where Przheval­sky could have a rest in this time inter­val (winter-spring of 1878) are still going on, but Gori is one of the sup­posed places. And why then not to allow that the fam­ous sci­ent­ist, who pos­sessed a cha­ris­mat­ic and attract­ive male appear­ance, could get car­ried away by the still young 20-year-old Eka­ter­ina Geladze?

Let us recall who Prze­w­al­ski is. He is not just a research­er and dis­cover­er, he is also an out­stand­ing Rus­si­an intel­li­gence officer, Major Gen­er­al of the Rus­si­an Gen­er­al Staff, who has repeatedly car­ried out del­ic­ate instruc­tions from the gov­ern­ment. At the same time, in his risky exped­i­tions to Cent­ral Asia no one died, which is abso­lutely unique for the his­tory of great geo­graph­ic­al dis­cov­er­ies.

Anoth­er char­ac­ter­ist­ic detail: both Przheval­sky and Stal­in had a phe­nom­en­al memory. Joseph Vis­sari­onovich unmis­tak­ably knew the names, first names and pat­ronym­ic names of all the com­mand­ers of his divi­sions, and there were about 2,000 of them in the Great Pat­ri­ot­ic War. As for Nikolai Mikhail­ovich, he, being a glob­al intel­li­gence officer, had to simply keep a lot of inform­a­tion in his head, because dur­ing his move­ments in Cent­ral Asia, not everything could be taken on a pen­cil. You under­stand that not everything could be fixed on paper — it was neces­sary to mem­or­ize and only then recov­er.

The third point: I stud­ied the life path of the future lead­er of the peoples and came to the con­clu­sion that if his fate were allowed to flow, then without the sup­port of cer­tain forces it would be unlikely Stal­in would become Stal­in. If, how­ever, to accept my concept, then everything in the life of this unusu­al per­son some­how decom­poses on the shelves and it becomes extremely clear.

I remem­ber how back in the Soviet Uni­on I read the won­der­ful mem­oirs of Lieu­ten­ant Gen­er­al Alexei Ignatiev “Fifty years in the ranks.” I was far from think­ing that Stal­in might be the son of Przheval­sky, but I was already struck by how a bril­liant aris­to­crat, a man who belonged to one of the key princely fam­il­ies of imper­i­al Rus­sia, Ignatiev, and his broth­er, in the future, formed the basis of Stalin’s per­son­al intel­li­gence. . Why? Recall that his fath­er, Alexey Pavlovich Ignatiev, was the gov­ernor and at the same time adhered to extreme right-wing views. And his uncle, Nikolai Pavlovich Ignatiev, who without a single shot attached the vast lands of the Far East to the empire, was the min­is­ter of intern­al affairs of the empire and, in fact, one of the founders of the “Sac­red squad”, a secret mon­arch­ic­al struc­ture, organ­ized soon after the assas­sin­a­tion of Emper­or Alex­an­der II in 1881 to fight the revolu­tion­ary ter­ror. His neph­ews, whom I have already men­tioned, became key res­id­ents of the Rus­si­an mil­it­ary intel­li­gence in Par­is and Bern and provided tre­mend­ous sup­port to Stal­in. One can­not help ask­ing about the exist­ence of some new plot lines of inter­ac­tion both in the life of Ignatiev and in the life of Joseph Vis­sari­onovich, which we do not know about and which are not vis­ible on the sur­face.

If we assume that the ver­sion of Stalin’s ori­gin is not entirely ground­less, then the pic­ture is added up and all the details find their puzzles: Feb­ru­ary and Octo­ber 1917, fur­ther events, and even the Bernese duel of Allen Dulles . ) with Stirl­itz ( events con­nec­ted with secret nego­ti­ations between the rep­res­ent­at­ive of the “allies” Dulles and the highest SS ranks, formed the basis of “Sev­en­teen Moments of Spring, — ed. ). By the way, there is a ver­sion that Stirl­itz is a col­lect­ive image of the Ignatiev broth­ers and their res­id­ency, which was cre­ated in Europe and worked bril­liantly in Switzer­land.Only a lim­ited num­ber of people could man­age this res­id­ency — this has been the cus­tom since the late 19th cen­tury. At a cer­tain point, the key to the European res­id­ency was handed over to Stal­in, because, from my point of view, he was the son of an out­stand­ing Prze­w­al­ski intel­li­gence officer, who was among the oth­er dig­nit­ar­ies in the Sac­red Squad.

So, in all of this — the reas­ons for the suc­cess of Stal­in in 1917 and in his struggle with Leon Trot­sky (Ley­boy Bron­stein), who was recruited by the Brit­ish intel­li­gence MI-6 even when he was in the United States. No one — neither Vladi­mir Len­in, nor oth­er fam­ous revolu­tion­ar­ies — had such power­ful sup­port as Joseph Vis­sari­onovich.

 I remem­ber, I was struck by this dif­fi­cultly explain­able resemb­lance of a great trav­el­er to the“ lead­er of nations ”: the same recog­niz­able pro­file, lush mus­taches, free shoulders.

 INSIDE MILITARY EXPLORATION AND INSIDE THE MIA A GROUP OF PATRIOTS-PROFESSIONALS FORMED

- If Stal­in was aware of his ori­gin, why did he hide it? Among the revolu­tion­ary Bolshev­iks, noble blood was not con­sidered shame­ful: Len­in, Chi­cher­in, Zhdan­ov, Dzerzh­in­sky, and Malen­kov, etc., belonged to a noble class.

- I think this is the second or third level of depth. After 1905 it became clear that the coun­try was mov­ing towards rad­ic­al changes. In this regard, it seems to me, a line of duplic­a­tion of the empire began to line up, but lit­er­ally a few people were devoted to these pro­cesses. Stal­in him­self was ded­ic­ated only around 1912. This is my point, you can argue with that. It is pos­sible that until 1912 he owned some inform­a­tion, but he did not have a com­plete pic­ture. He was not attrac­ted, took care not to “light up” before times. But recall that there were pre­dic­tions of seers who warned that 36 years after 1881, cata­stroph­ic events could occur in Rus­sia ( accord­ing to 36-year his­tor­ic­al cycles recor­ded in Rus­si­an his­tory since the death of the king-reformer: 1881, 1917, 1953, 1989 — Ed. ). There­fore, not only Brit­ish, masons and sim­il­ar pub­lic pre­pared ahead of time for the Rus­si­an 1917, but, as I believe, two pat­ri­ot­ic struc­tures with­in the Rus­si­an Empire. They pre­pared their own course of action, which worked in Octo­ber 1917.

- Speak­ing of the “two pat­ri­ot­ic struc­tures,” we mean first of all the mil­it­ary intel­li­gence corps?

- Yes, mil­it­ary intel­li­gence, but not only. In the past, I had an inter­est­ing exper­i­ence — I taught four years at the Academy of Man­age­ment of the Min­istry of Intern­al Affairs to seni­or man­age­ment and the per­son­nel reserve of the min­is­ter. To make my lec­tures look more inter­est­ing, I tried to study as much as pos­sible the works and mater­i­als on the pre-revolu­tion­ary activ­it­ies of the Min­istry of Intern­al Affairs in the Rus­si­an Empire. The fact is that those struc­tures that are now called FSB, FSO, etc., were part of the Tsar­ist Min­istry of the Interi­or at that time. In the same place, there was an offens­ive intel­li­gence, which was called so. When in 1906 Peter Sto­lypin (by the way, he also belonged to the “Sac­red Squad”) became the Min­is­ter of the Interi­or, he ordered the ser­vice of for­eign intel­li­gence to find out what the extern­al sources of the First Rus­si­an Revolu­tion were. The main con­clu­sion that was made from this invest­ig­a­tion: the masons provided most of the funds for the revolu­tion. As far as I can tell, at this moment a group of pro­fes­sion­al pat­ri­ots formed in mil­it­ary intel­li­gence and inside the Min­istry of Intern­al Affairs who were wor­ried about the fate of the empire. It was they who built the mod­el of action in a crisis situ­ation. We all remem­ber that in the Secur­ity Depart­ment (a struc­ture with­in the Min­istry of Intern­al Affairs, which was in charge of polit­ic­al invest­ig­a­tion — ed. ), Attempts were made to take con­trol of the revolu­tion­ary move­ment. But the main emphas­is was still on the devel­op­ment of their own scen­ario in case of a crisis and the col­lapse of the empire. The main thing — in no case should this scen­ario “shine”.

- Sto­lypin was ded­ic­ated to this?

Why do you think he was killed?” Gen­darme Lieu­ten­ant Col­on­el Georgy Metz sum­mar­ized all the data of intel­li­gence intel­li­gence and European res­id­ency. On this basis, a report was pre­pared to Emper­or Nich­olas II . The study of Metz was called “On the Essence and Goals of the World Soci­ety of Frank-Masons”. In addi­tion to the lieu­ten­ant col­on­el, Rataev, head of the cor­don intel­li­gence, act­ively par­ti­cip­ated in col­lect­ing inform­a­tion for the report (he pre­pared a sep­ar­ate note in which he noted “the ser­i­ous anti-state sig­ni­fic­ance of the reviv­al of Free­ma­sonry in Rus­sia and the need for a spe­cial fight against him” — ed. ). It was assumed that the main blow to the Mason­ic chain, both extern­al and intern­al, was to be inflic­ted back in 1911. The king went on hol­i­day to the Crimea, and Sto­lypin, already being prime min­is­ter, repor­ted to him that the rel­ev­ant doc­u­ment was ready and it was neces­sary to take action. Nich­olas II gave his pri­or con­sent to this, but asked to wait for his return from the Crimea: they say, then we will begin.

Let me remind you that Pyotr Arka­dyevich Sto­lypin was killed in Kiev, when the king and his fam­ily returned from the Crimea and atten­ded the cel­eb­ra­tions of the open­ing of the monu­ment to Alex­an­der II there . In prin­ciple, they could have killed the sov­er­eign, but it was Sto­lypin who, accord­ing to legend, already being ser­i­ously wounded, crossed over Nich­olas II in the box and said that he was “happy to die for the king.” A few days later, the roy­al prime min­is­ter passed away. Thus, the Free­ma­sons and the Brit­ish blocked the line of invest­ig­a­tion under­taken by Metz and Ratayev.Sub­sequently, prac­tic­ally all the officers and gen­er­als involved in it were gradu­ally removed from the sys­tem of the Min­istry of Intern­al Affairs. But the last one who had to do with the story of the death of the tsar­ist prime min­is­ter was con­demned by Stal­in in 1937 as an enemy of the people, but in fact for par­ti­cip­at­ing in the organ­iz­a­tion of Stolypin’s murder.

Due to the inter­ac­tion of offens­ive intel­li­gence with Rus­si­an mil­it­ary intel­li­gence, a kind of syn­thes­is of incom­ing inform­a­tion, per­son­nel, and people was formed. They provided a backup scen­ario for sav­ing the coun­try. One line worked to over­come the intern­al res­ist­ance in the empire and to make the king more res­ol­ute. But the emper­or was not very decis­ive, so the second line came into effect.

 Yes, in Moscow, the Krem­lin seized the cadets and fired guns, but I emphas­ize that in 95 per­cent of large cit­ies everything went very peace­fully”

Photo: Yakov Vladi­mirovich Stein­berg, Our Her­it­age magazine, 1988; The Great Rus­si­an Revolu­tion of 1917 — Pg., 1917. Pub­lic domain, commons.wikimedia.org

 IN 89 OF 97 RUSSIA’S MAJOR CITIES, AUTHORITIES PASSED TO BOLSHEVIKS WITHOUT A SINGLE SHOT

- Do you think that in Feb­ru­ary 1917 the masons seized power in Rus­sia? But a con­sid­er­able num­ber of mem­bers of the Pro­vi­sion­al Gov­ern­ment did not even con­ceal their belong­ing to the Mason­ic lodges: neither Ker­ensky, nor Mili­ukov, nor Prince Lvov. If Free­ma­sonry was a glob­al struc­ture, the scope of which went far bey­ond the bor­ders of the Rus­si­an Empire, how could two small pat­ri­ot­ic organ­iz­a­tions, albeit con­nec­ted with intel­li­gence, man­age to out­wit it?

- I think this is one of the glob­al secrets, which, until the end, may nev­er be unraveled. When we stud­ied in the Soviet school, we were told about the geni­us Len­in, who on the night of Octo­ber 25, 1917 seized mail and tele­graphs. But was Len­in, who had just returned to Pet­ro­grad from Fin­land, cap­able of this? By the way, this year we are cel­eb­rat­ing the cen­ten­ary of the Main Intel­li­gence Dir­ect­or­ate (GRU). But it did not arise out of nowhere. My ver­sion is that on Octo­ber 24–25, spe­cial detach­ments of forces were oper­at­ing in the cap­it­al of the Rus­si­an Empire, which would later receive the names of the GRU. And then it was a mil­it­ary intel­li­gence led by Gen­er­al Nikolai Pota­pov. After all, someone had to pre­pare everything, and Pota­pov, as an exper­i­enced Rus­si­an intel­li­gence officer, an employ­ee of the head depart­ment of the Gen­er­al Staff, was ideally suited for this role. As for Len­in, he did not par­ti­cip­ate at all in the pre­par­a­tion of these raids — at first he was in Raz­liv, then he moved to Helsing­fors ( mod­ern Hel­sinki - ed.), From there — to Vyborg. Mil­it­ary-polit­ic­al decisions were made mainly by Stal­in and Felix Dzerzh­in­sky. Felix Edmun­dovich dur­ing these peri­ods of time gen­er­ally pre­ferred to act in con­junc­tion with Stal­in.

In the sum­mer of 1918, a Brit­ish con­spir­acy was exposed in Moscow (the so-called Lock­hart case, as a res­ult of which the head of the Brit­ish mis­sion, Robert Lock­hart, was detained and expelled from the RSFSR togeth­er with the fam­ous intel­li­gence officer Sydney Reilly and oth­ers; as Soviet news­pa­pers wrote of the time, the con­spir­acy was elim­in­ated , led by Brit­ish-French dip­lo­mats, aimed at organ­iz­ing the seizure, with the help of brib­ing parts of the Soviet troops, the Coun­cil of People’s Com­mis­sars and the pro­clam­a­tion of a mil­it­ary dic­tat­or­ship in Moscow ” — ed. ). Everything was explained simply: when the Brit­ish real­ized that they had been beaten, they began to deploy the Civil War in Rus­sia, with the help of Fanny Kaplan, they tried to remove Len­in and put their agent Trot­sky in his place. Thus, they decided to com­pletely take con­trol of the situ­ation again, as it did in Feb­ru­ary 1917, when Brit­ish Ambas­sad­or George Buchanan did not hes­it­ate to give dir­ect­ives to the “Anglo­man” and mem­ber of the Pro­vi­sion­al Gov­ern­ment, Pavel Mily­ukov. How­ever, a bunch of Stal­in — Dzerzh­in­sky did not give them the oppor­tun­ity to real­ize their inten­tions.

How did you man­age to beat the Brit­ish? This is still one of the his­tor­ic­al secrets. The script itself in Octo­ber 1917 came as a com­plete sur­prise to them. Suf­fice it to say that in 89 of the 97 major cit­ies of Rus­sia, the power passed to the Bolshev­iks without a single shot. Yes, in Moscow, the Krem­lin seized the cadets and fired guns, but I emphas­ize that in 95 per­cent of large cit­ies everything went very peace­fully. In St. Peters­burg, accord­ing to some sources, everything was lim­ited to only 6 wounded, who did not climb over the lat­tice of the Winter Palace too suc­cess­fully.Oth­er­wise, it was a unique spe­cial oper­a­tion. The tech­no­lo­gies applied then and today are very import­ant, and they some­times “shoot out” in the form of the reuni­fic­a­tion of Rus­sia and the Crimea or pro­tec­tion from the aggres­sion of South Osse­tia.

I’ll digress a little: in 2009 I had the oppor­tun­ity to speak at a high level in China — advisers to the top offi­cials of the PRC atten­ded my present­a­tion. I remem­ber I was asked: why in August 2008 Rus­sia acted as it acted? I replied that, yes, Amer­ic­an intel­li­gence expec­ted some­thing com­pletely dif­fer­ent from us. They cor­rec­ted me from the audi­ence: not only Amer­ic­an, but also Chinese intel­li­gence believed so. That is, we were expec­ted to “merge” everything and we would not inter­fere. And we not only “inter­vened”, but almost reached Tbil­isi.

How­ever, com­pared to 1917, this is a smal­ler scale.But 101 years ago we were deal­ing with a very ser­i­ous tangle of con­spir­acies: the first was a palace plot (behind which stood the grand dukes), the second — a Mason­ic plot, the third — a lib­er­al one, finally — the treach­ery of the Tsar­ist gen­er­als (Nikolai Ruz­sky, Mikhail Alekseev, Lavr Kornilov and so forth). And sud­denly — a little more than half a year passes, the Octo­ber revolu­tion begins, and the situ­ation changes drastic­ally. It is even amaz­ing how this became pos­sible. I think that this could not have happened without the sup­port of high­er powers in some meas­ure. How­ever, the high­er forces are good, but without the pro­fes­sion­al­ism of spe­cif­ic spe­cial detach­ments, which in Octo­ber 1917 seized mail, tele­graph, sta­tions and bridges, noth­ing would have happened either. If a lot of blood had begun to flow and everything had turned into ser­i­ous clashes, the scen­ario would have turned out to be com­pletely dif­fer­ent. But the per­fect cal­cu­la­tion worked,which allowed to achieve full res­ults with min­im­al losses. The coun­try, at least, has embarked on a path of more pos­it­ive devel­op­ment than has been pre­pared for it by free­ma­sons.

Let me remind you that even the masons-Decem­b­rists planned to divide Rus­sia into 15 parts, and their plans were par­tially real­ized only in 1991. This plan has not yet been can­celed: Masons oper­ate for long his­tor­ic­al peri­ods and con­tin­ue to bend their line. But I believe that, in con­trast to them, a glob­al state-pat­ri­ot­ic elite has aris­en, which does not always oper­ate in an open mode. And Stal­in was the pro­ject of this elite.

 When the Brit­ish real­ized that power­ful unknown forces were play­ing against them in the per­son of Len­in, they organ­ized an attempt on his life on August 30, 1918”

 LENINA HAS BEEN OFFERED THE ROLE OF THE LEADER, FIRST PERSONIF IT DOESN’T SUCCESS, WE WILL TAKE YOU, TOLD HIM

- The first attempt to over­throw the Pro­vi­sion­al Gov­ern­ment was made in July 1917. After the defeat of the Bolshev­ik speech, which, by the way, ended in a ser­i­ous blood­shed (it is believed that about 400 people died in Pet­ro­grad) Len­in and oth­er prom­in­ent Bolshev­iks flee to Fin­land. It turns out that from July to Octo­ber of the 17th Stal­in remains on the house­hold in the party?

- Yes, but let’s not for­get Dzerzh­in­sky, whose role I have already men­tioned. In fact, Stal­in was in charge of everything, but if we look at his entire pre­vi­ous life, we will under­stand that tak­ing mail, tele­graph, etc., is not his pro­file at all. There is read the key role of Gen­er­al Pota­pova and oth­er less pub­lic rep­res­ent­at­ives of mil­it­ary intel­li­gence ( accord­ing to offi­cial fig­ures, Gen­er­al Pota­pov long before Octo­ber he offered his ser­vices to the Bolshev­iks through a friend of youth, a mem­ber of the RSDLP Mikhail Ked­rov — Ed..). Pota­pov, Stal­in and Dzerzh­in­sky determ­ined the course of the main events in Octo­ber 1917, but at the same time the organ­izers of the coup had the wis­dom not to bring Joseph Vis­sari­onovich to the fore. I think it was right. At that time, the extern­al forces were still extremely strong, and Len­in was to play the role of an inter­me­di­ate trans­ition­al fig­ure. He handled her per­fectly.

- Did Len­in be privy to his role, or did he, as they say, use “in the dark”?

- I believe that he was not fully ded­ic­ated. The wheel of events, launched in the winter of 1917, seemed to give him the oppor­tun­ity to leave the game. He returned to Rus­sia from Switzer­land only in April, and after about a month Trot­sky arrived. Lev Dav­y­dovich was taken out of Amer­ica by the Brit­ish, hav­ing pre­vi­ously recruited him — he was for them a kind of backup option if Ker­ensky sud­denly had some­thing wrong. In this case, the revolu­tion­ary Rus­sia, accord­ing to the Brit­ish, was to be headed by Trot­sky. In con­nec­tion with this pat­ri­ot­ic forces, Len­in was chosen as a counter-pro­ject, since Stal­in was not yet a well-known polemi­cist and was not con­sidered an ideo­lo­gic­al lead­er. Vladi­mir Ilyich was needed as a coun­ter­weight to Trotsky’s MI-6 agent.

When the Brit­ish real­ized that power­ful unknown forces were play­ing against them in the per­son of Len­in, they organ­ized an attempt on his life on August 30, 1918. But even that took them time. They were stunned by Octo­ber and could not under­stand who the true organ­izer of this pro­cess was. And then they ini­ti­ate sev­er­al counter-attacks: in the spring, the upris­ing of the Czechoslov­ak Corps begins, then almost sim­ul­tan­eously — the “Lock­card case” and the shot of Fanny Kaplan. Stal­in was still in the shad­ows at that time, so they did not hit him.

- It is known that in Octo­ber 1917 a large part of the Bolshev­iks headed by Kame­nev and Zinoviev were against the coup, refer­ring to the fact that the bour­geois revolu­tion had not yet exhausted itself and the Com­mun­ists had noth­ing to do in the gov­ern­ment. And only Len­in prac­tic­ally forced the Bolshev­iks to take power.

- Yes, in this con­text, the pos­it­ive role of Len­in is dif­fi­cult to deny. Espe­cially since he could, rel­at­ively speak­ing, go into the bushes, and such an oppor­tun­ity he had until the last moment. I think that he was offered the role of the lead­er, the first man. And in case they did not suc­ceed … “We will take you out of Pet­ro­grad,” they could assure him. On the night of Octo­ber 24, not only the Aurora was sta­tioned at the Pet­ro­grad embank­ments, which stood at the Nikolayevsky Bridge — there were also ships of the Balt­ic Fleet: two minelay­ers Amur and Khop­er, the yacht Zarnitsa, train­ing ship Ver­ny and the battle­ship “Dawn of Free­dom”, on board which were about 3 thou­sand sail­ors. These were the escape routes in case of fail­ure. In the case of luck — “you become the head of the Soviet gov­ern­ment.” One way or about could say Lenin.And Vladi­mir Ilyich made a strong-willed polit­ic­al decision to take this risk in con­junc­tion with Stal­in. This also deserves respect.

- If you stick to your ver­sion, how did Major Gen­er­al Pota­pov man­age to estab­lish con­tact with Stal­in? Only due to the fact that the future lead­er of the peoples, per­haps, was the son of Przheval­sky? Or did Joseph Vis­sari­onovich have exper­i­ence in the tsar­ist secret police, as lib­er­al his­tor­i­ans have repeatedly writ­ten about it?

- First of all, let’s look at the iden­tity of Nikolai Pota­pov. This is a bril­liant intel­li­gence officer who was a mil­it­ary intel­li­gence officer in Korea dur­ing the Rus­si­an-Japan­ese war. He was an assist­ant mil­it­ary agent in Vienna, then a res­id­ent in Montenegro and, in fact, atten­ded two theat­ers of mil­it­ary oper­a­tions — in Asia and in Europe and Balkans. I think that at a cer­tain point there were people (per­haps, Field Mar­shal Gen­er­al, Count Dmitry Mily­utin or someone else), who brought Pota­pov to Stal­in. I sup­pose that this happened on the ter­rit­ory of Abkhazia, and it was not for noth­ing that Stalin’s beloved sum­mer res­id­ence was there after­wards.

- And when could this hap­pen?

- I think that in the range of 1910–1917, espe­cially since the begin­ning of the 1914 war. When the Brit­ish man­aged to draw the Rus­si­an empire into a glob­al imper­i­al­ist con­flict, it became clear that events were begin­ning to devel­op in a crisis dir­ec­tion, includ­ing on the domest­ic polit­ic­al front. Most likely, it was dur­ing this peri­od that the backup scen­ario began to be act­ively worked out in case of the fall of the empire. For everything about everything remained less than three years.

- And who of the roy­al gen­er­als, except Pota­pov, could enter into the pat­ri­ot­ic con­spir­acy of 1917? You men­tioned Ignatieff, but this is a very high level. Who else?

- They call the gen­er­als Alex­an­der Verkhovsky ( War Min­is­ter of the Pro­vi­sion­al Gov­ern­ment, Com­mand­er of the Red Army, shot in 1938 — editor’s note ), Mikhail Bonch-Bruyevich ( future Soviet divi­sion com­mand­er, died in 1956 — editor’s note ), Alexey Manikovsky (he was arres­ted in the Winter Palace, togeth­er with the min­is­ters of the Pro­vi­sion­al Gov­ern­ment, but almost imme­di­ately released, became the head of the cent­ral sup­ply depart­ment in the Red Army and headed the army academy, died in 1920 — editor’s note ), Vladi­mir Cheremisov ( emig­rated, died in France after 1937 — approx. pcs. ) and so on. Let us not for­get that most Pota­pov had two broth­ers.

Or recall Kon­stantin Glob­achev, head of the Pet­ro­grad secur­ity depart­ment. Back in Janu­ary 1917, he addressed the roy­al Interi­or Min­is­ter Alex­an­der Pro­to­pop­ov with a secret report and the demand for the arrest of prac­tic­ally all future mem­bers of the Pro­vi­sion­al Gov­ern­ment. “The polit­ic­al moment resembles the eve of 1905,” Glob­achev states. What does this indic­ate? The fact that coun­ter­in­tel­li­gence had a com­plete pic­ture of what was hap­pen­ing. After all, what is the post of the head of the Secur­ity Depart­ment? In mod­ern terms, this is the head of coun­ter­in­tel­li­gence. This is a man in whose hands even a month before the Feb­ru­ary Revolu­tion there were all the threads and all the names of the con­spir­at­ors! But they did not listen to him. And then there is a coup. How should Glob­achev act after that? I think­that as a pat­ri­ot­ic officer, he could well help the fight against the Free­ma­sons, but he was most likely pre­ven­ted from impris­on­ment in the “Crosses” (St. Peters­burg secret police chief was released only shortly before the events of Octo­ber — approx. ed. ). Being in exile, Glob­achev pub­lished a book, The Truth About the Rus­si­an Revolu­tion, where he men­tioned that he was ready to arrest Ker­ensky back in 1915, but he was also not allowed to do so.

That is, in Rus­sia, shortly before the revolu­tion, a pat­ri­ot­ic field was formed, a cer­tain circle of stat­ists, who some­times acted in con­cert and some­times not. But it gave its syn­er­gist­ic effect, which led to Octo­ber.

 THE FAMOUS OPERATION OF THE POTAPOVATRUSTBUYED THE MASONA WHITE MOVEMENT

But the gen­er­als, even if they con­ceived a coup in the autumn of 1917, could hardly take power into their own hands.” Let us recall what was then the atti­tude of the over­whelm­ing major­ity of soci­ety to the top gen­er­als. And then they decided to trans­fer power to the Bolshev­iks?

- They came from the exist­ing real­ity. Not from the fact that they need to cre­ate, rel­at­ively speak­ing, the party “Great Rus­sia” and sol­emnly hand over to it the reins of gov­ern­ment. There was simply no time for that. Intel­li­gence clearly under­stood the extern­al plans of our oppon­ents and the algorithms of their actions. The shot was sup­posed to be one and imme­di­ately in the top ten — there were no oth­er options. The only inde­pend­ent force in Rus­sia remained the Bolshev­iks and their II Con­gress of Sovi­ets, which could be trans­ferred to power with its sub­sequent legit­im­iz­a­tion. The ideo­lo­gic­al con­struc­tions of the Bolshev­iks and their polit­ic­al slo­gans did not worry the fight­ers against the free­ma­sons a little. It was the only way to save the coun­try from chaos and col­lapse.

- And the con­spir­at­ors were not going to end with the Bolshev­iks, as soon as they play their role?

- Recall that by the begin­ning of 1917, the RSDLP had only 24,000 mem­bers. A party of Social Revolu­tion­ar­ies was, say, a mil­lion people. Actu­ally, it was the gen­er­als who made the Bolshev­iks the Bolshev­iks, that is, the real major­ity party. They gave them an organ­iz­a­tion­al impulse and helped trans­form from a dwarf organ­iz­a­tion into a lead­ing guid­ing force. In the course of fur­ther events, a part of the gen­er­als was integ­rated into the Soviet state struc­tures, and a part emig­rated. Do not for­get that after Octo­ber the struggle was not over — there was still a con­flict with Trot­sky, who sym­bol­ized a com­pletely dif­fer­ent pro­ject. The ideas of the “Sac­red Squad” were close to the mon­arch-Ortho­dox approach, and they could not but enter into ideo­lo­gic­al con­tra­dic­tion with the prin­ciple of pro­let­ari­an inter­na­tion­al­ism. But this was already sec­ond­ary — the first task was to save the coun­try from collapse,that, in prin­ciple, suc­ceeded.

The fur­ther fate of the gen­er­als are known. Alexei Ignatiev served the USSR until 1947, after which he lived on a well-deserved retire­ment for more than 7 years. Nikolai Pota­pov retired in 1938 with the rank of bri­gade com­mand­er, died in 1946. That is, these people are more or less integ­rated: someone is open, and someone is in the struc­ture of closed struc­tures that go per­son­ally to Stal­in. Oth­ers could not integ­rate — the same Glob­achev went into exile, but did not become an oppon­ent of Soviet power. But they all ful­filled their task: the state was saved from com­plete dis­in­teg­ra­tion and assembled under a single com­mand in the form of the Soviet Uni­on.

By the way, let’s not for­get that it was Pota­pov who bril­liantly con­duc­ted the fam­ous oper­a­tion “Trust”. I think it was, in fact, a joint oper­a­tion Pota­pova and Stal­in, although the par­ti­cip­a­tion of Arthur Artuzov ( one of the founders of the Soviet intel­li­gence and coun­ter­in­tel­li­gence — Ed.. ) Has not been can­celed. Thus, the Mason­ic white move­ment was stopped, at least on the out­er lines. I think that the approaches of Rus­si­an for­eign intel­li­gence and their work of 1905-10 have played their part here. Espe­cially since the main arena for the oper­a­tion was Par­is.

- Then, in the USSR, they man­aged to pull out not only Sydney Reilly or Vas­ily Shul­gin, but also Bor­is Savinkov (dur­ing Oper­a­tion Syn­dic­ate-2).

- Yes, Savinkov was lured into the Soviet Uni­on as the most act­ive lead­er of the white emig­ra­tion, which was locked up by so many streams and anti-state forces. In prin­ciple, Bor­is Savinkov can be con­sidered the pro­ject num­ber 2 after Trot­sky — with the dif­fer­ence that Lev Dav­y­dovich con­duc­ted his activ­it­ies inside, and Bor­is Vikt­orovich — from the out­side. There­fore, these oper­a­tions, “Trust” and “Syn­dic­ate”, have no ana­logues. It is unlikely that they could devel­op new­comers from among the Soviet secur­ity officers. Here the exper­i­enced hand of Pota­pov is felt.

- In your opin­ion, did Savinkov com­mit sui­cide by throw­ing him­self out of a win­dow, or was he elim­in­ated? I read that in the last minutes a Chek­ist with an amus­ing name Syroezhkin hung on Savinkov’s feet (a gen­tle­man of the Order of the Red Ban­ner would be shot in 1940 — ed.), But could not keep him, and he col­lapsed into the yard.

- It’s hard to say here. Both are pos­sible. To under­stand that you have been fooled and replayed is a ser­i­ous psy­cho­lo­gic­al stress. Savinkov was a strong per­son­al­ity, an exper­i­enced ter­ror­ist and a skill­ful organ­izer, but he lost con­cep­tu­ally, and this is at least a psy­cho­lo­gic­al motive for sui­cide.

- But now Jac­ob Slaschov found the strength to return to Soviet Rus­sia and even taught for the red com­mand.

- Yes, and was shot in 1929 by a cadet of the Moscow Infantry School Laz­ar Kolen­berg. But I think that the death of Jac­ob Slashchev was also a moment of struggle between two large pro­jects, which I men­tioned above. This is very sim­il­ar to the Trot­sky­ist oper­a­tion. Slashchev-Krym­sky was a tal­en­ted mil­it­ary man who real­ized that the Sta­lin­ist red pro­ject was work­ing to the bene­fit of the Fath­er­land. He returned to the USSR and trained the com­mand per­son­nel quite pro­fes­sion­ally, which was very import­ant in pre­par­a­tion for a future war. We have such a per­son who knows the sub­tleties of mil­it­ary affairs and has European exper­i­ence, was bene­fi­cial to the Soviet lead­er­ship. Those who shot Slaschov prob­ably still have to fig­ure it out, but the fact that the order to kill came from the Trot­sky­ists is almost obvi­ous to me.

 If the struggle against Trot­sky had not las­ted for a whole dec­ade, we would have been much more ready for the Great Pat­ri­ot­ic War.”

STALIN WRITTEN IN MOTHER’S LETTERS: “LIVE 10 THOUSAND YEARS, DEAR MOM!”

- Many of the gen­er­als whom you men­tion as con­spir­at­ors par­ti­cip­ated in the cre­ation of the Red Army.

- Yes, they, in fact, cre­ated the Red Army, they signed the Brest Peace ( which was pro­posed by Gen­er­al Verkhovsky to the mem­bers of the Pro­vi­sion­al Gov­ern­ment on Octo­ber 18, 1917 — ed. ). After the sad memory of “Order No. 1”, issued by Free­ma­sons and assert­ing the elec­tion of com­mand posts in the Armed Forces, the Rus­si­an army was des­troyed, the trenches were empty, and desert­ers dis­persed through­out the coun­try. In essence, the army ceased to exist and Rus­sia was threatened by extern­al inter­ven­tion. There­fore, a new Red Army was cre­ated, the charter of which, by the way, was developed by Gen­er­al Dmitry Parsky ( died of typhoid in 1921 — editor’s note ). Back in 1905, he was seconded to the headquar­ters and pre­pared a note to Nich­olas II.about the need for army reforms, chan­ging the charter. Incid­ent­ally, I per­son­ally read the res­ol­u­tion of the emper­or on a memor­andum of Parsky: “It is very lit­er­ate. Let him go as a regi­ment com­mand­er to Siber­ia. ” He went, but the war began, Dmitry Pavlovich advanced, became com­mand­er of the corps, then the army. Bonch-Bruyevich left his mem­oirs about a con­ver­sa­tion with Parsky after the revolu­tion — the book was pub­lished in 1963, and I nev­er saw it again. Dmitry Pavlovich said that he was by no means behind the Bolshev­iks-inter­na­tion­al­ists. “But you are for Rus­sia?” Bonch-Bruyevich asked him. He replied: “I am for Rus­sia. And what should I do? ”Bonch-Bruevich:“ We must stop the Ger­mans. ” And Parsky, on the basis of the pro­pos­als that he sent to the king, pre­pared the charter of the Red Army. His ideas also became the basis of many army reg­u­la­tions.

- Was the fight against the Trot­sky pro­ject con­duc­ted until the very depar­ture of Lev Dav­y­dovich from the USSR? Indeed, in 1924, Trot­sky was con­sidered one of the most likely suc­cessors of Len­in. Recall the Len­in­ist “Let­ter to the Con­gress” …

- Yes, almost until 1929, before the expul­sion of Trot­sky. It included the death of Mikhail Frun­ze in 1925, which sup­por­ted Stal­in, and much more. The Brit­ish tried to defend this pro­ject and bring the lead­er of the “per­man­ent revolu­tion” to the lead­er­ship of the first per­son — hence the attempt on Len­in, when Trot­sky became chair­man of the Revolu­tion­ary Mil­it­ary Coun­cil, but Vladi­mir Ilyich sur­vived. It was only by 1927 that Trot­sky-Bron­stein was finally squeezed out of the Soviet polit­ic­al field. That is a tough domest­ic polit­ic­al struggle with him went about 10 years. I think that the death of Dzerzh­in­sky in 1926 — a man who has always sup­por­ted Stal­in since 1917 — can be viewed in the same con­text. But Felix Edmun­dovich and his Cheka have man­aged to play an import­ant role in the defeat of the “ambas­sad­ors’ con­spir­acy”, etc.

If the struggle against Trot­sky had not been delayed for a whole dec­ade, we would have been much more ready for the Great Pat­ri­ot­ic War. How­ever, Stalin’s indus­tri­al­iz­a­tion began only in 1930, when the con­front­a­tion of Joseph Vis­sari­onovich with his most dan­ger­ous adversary at that time finally ended. The Brit­ish at that time began to pre­pare Adolph Hitler, who should have been brought to power and then sent Ger­many against the USSR, to pois­on us. But Trot­sky and his entire group tried in every way to slow down the devel­op­ment of both the Red Army and the Soviet industry.

- Prob­ably the only and most import­ant wit­ness to the secret of Stalin’s birth was his moth­er, Eka­ter­ina Geladze. When Joseph Vis­sari­onovich met her in 1935 and told her that he was now “like a king,” she replied to him: “You’d bet­ter become a priest.”

- This phrase of the moth­er, who really became very widely known, char­ac­ter­izes Stal­in as a spir­itu­al lead­er. A priest is a syn­onym for a spir­itu­al per­son, a shep­herd. Only such a per­son could, under the most dif­fi­cult con­di­tions, pull the coun­try out of the abyss where she was pushed into in Feb­ru­ary 1917. About Nich­olas IIthey usu­ally write a lot of neg­at­ive things, but let’s not for­get that with it the pop­u­la­tion of the coun­try increased by 60 mil­lion, industry grew, which accoun­ted for 4 per­cent of world pro­duc­tion, and oil fields rep­res­en­ted half of world pro­duc­tion. That is, not everything was bad. But lit­er­ally 15 years after the revolu­tion, Soviet industry could boast as much as 10 per­cent of world pro­duc­tion: the increase was almost 2.5 times. From 1931 to 41, GDP increased threefold. Today, even the Chinese can not achieve sim­il­ar res­ults. The coun­try won the Great Pat­ri­ot­ic War and made a space­walk.

By the way, when I worked as a press sec­ret­ary for Roscos­mos, I was told by loc­al vet­er­ans who still remem­ber the Queen (now they are no longer alive), as did the Fau mis­sile (the world’s first bal­list­ic mis­sile adop­ted by the Wehr­macht at the end of the war, — Ed. ) Of Soviet details. By order of Stal­in did it in just a year! Soviet import sub­sti­tu­tion was car­ried out at a truly accel­er­ated pace! Such was the tech­no­lo­gic­al power of Soviet industry. And then we made our own bal­list­ic mis­sile. Until now, Rus­sia lives due to the Sta­lin­ist back­log, made in those years. As for the moth­er, Stal­in wrote to her in let­ters: “Live 10 thou­sand years, dear moth­er!”

One thought on “Igor Panarin: “In October 1917, the backup scenario of saving the country worked”

  1. Pingback:Un interviu cu Igor Panarin | Bogdan Herzog

Comments are closed.