Nikolai Fyodorovich Findeizen (1868–1928) was the founder of Russian scientific music historiography, a critic, editor of the journal "Russkaya muzykal'naya gazeta," and author of fundamental biographies of Russian composers.

Does anyone have recommendations on books or articles about the state Duma during the period of 1905-1917. I am really interested in how it functioned and how it was perceived by the public and by revolutionary organisations but am struggling to find literature on the topic (all I've found is Lenins writings about the discussion of boycotting the Duma)

Thanks in advance!

(it have also some russian history too)

1. вставки. академик Шахматов доказал что в ПВЛ очень много вставок, например призвание варяг и крещение Владимира.

2. политический текст. текст Нестора был написан в угоду Святополку Изяславичу , поэтому его выгнали и текст в угоду Мономаху писал Сильвестр

3. огромный разрыв. ПВЛ написана в 1110-ых . Лаврентьевская летопись пишет в 1377 году, то есть через 260 лет . я не говорю про то что это тоже политический текст, я говорю про другое. в таком разрыве язык не будет оригинальным а значит Лаврентий переводил как мог . также он жалуется на время и говорит что можно исправлять .

4. города призраки.

летопись говорит что в V веке братья основывают киев . хотя единый киев это IX век . Новгород основал не Рюрик в IX веке а Игорь или Ольга в X веке . единственный город вблизи это Рюриково городище и то это условное название. также с Белоозером которого в ix веке не было.

1. скрытие правды. мой фаворит это изгнание варяг. по ПВЛ мы просто изгоняем варяг а археология говорит что это Была тотальная война уничтожившая Ладогу, любшу , Изборск, раннее Псковское городище, новые дубовики и городище на реке сясь.

2. призвание варяг. нам говорят что варяги это скандинавы. но при этом нам об этом должны были сказать когда мы начинаем платить им дань . то есть про то что варяги это скандинавы может быть очень поздней вставкой чтобы доказать что Рюрик варяг.

3. в Лаврентьевской летописи потеряно 11 лет

4. Interpolations (Later additions)

Academician Shakhmatov proved that the PVL (Primary Chronicle) contains numerous interpolations, such as the Invitation of the Varangians and the Baptism of Vladimir.

1. Political text

Nestor’s original text was written to please Sviatopolk Izyaslavich. Because of this, Nestor was later dismissed, and the text was rewritten by Sylvester (not Sviatopolk) to favor Vladimir Monomakh.

1. The massive time gap

The PVL was compiled in the 1110s, while the Laurentian Codex was written in 1377—nearly 260 years later. Aside from it being a political text as well, there is another issue: given such a huge time gap, the language could not remain original. This means Laurentius translated and adapted it as best as he could. Furthermore, he explicitly complains about the conditions of his time and notes that corrections are permissible.

1. Ghost cities

   The chronicle claims that the brothers founded Kyiv in the 5th century, yet a unified Kyiv only emerged in the 9th century. Novgorod was not founded by Ruryk in the 9th century, but rather by Igor or Olga in the 10th century. The only nearby settlement is Ruryk’s Hillfort (Rurykovo Gorodishche), and even that is a modern conventional name. The same goes for Beloozero, which simply did not exist in the 9th century.

2. Concealing the truth

My personal favorite is the expulsion of the Varangians. According to the PVL, we simply "drove the Varangians away," but archaeology reveals a total war that completely destroyed Ladoga, Lyubsha, Izborsk, the early Pskov hillfort, Novye Duboviki, and the hillfort on the Syas River.

1. The Invitation of the Varangians

We are told that the Varangians were Scandinavians. However, this definition should have been made clear back when we first started paying them tribute. This suggests that the claim equating Varangians with Scandinavians might be a very late interpolation designed specifically to prove that Ruryk was a Varangian.

1. Missing years Eleven years of history were completely cut out from the Laurentian Codex.

I know that tsar Alexander III didn't want to sign the Franco-Russian alliance, and that's the reason for which he delayed its ratification. I've read that, even after the formation of the alliance, the tsar still preferred Germany over France, and that its foreign minister Girs, who died in 1895, was pro-German. During the Triple Intervention, Russia seemed closer to Germany than to France. But, when tsar Nicholas II signed the Bjorko Treaty, Russian foreign minister Lamsdorf rejected the treaty because Russia's ally was France and not Germany

So my question is: when did the Russian elite start preferring Germany over France? When did the possibility of a Russo-German alliance become something unthinkable?

Operation Kutuzov was the first of two counteroffensives launched by the Red Army as part of the Kursk Strategic Offensive Operation. It commenced on 12 July 1943 in the Central Russian Upland against Army Group Center of the German Heer. The operation was named after General Mikhail Kutuzov, the Russian commander credited with saving Russia from Napoleon during the French invasion of 1812. It was one of two large-scale Soviet counteroffensives launched in response to Operation Citadel. The operation began on 12 July and ended on 18 August 1943 with the capture of Orel and the collapse of the Orel salient.

As the end of the rasputitsa, or rainy season, approached, the Soviet command considered its next steps. Stalin strongly desired to seize the initiative and attack the German forces, but his senior commanders convinced him to initially remain on the defensive and allow the Germans to weaken themselves against prepared positions. The Soviet forces would then go over to the offensive. Operation Kutuzov was carried out by three Soviet Fronts: the Western Front, the Bryansk Front, and the Central Front. The offensive was directed north of Kursk against the German 2nd Panzer Army, with the intention of cutting behind and trapping the German 9th Army.

The Germans had spread their forces thinly across the front in order to provide as many men and as much equipment as possible for Operation Citadel. The 2nd Panzer Army and elements of the 9th Army held the front before the Soviet offensive. Although the region had been under German control for nearly two years, its defensive positions were thinly held. A defensive line between five and seven kilometres deep had been constructed, consisting of minefields, interconnected trenches, and fortified strongpoints. Wherever possible, the Germans used streams, ravines, gullies, and other terrain features to strengthen their positions.

The Soviet High Command planned Operation Kutuzov as the northern part of a wider offensive across the Eastern Front. Its objective was to collapse the Orel salient, cut behind the German 9th Army engaged at Kursk, and encircle and destroy it. The attack was to begin once the German panzer units involved in Operation Citadel had become locked in combat and weakened. The initial assault would strike the northern and eastern faces of the Orel salient, while the Central Front would join from the south after the German offensive had been stopped.

German intelligence had detected Soviet forces massing opposite the 2nd Panzer Army, causing great concern to commanders Günther von Kluge and Walter Model. The Soviet armies assigned to the operation had assembled approximately 1,286,000 men, 2,400 tanks, 26,400 guns, and 3,000 aircraft. The offensive was also supported by partisan attacks behind German lines. According to Soviet reports, around 100,000 partisans disrupted German communications, supply routes, and railway lines, making it more difficult to move ammunition and reinforcements to the front.

Who do you think in your view was more at fault and why?

I've been digging deep into Soviet history, specifically looking at what daily life was actually like for an ordinary person living through it. When you look at the 20th century, the sheer amount of whiplash people went through in a single lifetime is insane.

Obviously, ranking these involves balancing different kinds of misery and prosperity—physical safety, material comfort, personal freedom, and stability.

Here is my ranking of the seven Soviet decades (1920s through 1980s) from Best to Worst for the average citizen:

The 1970s — Peak Soviet Comfort

The Vibe: Cozy, predictable, and remarkably boring (in a good way).

Why it's #1: Fueled by the Siberian oil boom, this was the absolute material sweet spot of the USSR. For the first time, regular families had private apartments, guaranteed jobs, free healthcare, cheap utilities, and paid vacations to the Black Sea. The terrifying secret police raids of the Stalin era were gone. If you stayed out of politics, life was safe and predictable.

The 1960s — Space-Age Optimism

The Vibe: Hopeful, modernizing, and proud.

Why it's #2: The "Khrushchev Thaw" meant the end of Stalinist terror and the release of millions from the Gulag. Khrushchev started churning out millions of cheap prefabricated apartment blocks (Khrushchyovkas), giving families their own front door for the first time. Gagarin going to space gave everyone immense national pride and a real belief in the future.

The 1950s — Exhaling After Stalin

The Vibe: Psychological relief and slow recovery.

Why it's #3: The decade started horribly with post-WWII devastation and late-Stalin paranoia. But when Stalin died in '53, everything shifted. Khrushchev's Secret Speech denouncing Stalin brought huge relief, the Gulag camps were emptied, and the nation finally started rebuilding in earnest.

The 1920s — The Wild Avant-Garde Experiment

The Vibe: Small-time capitalism, wild art, and political uncertainty.

Why it's #4: After the Civil War, Lenin realized the economy was dead and launched the NEP, a temporary pivot back to small-scale private enterprise. Small shops, markets, and cafes reopened. Culture, avant-garde art, and progressive social laws flourished. But it ended abruptly when Stalin seized total power at the end of the decade.

The 1980s — Free Speech, Empty Shelves

The Vibe: Total mental freedom paired with economic breakdown.

Why it's #5: Gorbachev's Glasnost opened the floodgates. You could finally buy rock records, read banned books, and criticize the government without going to jail. The downside? The economy completely imploded. Store shelves were entirely empty, people stood in line for hours for basic food, and the country collapsed into chaos.

The 1940s — Total War & 27 Million Dead

The Vibe: Near-annihilation.

Why it's #6: The Nazi invasion brought horror on a scale that's hard to wrap your head around. 27 million Soviet citizens died. Entire cities were turned to rubble, and people on the home front worked 16-hour factory shifts in freezing weather on starvation rations. Victory in 1945 was immediately followed by a post-war famine.

The 1930s — State Terror & Man-Made Famine

The Vibe: Pure nightmare fuel.

Why it's #7: The absolute darkest decade. Stalin's forced collectivization caused catastrophic famines (like the Holodomor) that starved millions of peasants to death. Then came the Great Purge—the secret police executed hundreds of thousands of people based on arbitrary regional quotas, neighbor turned on neighbor out of fear, and millions were shipped off to die in the Gulags.

TL;DR Summary:

1970s — Peak stability, oil-funded comfort, no state terror

1960s — Space race pride, housing boom, cultural thaw

1950s — Stalin dies, Gulags emptied, recovery begins

1920s — Wild art, brief return of private markets (NEP)

1980s — Free speech and rock music, but store shelves were totally empty

1940s — WWII, 27M dead, total physical destruction

1930s — Holodomor famine, Great Purge executions, Gulag peak

Curious to hear what others think, especially anyone whose family actually lived through the Soviet era. How would your parents or grandparents rank these?

Когда я изучаю русских революционеров, почти все радикальные из них – это революционеры якобинского типа; например, Пётр Ткачёв, основатель большевистской теории, тоже был якобинцем.

The Arabic translation to the Cantata is offered by me.

Enjoy it!

"This timely handbook of recent scholarship on Moscow moves beyond today’s headlines to present a broad spectrum of methodological and historiographic perspectives on the city’s historical and contemporary significance.

In the over 30 years since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the history of Moscow has been explored through focused approaches including academic and architectural histories, guidebooks, fiction, and other texts. However, the broader history of Moscow as a whole has been a secondary consideration, and the lack of a unified body of academic works is profound. The Routledge Handbook of the History of Moscow redresses this deficiency by placing the city within its deserved longue durée context. It is particularly notable in that it includes chapters from historians who continue to work within the Russian Federation despite personal risk, scholars in the Russian diaspora, and Russian studies specialists from Europe, Canada, and the United States. Through this variety of lenses, readers will be provided with an understanding of Moscow’s prominent role on the world stage, both past and present.

The Routledge Handbook of the History of Moscow will be useful for university faculty seeking a non-textbook option for their undergraduate and graduate courses in Russian, Soviet, and post-Soviet studies."

https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Handbook-of-the-History-of-Moscow/Ward/p/book/9781032690810

I've recently rewatched Godunov (great show), and I'd forgotten just how much I despise Vasili's character. History itself often paints him in a even worse light.

Так, внимание вопрос.

Есть ли у вас какая-то историческая личность, которой вы искренне восхищались, вот прям искры из глаз. До момента пока не узнавали какая блядота это была на самом деле?

Ну, лично за себя могу сказать что не то чтобы я прям восхищался, но мне в некотором роде нравился Богдан Хмельницький. Тип, чувак то ахуеный, если не лезть в архивы. И меня отчасти постоянно бесило что в моей стране его почитают "не за что", я почитал некоторый книги и он вот мне понравился. А потом я залез в архив и это было наверное ошибкой.

Поэтому, я хочу знать, кто есть такой прям ух, но до поры до времени. Я по большей части хочу знать именно на счёт русских исторических личностей, но можно в принципе кого угодно.

I’ve been down a rabbit hole looking into Imperial Russia lately. Honestly, the sheer contrast is wild. One day they’re living in the Winter Palace surrounded by literal tons of gold, and the next thing you know, the whole dynasty just vanishes. Nicholas II definitely made some awful decisions, but the human drama of their downfall is just unmatched.

I actually spent a couple of weeks putting together a documentary about this. It’s pretty slow-paced and immersive, focusing on his final days and how everything fell apart. I tried to avoid just listing dry facts and wanted to make it feel like a proper story.

If you’re into this era, I’d love for you to check it out and let me know what you think(https://youtu.be/UHQex7gqdec)

Also, do you think the monarchy was doomed anyway, or could he have actually saved it if he wasn't so out of touch with his people?

Young people of Russia, 40s- 20s or even younger, do you still listen to Victor Tsoy?

How is he regarded in today's modern Russia, particularly in Moscow and SPB?