Did Russian women “give birth in the field” to other popular myths about tsarist Russia, in which they still believe?

2024 Author: Richard Flannagan | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-15 23:55

Various historical facts (supposedly facts) are often used in order to emphasize the weakness and unsuitability for the life of modern people. Few of the women have not heard about the notorious "they used to give birth in the field and nothing", "but how did they live without washing machines and multicooker?" But such stereotypes have also flooded historical data, so which of this is true and which is not?

A large role in this was played by the Bolsheviks, who, in order to whitewash their own actions, tried to present themselves as liberators of the oppressed masses and as an unconditional blessing, without which the country would have no future. This distortion of the facts led to the fact that many historical data are perceived by contemporaries not at all objectively. It is not necessary to be a connoisseur of Soviet power to believe that until 1917 the overwhelming majority of the population lived not just badly, but practically survived, while Lenin and his associates saved the country from complete destruction, and people from extinction. This became almost the main goal of the cultural policy of the Bolsheviks - the denigration of Tsarist Russia, the formation of a negative image.

The imaginary intellectuals who worked to destroy the religious and national foundations of Russian culture came to the fore. Now, after the end of the Soviet period, there is access to objective data about pre-revolutionary Russia, but, for the most part, this remains accessible only to people of science, while textbooks and other scientific literature are still being published under the Bolshevik "sauce" about the illiterate and spiritless tsarist Russia, ferocious landowners, poor peasants.

Despite the fact that Tsarist Russia certainly least of all deserves idealization - this state was too archaic and clumsy, but the coup, instead of a competent and gradual reform, only exacerbated everything. It is not for nothing that historians agree that the Bolsheviks fought not to ensure that there were no poor in the country, but that there were no rich people.

The first myth. There was poverty and misery all around. Poverty and poverty

Perhaps this is the main idea that they so wanted to put in the heads of the descendants - the hunger and suffering of the common people. And so that those who are too curious do not have questions, they say, but what about these magnificent houses with stucco moldings, gardens and parks, the division into classes increased, because only the bourgeois lived well (a word that is abusive for a person who grew up in the Soviet Union), but the people just suffered day and night. Of course, if anything was lacking in tsarist Russia, it was "social elevators", there was a division into estates. It's funny, but the Europeans who lived in Russia and had the opportunity not only to compare the standard of living, but also to leave objective memories, write something completely different. Thus, Yuri Krizhanich, a Croat by origin, lived in Russia for fifteen years and noted the wealth and superiority of Russia in comparison not only with its closest neighbors, but also with Western and Southern Europe. He especially noted the life of peasants and ordinary townspeople, because even representatives of the lower classes wore shirts embroidered with gold and pearls. He writes that in no other kingdom do people live so well, do not eat bread, fish and meat. After Peter I started reforms, the peasants began to live worse, but still better than the European farmers.

The Bolsheviks promised high wages and factories for workers, but without cheap labor, planned development and industrial breakthrough would have been impossible. Therefore, it remains a controversial question as to what kind of government the workers lived better. During the reigns of Alexander III and Nicholas II, an inspection for factories was created, laws were passed to protect workers from factory owners. At that time in Europe there were no time limits for male labor, and in Russia it was already forbidden to work more than 11.5 hours a day and more than 10 hours on pre-holiday days or on the night shift. The factory owners were made responsible for industrial accidents. By that time, it was believed all over the world that Nicholas II had achieved ideal labor legislation.

The Bolsheviks, who promised mountains of gold, noticeably reduced the growth rate of workers' wages and reduced productivity by 7 times, which immediately affected wages, so workers began to receive up to one third of their 1914 income. Historians have calculated that in 1913 a simple carpenter could buy 135 kg of beef with his monthly wage, while the same worker in 1985 had only 75 kg. Moreover, it should be added that after the revolution it was only theoretically possible to purchase beef in such a volume, meat was issued with a coupon and no more than one kilogram per person per month.

The second myth. No freedoms and rights

It is believed that the landowners were almost slave owners, who robbed and humiliated the peasants in every possible way, and the life of the latter was absolutely worthless. In fact, the peasants had rights, despite the fact that they were the most weakly protected class, they could appear in court, move from estate to estate, and had the right to complain about their landowner. Catherine II could even complain personally, which the peasants used, and quite actively. Meanwhile, in European countries, the deprivation of the life of a peasant was not a crime at all.

In Russia, for the unintentional murder of a serf, a prison term was threatened until a special order of the tsar, and for intentional one it was possible to get the death penalty or go to hard labor. Catherine II could even take away the estate and confiscate property if the landowner was cruel and mistreated the peasants. An important fact, which is always hushed up - no one overthrew the king, he himself abdicated the throne and left. The republican system was established, the date of the elections was set, it was the weakness of the provisional government, not the tsar, and the Bolsheviks took advantage of it. Our compatriots had yet to learn what “Soviet-style freedom” was, rotting in the camps for an unsuccessfully spoken word or the wrong book.

The third myth. Land - to the peasants

The fact that all the land belonged to the landowners is written in textbooks, who needed it and why was mentioned above, while scientific works indicate that before the reform of 1861 in the European part of Russia there were 381 million acres of land, of which only one third (121 million) belonged to the landowners. The rest was in the ownership of the state, which provided it for processing by the peasant communities. After the reform, the landowners distributed more than three tens of a million of their lands, the rest were unable to cultivate and began to massively sell. Land was bought mainly by peasants. Beggar peasants.

By 1916, the landowners had only 40 million acres of land, and to a greater extent it was forest and other land that was not suitable for agriculture. By this time, 90% of arable land and 94% of livestock belonged to peasants. The division of the landlord's lands among the peasants did not have a special economic role. As a result of forced collectivization and the use of cheap labor, the agricultural peasantry was destroyed as a class, and a fairly prosperous one.

The fourth myth. Imperial Russia was a backward state, and the USSR was the impetus for development

Opinions are often voiced that without the USSR and the Bolsheviks it would not have been possible to defeat fascism, however, comparing the military capabilities of the country in 1914 and the Nazis in 1941 is at least illogical. Without such a coup in Russia, it would have had one of the strongest armies in the world. As for scientific achievements, then there is a logic: "since they were invented during the time of the communists, it means, thanks to them." Without the mass flight of the best minds from the country, repression and the destruction of the intellectual elite, scientific development in Russia would have proceeded faster and more efficiently, and certainly without the "help" of the communists.

By 1900, the Russian Empire was characterized by the following indicators: • ranked 4th in the world in terms of industrial production; • economic growth rates among these countries in Russia were the highest; • railways were built from the plan of one and a half thousand a year; • during the reign of Nicholas II, the economy began to work 4 times more efficiently; • Russia occupied one fourth of the world bread production; • 1st place in terms of agricultural production; • over the past 20 years, the population increased by 40%; • deposits in banks increased from 300 million to 2,200 billion

The fifth myth. The notorious birth in the field - as it really was

About the fact that she gave birth in the field, shook herself off and went, as proof of the fortress of the peasant women, they shout from every corner, but in fact this fact is not just distorted, but utterly exaggerated. The fact that there were no maternity hospitals in those days does not at all mean that the appearance of a child was treated without due respect and awe. But first things first. Pregnancy at that time was a common phenomenon, any woman of fertile age, if she is married, and has not just given birth, was more likely to be carried away. This was not perceived as a limitation for doing the usual work, so there were no indulgences, except perhaps for a long time. Considering that most women of those years worked hard and hard, including in the fields, it cannot be ruled out that childbirth could begin during harvesting or other agricultural work. But no one perceived this situation as ordinary, the woman in labor was brought home, where a midwife was already waiting for her - a specially trained woman who was supposed to help the child to be born, to organize the process of childbirth.

During such births, the mortality rate of both the mother and the child was very high, and not all families, even urban ones, could afford to call a doctor. Often the mother could not be saved, this motif is often found in Russian folk tales, where an evil stepmother appears instead of the deceased mother. The first maternity hospital appeared in 1764, but not at all in order to ensure the safety of the life of the mother and child, but in order to reduce the number of "street births" - women "without family, without a tribe" not only gave birth on the street, but also left babies on will of fate. But for the same reason, giving birth in such an institution was shameful, therefore respectable mothers of families continued to give birth to children at home. If the family could afford to be left without one worker, then the young mother did not do household chores for about a month or a month and a half. It was customary to visit a woman who had just given birth and bring ready-made food with her, thus facilitating her household chores.

Yes, the conditions for childbirth were more severe, but there were no births in the hem, and even more so in the field. And if we compare the level of childbirth mortality, it becomes clear that if it were not for the level of medicine and the conditions in which women in labor are now, then nothing would have changed. Historical facts are a stubborn thing and much has already been so invested in the heads of contemporaries by the curriculum that now it is difficult even to imagine, "what would happen if?" In any case, this is rather a reason to respect any era of your culture, realizing that there were no dark spots in it. Nurses - like the class that exists in pre-revolutionary Russia, only demonstrates once again that everything was completely different from what they are trying to present to us.