Why Crimea has become the most important territorial. The history of the Crimea from ancient times to the present day. History of Crimea since ancient times
On Tuesday, March 18, at 15:00 Moscow time, both chambers of the Federal Assembly - the State Duma and the Federation Council - gathered in the St. Federation. State Duma deputies, members of the Federation Council, regional leaders and representatives of civil society greeted Putin's first words with a standing ovation.
After the announcement of the Address, which was repeatedly interrupted by applause and shouts of "Russia!" The agreement was signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chairman of the Crimean State Council Vladimir Konstantinov, Crimean Prime Minister Sergei Aksenov and the head of the coordinating council for the organization of the Sevastopol city administration Alexei Chaly.
Thus, for the official entry of Crimea and Sevastopol into the Russian Federation, it remains to ratify the treaty in the Russian parliament and undergo verification by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation for compliance of this treaty with the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
State Duma deputies, who appeared in the Kremlin with St. George's ribbons on their chests, have already announced that they will ratify the document in an expedited manner. The deputies are scheduled to meet with the Crimean delegation tomorrow morning. And at 19:00 the Speaker of the Federation Council Valentina Matvienko and members of the upper chamber will meet with the Crimean delegation.
Note that on Wednesday, March 19, the president will hold a meeting with members of the government, which will discuss the tasks set by him in the December Address, dedicated to the promotion of the inaugural May 2012 decrees. However, it will also talk about the situation with Crimea, since among the topics of the meeting there is also the topic of the budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation for 2014-2016. And Crimea has already received financial assistance from the Russian Federation for 15 billion rubles, and after the adoption of Crimea and Sevastopol into the Russian Federation, amendments will have to be made to the federal budget of the Russian Federation.
Putin was greeted with standing ovation
Putin's statement in connection with Crimea's request for admission to the Russian Federation was broadcast not only by federal channels of the Russian Federation, but also at a rally in the center of Sevastopol, as well as on TV of the Republic of Crimea.
There was no legislative need for today's Putin's Address, but the President of Russia, who had signed a decree on the recognition of the Republic of Crimea as an independent state the day before, had the opportunity to explain to the whole world Russia's point of view on the situation around Crimea. It is his "personal desire" to deliver the Address, explained his press secretary Dmitry Peskov.
As the president said, relations with the brotherly Ukrainian people have always been and will be key for Russia. “Yes, we understood all this well, felt both with our hearts and souls, but we had to proceed from the prevailing realities, and build good-neighborly relations with independent Ukraine on a new basis,” the head of state said.
The referendum in Crimea was held in full accordance with democratic procedures, the president said, recalling that more than 82% of voters took part in the voting. “More than 96% were in favor of reunification with Russia. The figures are extremely convincing, "the head of the Russian state emphasized.
“In order to understand why such a choice was made, it is enough to know the history of Crimea, to know what Russia means for Crimea and Crimea for Russia,” he said.
According to Putin, in Crimea, literally everything is permeated shared history and pride. “Here is Ancient Chersonese, where the holy prince Vladimir was baptized. His spiritual feat - his conversion to Orthodoxy - predetermined a common cultural, value, civilizational basis that unites the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, ”the head of the Russian state is convinced. “In Crimea, there are graves of Russian soldiers, whose courage in 1783 Crimea was taken under the Russian state. Crimea is Sevastopol, a legendary city, a city great destiny, a fortified city and homeland of the Russian Black Sea navy, ”Putin stressed.
“Crimea is Balaklava and Kerch, Malakhov Kurgan, Sapun Gora, - each of the places is sacred for us, these are symbols of military glory and unprecedented valor,” the President noted. “Crimea is a unique fusion of cultures and traditions of different peoples, and in this way it is so similar to Greater Russia, where not a single ethnic group has disappeared for centuries”. “Russians and Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars, representatives of other nations lived and worked side by side on the Crimean land, preserving their identity, traditions, language and faith,” the president said and called the location of Crimea outside the borders of Russia “an egregious historical injustice”.
“All these years, both citizens and many public figures have repeatedly raised this topic: they said that Crimea is a primordially Russian land, and Sevastopol is a Russian city,” Putin said.
The Russian-speaking population of Ukraine is tired of the attempts of his "forced assimilation", and the entire Ukrainian people - of the actions of the authorities in Kiev, for decades "milking" the country and forcing people to leave for "day jobs," Putin said. “Time after time attempts were made to deprive Russians of their historical memory, and sometimes native language, make it an object of forced assimilation, "he said, noting that" Russians, like other citizens of Ukraine, suffered from a constant, permanent political and state crisis that has been shaking Ukraine for more than 20 years. "
“I understand why people in Ukraine wanted changes. Over the years of independence - independence, the authorities, as they say, got sick of them, they just got sick of them, ”the Russian president said.
According to him, "the presidents, prime ministers, and parliament members changed, but their attitude towards their country and their people did not change: they milked Ukraine, fought among themselves for powers, assets and financial flows."
“At the same time, the powers that be were not very interested in what and how they live simple people, including why millions of citizens do not see prospects for themselves at home and are forced to go abroad for daily work. I would like to note, not to some Silicon Valley, but specifically to earn daily wages, ”Putin said, recalling that almost 3 million people worked in Russia last year alone.
Nationalists, Russophobes, anti-Semites largely determine the course of today's Ukraine, said Russian President Vladimir Putin. “The main perpetrators of the coup were nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes and anti-Semites. It is they who largely determine life in Ukraine even today, ”Putin said in his address.
He said that there is still no legitimate government in Ukraine, and many state bodies are under the control of radical elements. “There is still no legitimate executive power in Ukraine. There is no one to talk to, ”Putin said addressing the Federal Assembly. “Many state bodies have been usurped by impostors. At the same time, they do not control anything in the country, and they themselves are often under the control of radicals, ”the president stressed. “You can even get an appointment with some ministers of the current government only with the permission of the Maidan militants. This is not a joke, this is the reality of today's life, ”Putin said.
“I well understand those who came out to the Maidan with peaceful slogans, speaking out against corruption, ineffective government, poverty. The right to peaceful protest, democratic procedures, elections exist in order to change the government, which does not suit people. " “But those who were behind the latest events in Ukraine pursued other goals. They were preparing a coup d'etat. Another. They planned to seize power, did not stop at anything. Terror, murders and pogroms were used, ”Putin said.
“First of all, the new so-called authorities introduced a scandalous bill on the revision of the language policy, which directly infringed upon the rights of national minorities. True, the foreign sponsors of these today's politicians, the curators of today's authorities immediately pulled back the initiators of this venture. They are smart people, we must give them their due, and they understand what attempts to build an ethnically pure Ukrainian state will lead to. The bill was put aside, but clearly as a reserve, ”Putin said.
As for the statements about the alleged aggression or annexation, the president said that there was no aggression or intervention in Crimea, and thanked the Ukrainian servicemen stationed on the peninsula who did not provoke an armed conflict.
“I want to thank those Ukrainian servicemen - and this is a large contingent, 22 thousand people with full weapons - who did not go to bloodshed and did not stain themselves with blood,” Putin said in his Address to the Federal Assembly.
“We are being told about some kind of Russian intervention in Crimea, aggression. It's strange to hear that. For some reason, I don’t remember a single case from history that the intervention took place without a single shot and without human casualties, ”the President of the Russian Federation emphasized.
He recalled that Russia did not send troops to Crimea, but only strengthened its grouping, while not exceeding the maximum staffing level provided for by an international treaty. “Yes, the President of the Russian Federation received from the upper house of parliament the right to use the Armed Forces in Ukraine, but, strictly speaking, he has not even used this right yet. The Russian Armed Forces did not enter Crimea, they were already there in accordance with an international treaty, "Putin said, adding that Russia" did not even exceed the maximum staff strength of our Armed Forces in Crimea - and it is provided for in the amount of 25 thousand people. ... It just wasn't necessary. "
Russia has always met Ukraine halfway, in particular in matters of border delimitation, hoping that the interests and rights of Russian citizens on its territory will be respected, President Putin said.
The head of state recalled that at one time he immediately responded to the request of the then President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma to speed up the work on border delimitation. “Although, in fact and legally, this finally made Crimea a Ukrainian territory,” he said. The President noted that the main thing then was to prevent territorial disputes. But it was necessary to develop good-neighborliness on the basis of international law.
The President also noted that "it would be right if there are three equal languages in Crimea - Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar." “We respect the representatives of all nationalities living in Crimea. This is their common home, their small homeland, ”Putin said.
According to the President, all measures should be taken that will complete the process of rehabilitation of the Crimean Tatar people, which will restore their rights in full.
There is a widespread belief that Crimea is of strategic importance to Russia's security and this was the reason for its return in 2014.
Let's check if this is so.
To assess the strategic importance of Crimea for the security of Russia, it is necessary to find out from what modern threats the peninsula and the military bases located on it can protect the country.
1. Nuclear strike.
Will Crimea somehow protect Russia from a nuclear strike?
Unlikely.
Early warning systems and anti-missile missiles can be deployed in other regions no less, and even more efficiently. Smolensk and Pskov are located to the west, not to mention Kaliningrad. Maykop is at the same latitude as Sevastopol. Sochi to the south.
In general, the options for the placement of detection systems and anti-missile missiles are quite enough without the Crimea. There may be some advantages for locating detection systems on the peninsula, but they are unlikely to be so fundamental.
At the same time, let me remind you that Russia has military satellites that can track launches from almost any point. And if I'm not mistaken, it is satellites that are today the main means of detecting missile launches.
You can go from the other side - what if the United States had placed anti-missiles or launchers right in the Crimea?
However, from the point of view of the deployment of American interceptor missiles or nuclear weapons, Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk are just as dangerous. Moreover, Kharkiv and Dnepropetrovsk are located closer to Moscow than Crimea. And Sumy is even closer.
It turns out that in order to prevent a nuclear strike or deploy nuclear deterrent forces, Crimea does not have any unique advantages over other regions - neither for Russia nor for the United States.
2. Airspace control.
The same arguments can be made here.
Radar systems and airbases can be deployed to the south and west of the Crimea in other regions of Russia.
Crimea is closer than other regions to Romania and Bulgaria, but is this really so important, given the prospect of deploying NATO forces in Ukraine, for example, in Kharkov?
Is it really more convenient to intercept and track NATO reconnaissance aircraft and drones from the territory of Crimea, which can be based near Kharkov, than from Belgorod, Voronezh and Kursk?
Turkish airspace control?
But Sochi, Maykop, Krasnodar, Novorossiysk are located about the same distance from Turkey as Crimea.
Open the map and see for yourself.
3. Control over the Black Sea.
Sevastopol is the base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
But the fleet could be relocated to Novorossiysk, there are all the necessary conditions for this.
Moreover, the project for the construction of military bases in Novorossiysk really existed and it seems that they even began to be built, just after the return of Crimea, this project lost its meaning.
You can again go from the other side - what if a US naval base appeared in Sevastopol?
But the United States might as well build a base in Odessa.
As with the nuclear deterrent and launch detection forces, there are alternatives to Crimea for both Russia and the United States. The alternative for Russia is Novorossiysk. The alternative for the USA is Odessa.
Therefore, there is no need to talk about the uniqueness of Crimea even in relation to the deployment of naval bases.
And how can the American fleet threaten the security of Russia from the Black Sea so much?
Tomahawks?
But excuse me, the US fleet that entered the Black Sea is itself under attack, which Russia can inflict from its territory without even using the fleet. Medium and short-range missiles, which Russia has, as well as aviation, make it possible to destroy enemy ships anywhere in the Black Sea.
It is known from the history of the Second World War that even controlling the Crimea, Germany was not the mistress of the Black Sea. And this at a time when there were no modern missiles and tactical nuclear weapons.
It is also known from history that in the event of a war, it is easier to enter the Black Sea than to leave it.
Therefore, the uniqueness and importance of Crimea from the point of view of Russia's security is somewhat exaggerated.
Another question is that the relocation of the Black Sea fleet from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk is a very costly undertaking. But it is unlikely that it would have become more costly than the construction of a bridge to Crimea, other investments in the development of the peninsula, as well as losses caused by sanctions.
If we add up all the costs that Russia incurred after the return of Crimea, then they will probably exceed the cost of relocating the fleet to Novorossiysk.
Separately, it should be noted that Crimea does not have a land connection with Russia.
If we are talking about defense potential, then the standing bridge does not play a role, because it itself is a very vulnerable object and can be quickly disabled, after which Crimea will actually become an island.
Crimea and the military bases located on its territory are very vulnerable in terms of supply.
Therefore, Crimea does not so much ensure Russia's security as it becomes a vulnerability that Russia itself must defend.
Let me also remind you of the purpose of the initial annexation of Crimea to Russia, which was carried out by Suvorov by order of Catherine.
The slave trade flourished in Crimea, Russians were sent to Crimea, whom the Turks took prisoner during raids. For the ransom of the captured, government funds were sent, quite large. Border provinces suffered from regular raids - it was akin to modern terrorism.
Suvorov was instructed to take Crimea in order to end the "terrorist threat" emanating from the Crimean Khanate. And that was done.
The Crimean Khanate of those times can be compared with the Ichkeria of the 90s, which was a source of banditry, terrorism, a place of human trafficking, a place where counterfeit dollars were issued, and so on.
But in 2014, Crimea did not pose the same security threats to Russia that existed in the era of Catherine.
You can put it like this:
In terms of security, Crimea did not stand out among other regions of southeastern Ukraine - Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, Sumy regions.
Therefore, in order to fundamentally strengthen Russia's security in the western direction, it was necessary to annex not only Crimea, but Crimea together with eastern Ukraine, that is, create New Russia.
Crimea without eastern Ukraine, without Novorossia is more of Russia's vulnerability than protection from external threats.
However, Crimea still has strategic importance.
But this significance is not military, but reputational, domestic political.
Crimea bears great reputation value, provides the authorities with the image of defenders of Russia and collectors of Russian lands.
Crimea is the pride of Russia. It is not for nothing that in the past it was called the pearl in the crown of the Russian Empire. And here we must not forget that the modern Russian government is the restorers of pre-revolutionary Russia in modern realities, which means that "the pearl in the crown of the Russian Empire" is of particular importance to them.
Crimea is a significant place.
This is its strategic meaning.
That is why the president talked a lot about Korsun, sacred places, history, but never once said about the defense potential and the importance of Crimea for the country's security.
And the military bases did not move from Crimea, not because there is nowhere or too expensive, but because it would become a shame, a sign of retreat, defeat, and the president, who made the decision to move military bases from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk under pressure from external forces, forever would get a reputation as a defeatist, a loser, unable to defend the interests of the country.
And the Kremlin did not want to become a loser.
The Kremlin does not like to look like a loser, on the contrary - the image of the modern Russian government is built on victories - victory at the Olympics, Soviet victory in the Great Patriotic War, privatized by the modern Russian government, the liberation of Palmyra ...
The Kremlin has been triumphant in recent years, with or without reason. Therefore, it was impossible to allow an obvious and obvious retreat, defeat, surrender of Crimea - a symbolic, historical, sacred place.
Crimea is indeed of strategic importance.
But this is not a military-defensive, but a military-historical, reputation, image, sacred meaning.
But also strategic.
The favorable climate, picturesque and generous nature of Taurida create almost ideal conditions for human existence. People have inhabited these lands for a long time, therefore, the history of Crimea, rich in events, going back centuries, is extremely interesting. To whom and when did the peninsula belong? Let's figure it out!
History of Crimea since ancient times
Numerous historical artifacts found by archaeologists here suggest that the ancestors of modern man began to inhabit the fertile lands almost 100 thousand years ago. This is evidenced by the remains of the Paleolithic and Mesolithic cultures in and Murzak-Koba discovered in the site.
At the beginning of the XII century BC. e. On the peninsula there appeared the tribes of the Indo-European nomads of the Cimmerians, whom ancient historians considered the first people who tried to create in the beginnings of a kind of statehood.
At the dawn of the Bronze Age, they were driven out of the steppe regions by the warlike Scythians, moving closer to the sea coast. The foothill areas and the southern coast were then inhabited by the Taurus, according to some reports, who came from the Caucasus, and Slavic tribes who migrated from modern Transnistria settled in the north-west of the unique region.
Ancient flowering in history
As the history of Crimea testifies, at the end of the 7th century. BC e. the Greeks began to actively master it. Immigrants from Greek cities created colonies, which eventually began to flourish. The fertile land gave excellent harvests of barley and wheat, and the presence of convenient harbors promoted the development of sea trade. Crafts were actively developing, shipping was improved.
Port cities grew and grew richer, uniting over time into an alliance, which became the basis for the creation of a powerful Bosporan kingdom with its capital in, or present-day Kerch. The flourishing of an economically developed state with a strong army and excellent navy dates back to the 3rd-2nd centuries. BC e. Then an important alliance was concluded with Athens, half of whose grain needs were provided by the Bosporians, their kingdom includes the lands of the Black Sea coast beyond the Kerch Strait, Feodosia, Chersonesos, flourish. But the period of prosperity did not last long. The unreasonable policy of a number of kings led to the depletion of the treasury, the reduction of military personnel.
The nomads took advantage of the situation and began to ravage the country. at first he was forced to enter the Pontic kingdom, then became a protectorate of Rome, and then - of Byzantium. Subsequent invasions of barbarians, among which it is worth highlighting the Sarmatians and the Goths, weakened it even more. Of the necklaces of the once magnificent settlements, only the Roman fortresses in Sudak and Gurzuf remained intact.
Who owned the peninsula in the Middle Ages?
From the history of Crimea it is clear that from the IV to the XII centuries. Bulgarians and Turks, Hungarians, Pechenegs and Khazars were noted for their presence here. The Russian prince Vladimir, seizing Chersonesos by storm, is baptized here in 988. The formidable ruler of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Vytautas, invades Taurida in 1397, completing the campaign of c. Part of the land is included in the state, founded by the Goths. By the middle of the 13th century, the steppe regions were controlled by the Golden Horde. In the next century, some territories were redeemed by the Genoese, and the rest were submitted to the troops of Khan Mamai.
The collapse of the Golden Horde marked the creation of the Crimean Khanate here in 1441, 
independently existed for 36 years. In 1475 the Ottomans invaded here, to whom the Khan swore allegiance. They expelled the Genoese from the colonies, took the capital of the state of Theodoro, the city, by assault, exterminating almost all the Goths. The khanate with the administrative center in was called Eyalat Kafa in the Ottoman Empire. Then the ethnic composition of the population is finally formed. Tatars are moving from a nomadic lifestyle to a sedentary one. Not only cattle breeding begins to develop, but also agriculture, gardening, small tobacco plantations appear.
The Ottomans, at their peak of power, are completing the expansion. They move from direct conquest to a policy of hidden expansion, also described in history. The Khanate becomes an outpost for raids on the border territories of Russia and the Commonwealth. The stolen jewels regularly replenish the treasury, and the captured Slavs are sold into slavery. From the XIV to the XVII centuries. Russian tsars undertake several campaigns to the Crimea through the Wild Field. However, none of them leads to the pacification of a troubled neighbor.
When did the Russian Empire come to the Crimean power?
An important stage in the history of Crimea -. By the beginning of the 18th century. it becomes one of its main strategic goals. Possession of it will allow not only to secure the land border from the south and to make it internal. The peninsula is destined to become the cradle of the Black Sea Fleet, which will provide access to the Mediterranean trade routes.
However, significant success in achieving this goal was achieved only in the last third of the century - during the reign of Catherine the Great. The army under the leadership of General-in-Chief Dolgorukov captured Tavrida in 1771. The Crimean Khanate was declared independent, and Khan Girey, who was a protege of the Russian crown, was erected on its throne. Russian-Turkish war 1768-1774 undermined the power of Turkey. Combining military force with cunning diplomacy, Catherine II achieved that in 1783 the Crimean nobility swore allegiance to her.
After that, the infrastructure and economy of the region begins to develop at an impressive pace. Retired Russian soldiers settle here. 
Greeks, Germans and Bulgarians come here in droves. In 1784, a military fortress was laid, which was destined to play a prominent role in the history of Crimea and Russia as a whole. Roads are being laid everywhere. Active cultivation of grapes contributes to the development of winemaking. The south coast is becoming more and more popular among the nobility. turns into a resort town. For a hundred years the population Crimean peninsula increases almost 10 times, its ethnic type changes. In 1874, 45% of Crimeans were Great Russians and Little Russians, about 35% were Crimean Tatars.
The domination of the Russians in the Black Sea seriously worried a number of European countries. A coalition of the decrepit Ottoman Empire, Great Britain, Austria, Sardinia and France unleashed. The mistakes of the command, which became the reason for the defeat in the battle, the backlog in the technical equipment of the army led to the fact that, despite the unparalleled heroism of the defenders shown during the one-year siege, the allies took Sevastopol. After the end of the conflict, the city was returned to Russia in exchange for a number of concessions.
During the Civil War in the Crimea, there were many tragic events that are reflected in history. From the spring of 1918, German and French expeditionary corps operated here, supported by the Tatars. The puppet government of Solomon Samoilovich of Crimea was replaced by the military power of Denikin and Wrangel. Only in the troops of the Red Army was it possible to take control of the peninsular perimeter. After that, the so-called Red Terror began, as a result of which from 20 to 120 thousand people died.
In October 1921, it was announced that the Autonomous Crimean Soviet Socialist Republic in the RSFSR was created from the districts of the former Taurida province, which was renamed into the Crimean region in 1946. The new government paid great attention to her. The policy of industrialization led to the emergence of the Kamysh-Burunsky shipyard, and a mining and processing plant was built there, and a metallurgical plant was built there.
Further equipment was prevented by the Great Patriotic War. 
Already in August 1941, about 60 thousand ethnic Germans, who lived on a permanent basis, were deported from here, and in November Crimea was abandoned by the forces of the Red Army. On the peninsula, there were only two centers of resistance to the Nazis - the Sevastopol fortified area and, but they fell by the fall of 1942. After the retreat Soviet troops here they started to actively act partisan detachments... The occupation authorities pursued a policy of genocide against the "inferior" races. As a result of this, by the time of liberation from the Nazis, the population of Taurida had decreased by almost three times.
The occupiers were expelled from here. After that, the facts of mass cooperation with the fascists of the Crimean Tatars and representatives of some other national minorities were revealed. By the decision of the government of the USSR, more than 183 thousand people of Crimean Tatar origin, a significant number of Bulgarians, Greeks and Armenians were forcibly deported to remote regions of the country. In 1954, the region was included in the Ukrainian SSR at the suggestion of N.S. Khrushchev.
The newest history of Crimea and our days
After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, Crimea remained in Ukraine, gaining autonomy with the right to have its own constitution and president. After lengthy negotiations, the basic law of the republic was approved by the Verkhovna Rada. Yuri Meshkov became the first president of the ARC in 1992. Subsequently, relations between the official Kiev and aggravated. The Ukrainian parliament adopted a decision in 1995 to abolish the presidency on the peninsula, and in 1998 
President Kuchma signed a decree approving the new Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, with the provisions of which not all residents of the republic agreed.
Internal contradictions that coincided in time with serious political exacerbations between Ukraine and The Russian Federation, in 2013 they split the society. One part of the Crimean residents was in favor of returning to the Russian Federation, the other - in favor of staying in Ukraine. On this occasion, a referendum was held on March 16, 2014. Most of the Crimeans who took part in the plebiscite voted for reunification with Russia.
Back in the days of the USSR, many were built on Tavrida, which was considered an all-Union health resort. had no analogues in the world at all. The development of the region as a resort continued both in the Ukrainian period of the history of Crimea and in the Russian one. Despite all the interstate contradictions, it still remains a favorite vacation spot for both Russians and Ukrainians. This land is infinitely beautiful and is ready to warmly welcome guests from any country in the world! We offer in conclusion documentary, pleasant viewing!
235 years ago, on April 19, 1783, Catherine II issued a manifesto, according to which Crimea, Taman and Kuban became part of the Russian Empire. This is how the centuries-old confrontation between the steppe and the Slavs ended. The Moscow kingdom fought for a long time with the Crimean Khanate, Devlet Girey burned Moscow, Russia saved only a great victory at the Youngsters.
Under Ivan the Terrible, Moscow fought on two fronts, with the Polish-Lithuanian state and the Crimean Khanate. The West won, but Muscovy won over the steppe, and this was a huge achievement: Crimea tried to repeat the success of the Golden Horde and make Russia its vassal.
Tatar Crimea was a multinational state. Alans and Polovtsians, Armenians, Greeks, Goths and descendants of warriors from the Anglo-Saxon squad who were in Byzantine service lived in it. According to legend, the Saxons, who moved to Byzantium after the Normans conquered England, were sent to serve in the Crimea. There they married girls from Gothic families (Goth Christians, immigrants from Scandinavia, settled in Crimea during the Great Nations Migration) and formed a small, ephemeral state - New England. Under the rule of the Crimean khans and the patronage of the Ottoman Empire, the remnants of these peoples for the most part adopted Islam. Crimea raided the Slavic lands, through it millions of captives went to the slave markets. He grew rich, but his prosperity was ephemeral.
ru.wikipedia.org
The Crimean Khanate was bordered by two great neighbors: Poland and the Muscovy. The Polish kingdom did not know a strong central government, and gradually tended to decline, and Moscow became stronger and stronger. The Poles, with varying success, caught the flying Tatar detachments, and Moscow fenced off from the Crimeans by fortresses and serifs and moved deeper and deeper into the steppe frontier, turning wastelands into arable lands. “Wake” was paid to Crimea, and this continued until Peter I, but the balance of power shifted more and more in favor of Russia. The great campaign against Moscow, which the Crimea undertook in 1591, ended in defeat under the walls of the city and this did not happen again. But Crimea continued to remain an enemy of the Russian kingdom: during the Prut campaign, the Tatar cavalry inflicted great harm on the army of Peter I.
In the middle of the 18th century, the time for revenge came: Minikh, Lassi and Dolgoruky invaded the Crimea and burned the cities, the khanate was ruined. It could not defend itself, it could not be defended by the degraded Ottoman Empire - the annexation of Crimea to Russia was inevitable. This was due to dynastic intrigues, popular uprisings and great bloodshed, but in the end the last Crimean khan, along with a small court, went to live in Russia, and the peninsula became part of the empire.
ru.wikipedia.org
The wars of Catherine the Great were expensive: they were accompanied by huge human losses, and the biological status of the population of the Russian Empire deteriorated. The men became shorter, this continued for a long time. These wars were financed with loans from Dutch bankers: the debts were paid only at the end of the next century. The cost of the army caused monstrous inflation and financial disruption, which was overcome only under the empress's grandson, Nicholas I. But as a result Russian empire became another country with a large population, lying in the zone of confident farming with black soils, obtained thanks to the Crimea, access to the Black Sea.
ru.wikipedia.org
Crimea was a vulnerable spot of the empire: during the Eastern War of 1853–56, the Russian army was defeated here and the fleet was killed, for the second time Russia entered into a confrontation with the West over the Crimea in our days. By this time, he had become an all-Russian dream, a symbol of the happy Soviet era, when the sun was brighter, ice cream was sweeter, and a vacation in Crimea seemed like a ticket to paradise. The peninsula has become the personification of something intangible, but extremely important, therefore it is dear to people.
For centuries, Crimea plundered Russian lands, and the Muscovy was hatching plans to conquer the Crimea, poor Soviet people enjoyed the Crimean sun for decades, and as a result, such a strong connection was formed that, it seems, neither weapon nor time would take.
ru.wikipedia.org/NASA
70 years of existence Soviet Union left us a legacy of many controversial events. History has shed light on some of them, but others are still controversial.
How did the name of the USSR appear?
Back in 1913, Lenin dreamed of "a huge historical step from medieval fragmentation to the future socialist unity of all countries." In the first years after the collapse of the empire, the question of such unity became especially acute. Stalin proposed that the independent republics formed after the revolution be included in the RSFSR on the basis of autonomy rights, while Lenin, on the contrary, showing "national liberalism", called for a federation of equal republics.
On December 30, 1922, the First All-Union Congress of Soviets was held in Moscow, which, relying on the Leninist version, adopted a declaration on the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which included the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR, the BSSR and the Transcaucasian SFSR.
Interestingly, formally, according to the Constitution, each of the republics retained the right to secede from the USSR; they could also independently enter into diplomatic relations with foreign states.
Who funded industrialization?
The leadership of the USSR, having only restored the destroyed economy, set the task of catching up with the Western countries that had gone ahead. This required accelerated industrialization, which required considerable funds.
In 1928, Stalin approved a forced approach, which assumed to eliminate the backlog in two five-year plans. The peasantry had to pay for the costs of the economic miracle, but this was not enough.
The country needed currency, which the party leadership obtained in various ways, for example, by selling paintings from the Hermitage. But, according to economists, there were other sources as well. According to some researchers, the main source of industrialization was loans from American bankers, who later counted on the creation of a Jewish Republic in Crimea.
Why did Stalin abandon Bolshevism?
Soon after gaining sole power, Stalin departed from the revolutionary values of Bolshevism. A clear evidence of this is his fight against the "Leninist Guard". Many landmarks marked October Revolution, turned out to be unattainable, and the ideas were not viable.
Thus, communism became a distant prospect that could not be realized without the establishment of socialism. The Bolshevik slogan "All power to the Soviets!" Has also undergone a change. Stalin came to a new formula where socialism is power concentrated in one hand.
The ideas of internationalism are now being replaced by state patriotism. Stalin promotes the rehabilitation of historical figures and prohibits the persecution of believers. [
Historians are divided about the reasons for Stalin's departure from the Bolshevik slogans. According to some, this is due to the desire to unite the country, while others explain this by the need to change the political course.
Why did Stalin start the purges in 1937?
The Great Terror of 1937-1938 still raises many questions for historians and researchers. Today, few people doubt Stalin's involvement in the "mass cleansing", opinions differ only when counting the victims. According to some reports, the number of those shot in political and criminal cases can reach up to 1 million people.
The opinions of researchers also do not agree on the reasons for the mass repressions. According to the historian Yuri Zhukov, the repression was caused by the confrontation between Stalin and the regional party bodies, which, fearing the loss of their posts, obstructed the holding of elections to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. But another Russian historian Alexei Teplyakov is sure that the "Great Terror" was an action planned and prepared by Stalin.
For the French historian Nicolas Verte, repression became an action of the mechanism of "social engineering", completing the policy of dispossession and deportation. And the German expert Karl Schlögel believes that "the terror initiated by the elite in the name of the great goal of getting rid of enemies was readily picked up and used by many structures and citizens to solve their problems."
Why was the powerful Red Army defeated in the first months of the war?
The beginning of the Great Patriotic War for the Red Army it was disastrous. By July 10, 1941, the Red Army, according to some sources, had lost about 850 thousand people. Historians explain the reasons for the defeats by a complex of various factors that combined and led to the catastrophe.
A special place among such reasons is occupied by the deployment of Soviet troops, which, according to the September 1940 version of the Fundamentals of Deployment, was designed not for border defense, but for preemptive strikes against Germany. The formations of the Red Army, divided into echelons, favored the successful advance of the German troops.
Recently, great emphasis has been placed on the miscalculations of the General Staff, which used the outdated doctrine of warfare. Some researchers, in particular V. Soloviev and Yu. Kirshin, find direct culprits - Stalin, Zhukov, Voroshilov, who “did not understand the content of the initial period of the war, made mistakes in planning, in strategic deployment, in determining the direction of the main attack of the German troops ".
Why did Khrushchev condemn Stalin's personality cult?
On February 25, 1956, at the XX Congress of the CPSU, Khrushchev made a report "On the cult of the individual and its consequences", in which he mercilessly criticized the former leader. Today, many historians generally see behind a correct, albeit biased assessment of Stalin's personality not only a desire to restore historical justice, but also to solve their own problems.
In particular, by shifting all responsibility to Stalin, Khrushchev to some extent relieved himself of part of the blame for participating in the mass repressions in Ukraine. “The accusations leveled against Stalin, coupled with the rehabilitation of the victims of unjustified executions, could have softened the anger of the population,” writes American historian Grover Ferr.
But there are other hypotheses, according to which criticism of Stalin was a weapon in the fight against members of the Presidium - Malenkov, Kaganovich, Molotov, which could prevent the implementation of Khrushchev's plans to reorganize the state apparatus.
Why was Crimea given to Ukraine?
The transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954 became a resonant event that resonated many years later. Now the emphasis is being placed not only on the legality of such a procedure, but also on the reasons for such a decision.
Opinions on this matter are different: some argue that in this way the USSR avoided the transfer of Crimea to the Jewish Republic according to "credit history" with American bankers, others suggest that it was a gift to Ukraine in honor of the celebration of the 300th anniversary of the Pereyaslav Rada.
Among the reasons mentioned are unfavorable conditions for farming in the steppe regions of the peninsula and the territorial proximity of Crimea to Ukraine. Many support the version according to which the “Ukrainization” of Crimea was supposed to contribute to the restoration of the destroyed national economy.
Why did they send troops to Afghanistan?
The question of the expediency of bringing Soviet troops into Afghanistan began to be raised already in the perestroika period. A moral assessment was also given to the decision of the Soviet leadership, which cost the lives of more than 15 thousand internationalist soldiers.
Today it is already obvious that along with the declared justification for the introduction of a limited contingent of Soviet troops into the territory of the DRA, as assistance to the "friendly Afghan people", there was another, no less compelling reason.
The former head of the Illegal Intelligence Directorate of the KGB of the USSR, Major General Yuri Drozdov, noted that the introduction of Soviet troops into Afghanistan was an objective necessity, since the actions of the United States intensified in the country, in particular, technical observation posts were set up to the southern borders of the USSR.
Why did the Politburo decide on Perestroika?
By the mid-1980s, the USSR came close to an economic crisis. The devastation in agriculture, the chronic shortage of goods and the lack of industrial development demanded immediate measures.
It is known that the reforms were developed on behalf of Andropov, but Gorbachev initiated them. “Apparently, comrades, we all need to rebuild,” the word Gorbachev said was picked up by the media and quickly became the slogan of a new ideology.
Today, the organizers of Perestroika are accused of the fact that, consciously or not, the reforms they initiated led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Some researchers argue that the reforms were conceived to seize property by the Soviet elite. But Sergei Kara-Murza sees the victory of Perestroika as the result of the activities of the Western special services. The ideologues of Perestroika themselves have repeatedly stated that the reforms were exclusively of a socio-economic nature.
Who was behind the 1991 putsch?
On August 20, 1991, Gorbachev planned to sign the Union Treaty, in which the new position of the Soviet republics was to be outlined. But the event was disrupted by a coup. The conspirators then called the need to preserve the USSR as the main reason for the coup. According to the GKChP, this was done "in order to overcome a deep and comprehensive crisis, political, ethnic and civil confrontation, chaos and anarchy."
But today, many researchers call the August coup a farce and consider those who benefitted from the collapse of the country as the main directors. For example, a former member of the Russian Government, Mikhail Poltoranin, claims that "the 1991 coup was played by Boris Yeltsin together with Mikhail Gorbachev."
However, some researchers still believe that the purpose of the State Emergency Committee was to seize power, for which they wanted to "overthrow Gorbachev" and "prevent Yeltsin from coming to power."
