  20180426-0248
Помпеев Юрий: Петербург самодержавыйSt. Petersburg autocracy20171115 Full speed, ferocious, wild as a troika in whirlwind and storm in winter! Yuri Alexandrovich being an excellent coachman ! A virtual wizard of words. Can immediately penetrate the reader's skin with his feet on the ground kind of writing! 20171118 What a delight to read such a text! Undoubtedly I want to read everything what I manage to get into the hands of the compositions of Yuriy Alexandrovich! Today I downloaded from Amazon in Russian three works of A N. Radishchev, among others Путешествие, expense $ 2.47! 20171119 Obviously strictly documentally based history, but at the same time at an enchanting and entertaining story! 20171122 Unpleasant though plausible reading, chapters 12-15 20171124 Extremely dramatic events. The author does not adorn, gloat with them, does not save the reader from injustice or cruelties, but he also does not groan with them. What a joy and charm it would be to interpret Yuri Alexandrovich's lectures on the history of Russia. I have experience: 20 years - translator of the Moscow rector of Plekhanov Institute in Finland and ours in Moscow. What can I add to one of the most excellent reading experiences of all my life? Of course to that has its influence, that with pride I consider the author to my dear personal friends. But I am completely sure that any reader knows how to appreciate all the excellent aspects of this work, style, clarity, consistency, fiction, strength of expression ... How much I would like to translate this book into English and into Finnish! Only my high age prevents. I would not even doubt the in a certain sense unfamiliar topic, the history of the dynasty and autocracy. This story has quite a peculiar end: the Russian Revolution of 1917, exactly one hundred years ago. After just ten days we in Finland celebrate the centenary of the Finnish state, and less than a month ago was the feast of the centennary of the Russian October Revolution. In electronic media there is a flood of material on this occasion. I just watched the three-part, three-hour program of the BBC on this occasion. Quality is something that can be expected from the BBC, first-class, done without saving money, not physical, nor intellectual efforts, with countless interviews of Russian specialists. But there is very little new for me, all is as drawn on the basis of books by Yuri Alexandrovich. But at the very end of the program, its last open-ended question was as straight from my lips: Would there be the possibility of a non-existence of all this, and Russia's peaceful transition to a constitutional monarchy as it exists in Britain? And millions of human souls would afterwards have been saved. I understood from a short exchange of letters with Yuri Alexandrovich that he considers it the only possibility what happened. The BBC says: unless Nikolai were so self-willed, stubborn. It would be interesting to know if such an opinion exists in the serious sense of the word in Russia. In my opinion, everything did not only depend on Nicholas, but also, and even more on the people and agitated groups. I am a steady fan of individual independence and I think that a group is focused on stupidity. 1. Remarks: Pompeev-Peterburg20171126 ajk-PompeDear and respected Yuri, Today Saint Petersburg has been read. With particular interest I read it. Here are my notes about this book. Along with reading the book and making notes, I also watched three hours long video program about the history of the Romanovs. It was a nice illustrated summary of your book. At the end of the program, the BBC journalist expressed a rhetorical question: was there such an opportunity that Russia would pass into a constitutional monarchy bypassing the revolution and the huge bloodshed associated with it? Have I understood correctly that you consider the revolution necessary. It would be interesting to hear more about this. Since Petersburg is so interesting and easy-to-read the text, I dare right away start the next volume of your trilogy. If I were a bit younger and stronger, with your permission would begin the translation of your further books. Nowadays I can only dream about it, as well as about the opportunity to invite you to lecture with my translation of Russian history. Помпеев Юрий: Февральский вихрьHow to deal with the revolution?I feel myself, in any case, I think myself, as a citizen of the global village, thanks to the developed communicative equipment. At the time described in this book this had not happened yet. The sphere of life of an individual person was denser then. In the world, even within one country, there were many different spheres of human life. So it will only be more difficult to treat different conditions of life and not only the inherent, but also their development. How do I relate to the events of life a hundred years ago? Choose the side of an evolution or of a revolution. In good living conditions without hunger and free from repression it is easy to master the side of evolution. All my 80-year-old life I lived in such conditions. So did my parents and grandparents. Free farming was the mode of life. In Finland, as part of Sweden, there was no time for serfdom. So during the pre-industrial economy, only natural conditions determined the conditions of life. And against nature no revolution helped, just only an evolution. And then came the conditions with the development of industrialism and these conditions were fruitful for the rise of the revolution, and also reached the dimensions of an open conflict in 1918. Lost were even human lives, but reconciliation happened according to the terms of the decreed society in the spirit of evolution and reached this peaceful development, with the present level of the world-recognized name of the 'Northern European Welfare State'. But so happy was not the development of Russia, although the natural conditions are profitable. The ancient conditions are already suitable for the emergence of the spirit of the revolution, which also happened. For me, this is something so terrible that I was afraid to start reading a book about it, armed fronts with gunfire between groups of citizens against another. What's worse than that? This was, but not only that and not even half of nation against the other, although there was a complete demise of power. The fourhundred-year dynasty was renounced, even by its own words, in seemingly organized conditions. And to my surprise the author of this book succeeded to present the entire procedure as a civilized dialogue between and inside the main three parties: the dynasty, the state organs and the revolutionaries. For me it was a huge unexpected surprise. Although on the other hand, knowing the author and his highly humanized soul structure, something special was to be expected, not only a description of a brutal collision of physical forces. And not only the dialogue , but also action, albeit hasty, but still rational and appropriate. A good example of this is the management of trains and their movement with the imperial family and statesmen. This in the book was written in a masterly way and I had to start reading about it just when I had written about the slow communication compared to the present time. We have our own digiphone, though, but even then they used the telephone, although sometimes it was not working. And the train moves only slightly faster today than a hundred years ago. Noticing this, I was struck by a smile amidst a busy reading. It was a whirlwind. Really appropriately chosen word and title of the book. But the cover of the book was closed in the critical moment of the revolution: the arrival of her father Lenin in Russia and just before the case that gives the harshest taste to the entire cause of revolution: in my opinion a completely unnecessary murder of already defenseless and from our point of view of weakly grounded causes. It is not surprising that the sensual and deeply religious people of Russia built a temple in memory of a touching murder on the site and that they annually memorialize the occasion. What kind of reason existed to the killing of the family of Romanovs, as Nicholas had already renounced power? This I continue to ask also on reading this book. Помпеев Юрий: Эти великие полгодаThese great six months20171204 Till now I was deeply disappointed with this text, disappointment almost drawn to the author. And at the same time to myself: how am I laughing and not ashamed about such an dear friend and a hundred times shown my skill and trust? Now I understand: firstly my weak knowledge of the subject and of course my stubborn position against the revolution and for the evolution. But also from the author's side there are reasons for my disappointment: his delay in the rich mass of facts and data, too many for me, a dry dessert without borders. But today the ray of the sun: dialogue, and what dialogue? Endlessness and that. But it is characteristic of the author: it is balanced, comprehensive, non-partisan or better all-apart, because all ten people representing all kinds of views and nuances of opinions make it extremely difficult to decide their eyesight in complex matters. Until now, I will stand up for evolutions and against the revolution! Stubbornly I continue reading ... Zdesb everywhere: down, down, and my slogan: Hooray, step forward! 20171205 Again interesting dialogues strongly help me understand what I'm talking about. Only stronger I am sure that the revolution is not the right medium for social construction. The proletariat needs all power. Capitalism and the bourgeoisie as enemies of society are considered. Do they need to be destroyed or changed? I think differently: they are ours (I myself consider them to be none of them, but a citizen of the global village) servants who know how to do things for us, which we need, but which we do not know how to produce, like our homes, factories, institutions, all kinds of services . There will be awards more by us, but by specialists and deserve above us. The high taxes will pay the most part of our well-being. Can not we sit twice more than we do, dress three times more dearly to us, have ten times more expensive dwellers, maybe-ten per cent personally to spend from their incomes. What do the rest of the nineties? In addition to crying 50 percent of taxes to support the society order our services, they increase our incomes, so that we better live better. Experts and organizers deserve our gratitude and respect rather than anger and jealousy. 20171206 I can not adequately praise the author for his ingenious invention and determination to use the dialogue when clarifying complex cases. X is a good example in the fifth chapter of the Kronstadt question. Cases of expression from personal mouths will be clearly formulated and defined, the reader will understand. Thank you, UP! 20171206 More and more I hate revolutions, not so much its practical existence as its ideology: it underscores us between dobras and zleh, rams and wolves, friends and enemies! That such a social ideology. Constantly prophesies the division of society instead of unity and friendship. I am absolutely not behind such a philosophy! 20171209 A friend from St. Petersburg has written 1,000 pages of trilogy plus the revolution in Romanovie's history. It is here I have already met several weeks, yet just under 300 pages remaining. There is no point in reading. Blood flows and ends drop. Fortunately, it is the author who invented most of the dialog, in which things are discussed personally on a personal level. Significantly facilitates and streamlines reading. It is also revealed that Father Lenin was a champion who, unexpectedly, headed for the invisible side of the beach. The boat was back on the return. At the top of the question is the question: Was the revolution necessary or whether it would have been possible for Russia to move without abandoning the constitutional monarchy? This is also my delight in the last question of the BBC three-part video almost 3 hours. There is no Pompe privatized to take this position. Interestingly, I look forward to what the last word in the book is. 20171210 We must bury the illusion of a peaceful possibility of transferring power to the Soviets, "Vladimir Ilyich answered. - The authorities do not pass: they take it with a weapon in their hands. 1. Remarks: Pompeev-1917God220171214 ajk-japNow I have also read volume 2 and processed the corresponding notes. Here's to you a direct link to them. I recently told about your books to Ilkka Arvola, whom you met a year ago. He certainly would be interested and therefore he asks your permission to take your books from me so that he could read them. So I wait for your favorable response. I imagine that by the new year I also get read the third of the trilogy. Then I hope to return, if not earlier. Помпеев Юрий: Октябрь семинадцатогоOctober20171213 I would like to have a list of people at the beginning of the book as it is at the Theater plays, as well as a structural shema about the relations and division of power between the various bodies and within them. Significantly would help in reading. Strongly criticizing the absence of headings and the use of naked numbers at any degree of headings. A boring text clarifying the relationship between organizations and institutions. 20171215 Relieving the reading the latest YP letters pointing out to the experience of our generation. Our experience is very different from the one-hundred-year-old experience. We have experience and knowledge of what democracy is, at that time there was no such experience. The attitude towards the revolution is therefore different. 20171218 Storming. The details of the revolution are a boring reading. But the book contains also my recipe: Martov, on behalf of his faction, declared: "We do not oppose the transfer of power to the hands of democracy, but we protest against the Bolshevik methods of revolution!" "What do you propose?" The congress rustled. "We propose to suspend the struggle and start negotiations," Martov proposed the same resolution that the Pre-parliament adopted in the morning. 20171221 I'm forced to believe that the country can be conquered with guns and force, bloodshed, but hearts cannot. Constant peace, peace in the whole world is only gained by hearts. Acquaintance, mind, brain, but no fist force, nor machine guns are the means of conquering hearts. 20171222 Everywhere in this text time is expressed in minutes - what is the explanation for this accuracy? 20171223 One hundred years ago, and from the point of view of a utopian citizen of the global village, it is easy to criticize revolution and present for it two alternative ways to build a new society: utopian and experienced. Utopian, in a masterful way, is described by the present author Pompeev in his monograph "History and Philosophy of Russian Enterpreneurship", the path is shown by Robert Owen in America and in Great Britain. There is also a longer reaching practical pathway, the welfare society according to the Scandinavian tradition, including Finland. The main success of this way depends, in my opinion, on the fact that we never had the experience of serfdom. In these countries the peasant was independent. Only a minimally thin layer of torpparilaitos, something like a system of small farms having an obligation of working two days a week on the main farm as a payment for leasing land. 20171224 Balashov: Notes on Lenin 20171226 Big surprise on the last few pages of all 1000: telling how Kollontai, Lenin, Krupskaya rest on the sanatorium Halila in Finland. In this I have a personal connection, true a thin one, with the Russian revolution: My aunt Elsa, from the 1930s, worked in the same sanatorium as a sister of mercy! 1. Remarks: Pompeev-1917God3Different kind of revolutionHaving just completed 4 books on the Russian Revolution of 1917 one cannot avoid a certain desire to comparison. But easily guessed: no point of comparison. Coincidense of no possible reasons between nations of 150 millions of Russians and 7 millions of Catalans. And, however, both cases deserve the denomination of revolution. Russian Revolution: internal, part of nation demanding power by force. Catalan: external, the arrowhead pointing outside to higher and wider authority, a part of nation to the whole nation, aiming to separation. In Russia, a cruel blast on ignition, in Catalunya a peaceful procession of events. In case of Russia, the term revolution is of course omnipresent, mentioned hundreds, if not thousands of times on those 1000 pages, but so is la revolució mentoned tens of times, somewhere also the term Revolució Catalana. Enough to be taken seriously, even if often mildened by the attribute liberal. Лев Балашов: Ленин - критические заметкиThe inheritance of Lenin seen from the today's point of viewThe author of this text is an acquntance of mine , book translated , another being done , three times encountered, a large number of messages exchanged, strict controversies, unmanageable conflicts, but we remained friends, however. How did this begin? However, this millennium with my retirement. At the beginning of my retirement, I came up with the idea that I should study something new for me. And that was the philosophy. It has continued to this day and apparently will continue as long as the foot flies. However, recent contacts have been ongoing in the long term. In essence, birthday incomes have changed. He was younger than me five years ago. But a couple of years ago, he started to offer links to his production and fb discussions with my fb-reaches. When Suomi-100 is at the same time also Russia 100, so, of course, Revolution 100, I was caught up with his "Lenin - Critical Remarks" on his subject. I commented more pairs, but they are on both sides missed a conventional peukutustasolle. This really did not stay - at least from my side. It's interesting to see what Lev Evdokimovitsh says, as long as I do this for him. I suspect that he will not be dropping from the side. The early part of Lenin - the critical remarks of the text is a document-oriented summary that he can read it accordingly. Jaha, that was, familiar, nice to know a new, new perspective. It did not get tired of sleep as Pompey's fate in the Tsar family's performance. But then! The last half of the document. Pum, präks, pum! This is a very wonderful summary of the author's debates on this and what is happening right now. Well, that's all the time in full media. And I have no cover to say that it would be unreadable in color. But, nevertheless - everybody understands that it is anti-Russian, Russia is frustrating and intimidating with Russia's threat. Here is the conversation from which those elements are missing. And, more importantly, the opposite is also missing, that is, Russian wreck. Instead, the debate is open to criticism of the current crisis. And can we find it almost, if not quite the American level, an inconsistent contradiction between Lev Evdokimovitshin and me. It is the role of Gorbachev in the destiny of the Russian people and throughout the world. In my opinion, Gorbachev is the greatest statesman of the last century, running past Churchill, many of whom are the greatest. Gorbachev, in my opinion, released then 200 or more of a million people's slavery. LEB says that Gorbachev's significance was negligible (and Yeltsin's even worse). I did not say anything about Jeltsin, but Gorbachev's glasnost was, in my opinion, the decisive thing. In his opinion, the liberation of Russia from the Communist yoke was a historically inevitable event (Pentele in the process: just as Marxism-Leninism suggests, the proletarian revolution, and, in short, the deep-rooted ferocity of the Russians generally all that happens in the world). Does not man, especially one person, influence the destiny of a nation? Well, as soon as this trivialisation of Gorbachev then he at least half a dozen hit the table hard name and asks: what would be Russia without these? These are twin artists and scientists. Do not professional politicians, therefore, do the fate of the nation affect them? And I think I have to doubt the same thing with my friend Levin - not a bad thing! This is what I do not do with the Lev Balashov essay - so it can be called how to categorize it: it is by no means just a polemic and does not remain within the limits of the blog - to specify the content. Again, this is already a lot when I recently invented a utopian escape to your own qualifiers, not a lot of interference, I would say: the good old days of grassroots anarchist. But, in my opinion, the difference between the utopian and the anarchist is that the utopian looks forward, the anarchist only loses everything. The latter is more than easy to do, and of course, I'm often sorry. But about a year ago I came up with this utopian. A strong nail with which I suppose. It is keeping on grassroots, that is, on a small human level. This is especially true of economic activity, but also of politics. Democracy is based on individual freedom where the driving force of the economy is the needs of a private person, psychic and physical. My utopian authorities are Adam Smith and JM Keynes is lying right now and quite unexpectedly by Thomas Piketty. And then, of course, we believe in human and technological development, which is largely based on methodology. And all this behind is math! 😃 PS This summary is one of the best, if not the best proof of my MyeBooks note system. In the case of language glossaries and idiom, MyeBooks' meaning is obvious, but in this case, the notes of the text also include a secretion of the message. И.А. Бунин: Окаянные дниHow to relate to this kind of book?The literary merits of this book cannot be denied. Nor the importance of the subject matter: the Russian Revolution, nor the complete impartiality and openness of the treatment. That all well deserving the high general recognition of the author in form of the Nobel laureat. But for me this book is not suitable reading or I am not suitable reader of this book. The problem seems to be my strong pacifist attitude. I am following it by avoiding books concerning war and violence. But I am asking: is this a proper way? Wars and kolence do not disappear on my refraining to read about them. Shouldn't people being indifferent about these matters read and think more on them? However, I have chosen to read this book, even if with long teeth. Quite evidently, the book has been written for just anybody as an honest account on what happened in Russia for hundred years ago. Don't I want to know, what happened? I cannot deny that I wish to know history. I have just read thousand pages on Russian Revolution. What did I learn of these five books by three authors? The first thing I learned from the book by Yuriy Pompeev was three hundred years of the dynasty of Romanov on a very close, so to say: skin level. On one hand, no features of harsh autocratic way of government were hidden, but at the same time, intimate and sympathetic family and official human relationships were disclosed. Then in the trilogy of my dear friend Yuriy Pompeev the activity of Lenin, the great leader of the Revolution was scrutinized in a very interesting way. Perhaps it is the only correct way, defined by actual circumstances. Lenin monitoring the flow of revolution from distance, outside the scene like me with my tv by remote control. Only on the few last of the 700 pages story did he appear on the spot - only to draw to rest for a moment at the spa where my aunt later did part of her life work, a completely fa tastic connection of myself with Russian revolution! This second Lenin part of Revolution is told in the same facinating two way approach as the first one of the Romanovs. On one hand, not saving the reader of the harshest atrocities and blood streams up to knees, and on the other, on skin touch, going under the skin of personalities in human and in official matters. Who can resist that kind of approach? Of course nobody. Then there is the share of Lev Evdokimovich Balashov in the form of short critical comments on Lenin's activity. Again a new kind of approach: discussion with another specialist on the matter of the Revolution. Also this discussion arises a wave of sympathy by its honesty. And now this Bunin. The same to the knees reaching flow of blood and its consequences related in daily diary of 1918 and 1919, shortly after the culmination of 1917. What is special in this account? The very personal approach, not as a participant but as an observer of what happened. A surprise, comparable to my personal tie with the revolution, is that Father Lenin is only once mentioned, playing no part in the process. No explanation given! Deciding from this my summary, an extremely fascinating history is told by authors really familiar with the matter. However powerful it is, it did not get me convinced of the necessity of this giant earthquake. On the contrary, I still believe in evolution in stead of revolution and to the possibility of it also in the case of Russsia. A full-fledged democracy is the way to build the government of the grass root human beings. It has been and even to a higher degree is today in the era of global information domains. In my opinion there is a very clear evidence of a very different social development in Russia in another book by Yuriy Pompeev: History and Philosophy of Entrepreneuship in Russia. No trace of revolution. Jordi Canal: Història mínima de CatalunyaAnother revolutionHaving just completed 4 books on the Russian Revolution of 1917 one cannot avoid a certain desire to comparison. But easily guessed: no point of comparison. Coincidense of no possible reasons between nations of 150 millions of Russians and 7 millions of Catalans. And, however, both cases deserve the denomination of revolution. Russian Revolution: internal, part of nation demanding power by force. Catalan: external, the arrowhead pointing outside to higher and wider authority, a part of nation to the whole nation, aiming to separation. In Russia, a cruel blast on ignition, in Catalunya a peaceful procession of events. In case of Russia, the term revolution is of course omnipresent, mentioned hundreds, if not thousands of times on those 1000 pages, but so is la revolució mentoned tens of times, somewhere also the term Revolució Catalana. Enough to be taken seriously, even if often mildened by the attribute liberal. For me the Catalan language as such is unfamiliar, but offering no difficulties of understanding whatsoever, on the basis of Spanish; Catalan being not a bit more difficult than Portuguese. Here also of utmost importance is the excellent text as such. Easy to follow a straightforward narration with complete touch on statistical and numeric skill of presentation by the author Jordi Canal. Very helpful is also Amazon's Kindle version with alternating page views and easily readable font and perfect linking. The only improvement wish on my part remains the 'finger tip' availability of time and space coordinate information. I am confident that also this my wish will some day be fulfilled being so evident and helpful for any reader. Feeling temptation to give full five stars I, however, remain in four. Would not five be too preposterous from a reader of so thin touch to the language?
|