CHAPTER 1. BEGINNING OF BOARD AND CONDITIONS FOR FORMATION

POLITICAL VIEWS OF NICHOLAS II (1881-1905).

§1.1. Conditions and factors for the formation of the political views of the Tsarevich

Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov (1881-1894).

§1.2. The first period of the reign of Nicholas II: the formation of a conservative policy (1894-1905).

CHAPTER 2. POLITICAL VIEWS AND STATE ACTIVITIES OF EMPEROR NICHOLAS II AFTER THE FIRST

§2.1. State activities and political views of Nicholas II in the context of socio-political development Russian Empire(October

1905-1914).

§2.2. Transformation of political views and state activity

Recommended list of dissertations

• Military organizational activity of Nicholas II as head of state 2000, Doctor of Historical Sciences Kryazhev, Yuri Nikolaevich

• Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich in the socio-political life of the Russian Empire: the end of the 70s. XIX century - 1915 2013, Candidate of Historical Sciences Sak, Ksenia Vasilievna

• Political and dynastic ideas of Russian conservatives and members of the Imperial House, late 19th - early 20th century 2010, candidate of historical sciences Sofin, Dmitry Mikhailovich

• The struggle of factions in the court environment of Nicholas II 2005, candidate of historical sciences Novikov, Vladimir Vladimirovich

• History of the evolution of Russian conservatism in the first half of the 19th century. 2005, candidate of historical sciences Korendyaseva, Anna Nikolaevna

Introduction to the thesis (part of the abstract) on the topic "Political views and state activities of Nicholas II: 1881 - February 1917"

Similar theses in the specialty "National History", 07.00.02 VAK code

• Official ceremonies in the urban space of St. Petersburg and Moscow during the reign of Nicholas II 2013, candidate of historical sciences Limanova, Svetlana Andreevna

• The End of Russian Dynastic Diplomacy: Foreign Trips of Emperor Nicholas II in 1896-1909: based on materials from the Russian and European press 2007, candidate of historical sciences Nizalova, Elena Valeryanovna

• Representatives of the Württemberg dynasty in the political history of Russia, the end of the 18th - the middle of the 19th centuries. 2001, candidate of historical sciences Maleeva, Zhanna Vladimirovna

• Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich (1779 - 1831) in the political life and public opinion of Russia 2000, Candidate of Historical Sciences Kashtanova, Olga Sergeevna

• The February Revolution of 1917 in the Assessment of Soviet and Russian Foreign Historiography of the 1920s and 30s 2011, candidate of historical sciences Yakubovskaya, Elena Vladimirovna

Dissertation conclusion on the topic "Patriotic History", Shishlyannikova, Galina Ivanovna

List of references for dissertation research candidate of historical sciences Shishlyannikova, Galina Ivanovna, 2009

Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for review and obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors related to the imperfection of recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.

The last Russian autocrat was a deeply believing Orthodox Christian, who looked at his political activity as a religious service. Almost everyone who came into close contact with the Emperor noted this fact as obvious. He felt responsible for the country entrusted to him by Providence, although he soberly understood that he was not sufficiently prepared to govern a great country.

“Sandro, what am I going to do! - he exclaimed pathetically after the death of Alexander III, referring to his cousin Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich. What will happen to Russia now? I'm not ready to be King yet! I can't run an empire." Remembering this scene, the Grand Duke, nevertheless, paid tribute to the moral character traits of his autocratic cousin, emphasizing that he possessed all the qualities that were valuable for a simple citizen, but which were fatal for a monarch - “he could never understand that the ruler of the country must suppress in himself purely human feelings» . No matter how we feel about the recognition of the Grand Duke, it must immediately be emphasized that the belief in the religiosity of his mission forced the emperor to "overcome himself", hoping for Divine help in resolving political issues. The tsar always treated his ministry with unusual seriousness, trying to be the Sovereign of all his subjects and not wanting to associate himself with any one class or group of people. It was for this reason that he did not like so much and tried in every possible way to overcome the “mediastinum” - the existing gap between the autocrat and the “common people”. This abyss was made up of the bureaucracy and the intelligentsia. Convinced of the deep love of the "common people", the Sovereign believed that all sedition was the result of propaganda by the power-hungry intelligentsia, which was striving to replace the bureaucracy that had already achieved its goals. Prince N. D. Zhevakhov, Comrade of the last Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, wrote about the desire of Nicholas II to destroy the mediastinum and get closer to the people. According to General A. A. Mosolov, who spent many years at the Court, “the Emperor felt the mediastinum, but denied it in his soul.”
Nicholas II comforted himself with the thought that the autocracy, based on a religious foundation, could not be shaken as long as faith in the Sovereign remained as in the anointed one, whose heart was in the hands of God. Standing on such a point of view, it is impossible not to recognize Nicholas II as a religiously integral person (since religiosity is always something integral, according to the philosopher I. A. Ilyin, having the ability to internally unite a person, give him a spiritual “totality”). Thus, Nicholas II may well be called a religiously "total" person, convinced of his religious rights.
Surprisingly, the revolutionary upheavals of the early 20th century did not convince Nicholas II of the devotion of the common people to him. The revolution made less of an impression on him than the ceremonial meetings prepared by the authorities when traveling around the country or inspired ( for the most part) loyalist addresses in his name. It is significant that even L. N. Tolstoy pointed out to the tsar the danger of trusting public manifestations of people's love. (“You are probably misled about the love of the people for the autocracy and its representative by the fact that, everywhere, when you meet in Moscow and other cities, crowds of people run after you with shouts of “Hurrah.” Do not believe that this is an expression devotion to you - this is a crowd of curious people who will run in the same way for any unusual spectacle"). Tolstoy also wrote about the disguised police, and about the peasants being rounded up, who stood behind the troops when the tsar's train passed along the railway.
If the great moralist can be accused of outright bias, then General A. A. Kireev, a person devoted to the autocratic principle and close to the imperial family name, cannot. In 1904, he entered in his diary a story about how a cab driver passing by the house of Peter the Great remarked without hesitation: “Here, sir, if we now had such a tsar, otherwise the current fool! (not a fool and not a fool). Where can he cope? This is a terrible symptom, ”the general concluded on his own.
Of course, there were other examples that were opposite to those given. Suffice it to mention the canonization celebrations of the summer of 1903, which took place in Sarov. “The desire to enter into close proximity with the people, in addition to mediators, prompted the Sovereign to decide to attend the Sarov celebrations. God-loving Orthodox people gathered there from all over Russia. Up to 150 thousand pilgrims gathered in Sarov from all over Russia. “The crowd was fanatical and with special devotion to the tsar,” V. G. Korolenko, who apparently did not sympathize with the emperor, recalled the celebrations. But the fact was that the mood of the crowd could easily change: it depended on the circumstances of the place and time.
Less than two years have passed, and the First Revolution showed examples of the amazing metamorphosis of the "common people" - from outward piety to outright blasphemy. The already mentioned General Kireev anxiously entered into his diary the facts of the “baptism” of peasants, wondering where their religiosity had gone in the past revolutionary years. “The Russian people are undoubtedly religious,” Kireev wrote, “but when he sees that the Church gives him a stone instead of bread, but demands forms from him,“ mushrooms ”, reads prayers incomprehensible to the common people, when he is told about fantastic miracles, all this will solemnly collapse before the first skillful test, before the first irony, even crudely insolent, he passes either to another faith (Tolstoy, Redstock), which speaks to his heart, or becomes a beast again. See how the Christian fragile, thin shell easily falls off our peasants.
What the Kireev, who knew and loved the Church, noticed and noted, of course, could not pass by the Emperor. However, perceiving the negative phenomena of the revolutionary time as "superficial", "temporary" and "accidental", Nicholas II did not seek to make generalizations that spoke of the process of desacralization of the autocracy and its bearer, which was gaining momentum. The reason for this is clear: “The sovereign’s faith was undoubtedly supported and strengthened by the concept instilled in childhood that the Russian Tsar is God’s anointed. The weakening of religious feeling, therefore, would be tantamount to debunking one's own position.
To admit that the religious foundation of power is very fragile, for the emperor meant to raise the question of the future of the monarchical idea - in the form in which it was formed during the XVIII-XIX centuries. Psychologically, he could not decide on this: it was no coincidence that after the defeat of the revolution of 1905 and until the next revolution of 1917, Nicholas II did not cease to hope that someday he would be able to return to the pre-revolutionary order and restore full-blooded autocracy. At the heart of this dream was not a thirst for absolute power (power for the sake of power), but an understanding of one’s political responsibility as responsibility for the completeness of the “inheritance” received from the ancestors, which must be passed on to the heirs “without flaws”.
Political expediency, which came into conflict with political, basically religious, education - this is the vicious circle in which the emperor was forced to stay throughout his life and for unwillingness, often mistaken for inability, to get out of it paid with his own life and reputation . “The sovereign, with his undeserved sufferings on the path of life, resembled the long-suffering Job, on whose memory day he was born, being a deeply religious person, he looked at the fulfillment of his duty towards the Motherland as a religious service,” General V. N., who revered him, wrote about Nicholas II Voeikov (highlighted by me. - S.F.).
From this attitude towards himself, towards his service (almost "priestly" and in any case - "sacred"), it seems that his attitude towards the Church also followed. In this sense, Nicholas II was the successor of the church line of the Russian emperors. However, unlike most of his predecessors, the last autocrat was a mystical-minded person who believed in Fate and destiny. The story told to the Ambassador of France in Russia M. Paleologus by the Minister of Foreign Affairs S. D. Sazonov is symbolic. The essence of the conversation boiled down to the fact that in a conversation with P. A. Stolypin, the Sovereign allegedly told him about his deep confidence in his own doom to terrible trials, comparing himself with Job the Long-suffering. The feeling of doom, taken by some for absolute obedience to fate and glorified, by others for weakness of character, was noted by many contemporaries of Nicholas II.
But not all contemporaries tried to analyze the religious views of the autocrat when the revolution had not yet drawn its line under the centuries-old Russian Empire. One of those who asked this question was General Kireev, who was seriously worried that the religious views of the tsarina, “shared, of course, by the tsar, could lead us to death. This is some kind of mixture of boundless absolutism, the general believed, based, approved on theological mysticism! In this case, any concept of responsibility disappears. Everything that we do is done correctly, legally, because L etat c'est moi, then, since others (our people, Russia) have departed from God, God punishes us [for] her sins. We, therefore, are not guilty, we have nothing to do with it, our orders, our actions are all good, correct, and if God does not bless them, then we are not to blame !! It's terrible!" .
Kireev's pathos is understandable, but his logic is not quite. For any thoughtful contemporary who was interested in the nature of power in Russia, it was clear that the autocrat always viewed the state through the prism of his own religiously colored "I". The concept of responsibility for him existed only as a commentary on the idea of ​​religious service. Consequently, the problem lay predominantly in the religious approach of the monarch to the failure that occurred in his state activities. Under the conditions of the flaring revolution, the views described by Kireev, of course, could not arouse sympathy among contemporaries, but they are indicative of their “totality” and from this side are quite worthy of mention.
Speaking about the religiosity of the last Russian Emperor, one cannot fail to mention that it was during his reign that more ascetics of faith and piety were canonized than in any previous one. Moreover, in the "case" of the canonization of St. Seraphim of Sarov Nicholas II took a direct part. Recall: in the four reigns of the 19th century, 7 saints were glorified, and the celebration of Sts. to the saints of Volynsky. And in the era of the reign of Nicholas II, the following saints were glorified: Theodosius of Uglitsky (1896); Job, Abbot of Pochaevsky (1902); Seraphim, miracle worker of Sarov (1903); Joasaph of Belgorod (1911); Hermogenes, Patriarch of Moscow (1913); Pitirim, St. Tambovsky (1914); John, St. Tobolsky (1916). In addition, in 1897, in the Riga diocese, the celebration of the memory of the Hieromartyr Isidore and the 72 Orthodox martyrs who suffered with him (as locally venerated saints) was established, and in 1909 the celebration of the memory of St. Anna Kashinsky.
The “canonization activity” shown by the Holy Synod in the era of Nicholas II is sometimes explained by researchers as an ideological campaign carried out by the authorities with the aim of sacralizing the autocracy: “theoretically, this campaign was supposed to bring the autocracy closer to the folk-religious culture and weaken the reaction of the masses to failures in internal and external politics". Such conclusions cannot be categorically supported - the authorities, of course, could derive political benefits from the glorifications carried out, but never calculate in advance their (canonizations) impact on domestic and foreign policy. As evidence, one can cite, on the one hand, the Sarov celebrations of 1903, and on the other, the scandalous story of the glorification of St. John of Tobolsk, overshadowed by the defiant behavior of Grigory Rasputin's friend Bishop Barnabas (Nakropin) of Tobolsk. Both in the first and in the second cases, the Sovereign insisted on glorification. But it did not at all follow from the foregoing that these saints were canonized only at the whim of the authorities.
The ascetics glorified by the Church enjoyed the glory of the saints long before the members of the Holy Synod signed the corresponding definition. Especially what has been said applies to St. Seraphim of Sarov. Therefore, one should not confuse the fact of glorification with the synodal traditions associated with the preparation and conduct of canonization. Emperor Nicholas II, by virtue of his "ktitor" position in the Church, became a voluntary or involuntary hostage to these traditions. It is no coincidence that during the preparation for the glorification of St. Seraphim of Sarovsky, in a conversation with the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod K. P. Pobedonostsev, Empress Alexandra Feodorovna remarked to him: “The Sovereign can do anything,” and during the First World War she even wrote to her husband that he was “the head and patron of the Church.”
The combination of the concepts of "head" and "patron" is very characteristic. The confusion in terms is not accidental. It would not be a gross mistake to assume that, using the word “head”, the Empress meant not administrative, but “anointed” rights of the autocrat. From this point of view, apparently, it is worth considering the actions of Nicholas II in the "canonization" issue. Indeed: it is not political advantage to explain the fact that in 1911 the emperor personally set the date for the canonization of St. Joasaph of Belgorod, thereby violating the prerogatives of the Holy Synod? Indeed, "the role of a humble Christian, turned to the holy elders, meant for the king a connection with the people, embodied the national folk spirit". By facilitating canonizations, participating in them, or simply welcoming them, the Emperor demonstrated his deep connection with the people, for he believed that this connection was possible only in the unity of faith, which he, as the Supreme Ktitor, should support and encourage in every possible way.
The problem was precisely that, wanting to be an Orthodox tsar in the spirit of Alexei Mikhailovich, whom he revered, Nicholas II had powers in the Church granted to him - with the legacy of the kingdom - by the unloved Emperor Peter the Great, who did not want (or, more precisely, did not know how to give. The contradiction between the religious dream and political reality can be considered not only a derivative of the abnormal church-state relations that existed in Russia, but also the personal drama of the last autocrat.
A kind of way out of this contradiction was the apocryphal tales related to the life of Nicholas II, in which one can find interesting (from a psychological point of view) interpretations of his mystical moods, as well as an “answer” to the question why the Sovereign never convened the Local Council of the Russian Church. In the "apocrypha" it was reported that the Emperor knew his fate in advance and was prepared for what happened after the fall of the autocracy.
Some post factum memoirists saw the source of this knowledge in the predictions of the monk Abel, a famous soothsayer of the 18th-first quarter of the 19th centuries. The monk at one time predicted the death of Empress Catherine II, the violent death of her son Paul I, the fire of Moscow, and much more. A legend has survived (now very popular), according to which Abel, at the request of Emperor Paul I, made a prediction about the future of the Romanov dynasty. The emperor kept this prediction in a sealed form in the Gatchina Palace, bequeathing to open it 100 years after his death. Paul I was killed on the night of March 12, 1801, therefore, his descendant Nicholas II should have read the predictions. "Apocrypha" and report this. The casket with predictions, according to the memoirs of the chamberlain of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna M. F. Geringer, Nicholas II opened on March 12, 1901, after which, allegedly, “began to remember 1918 as a fatal year for him personally, and for the dynasty” . Similar information can be found in the article of a certain A. D. Khmelevsky - “Mysterious in the life of the Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II”, and in the work of P. N. Shabelsky Bork, repeating the information of Khmelevsky. It can be said that the stories became a kind of response to the numerous reproaches of contemporaries who accused Nicholas II of weak character and lack of initiative.
However, among the "apocrypha" there were those that said that the emperor received knowledge of his future fate by reading the letter of St. Seraphim of Sarov. The elder, according to legend, wrote specifically to the king who would pray “specially” for him! It turned out that the saint foresaw his own canonization in advance and even prepared for it! This alone is alarming and makes one doubt the truth of the message. But there are other reasons for doubts - at the beginning of the 20th century, a prediction was attributed to the great saint, according to which the first half of the reign of Nicholas II would be difficult, but the second - bright and serene. It is obvious to any unbiased person that St. Seraphim could not make political predictions, especially those tied to certain dates and names. Manipulating them is another proof of the bias of those who wanted to social problems without fail to lay a religious foundation.
So, the letter to the autocrat was allegedly handed over to the autocrat during the days of the Sarov celebrations - July 20, 1903. “What was in the letter remained a secret,” the memoirist reports, “it can only be assumed that the holy seer clearly saw everything to come, and therefore protected from any mistake, and warned of impending terrible events, strengthening in the faith that all this would not happen by chance, but by the predestination of the Eternal Heavenly Council, so that in difficult moments of difficult trials the Sovereign would not lose heart and carry his heavy martyr's cross to the end. It is characteristic that such views have been especially popularized in recent times, and myth-making is the stronger, the more complex the issue raised. Exploring the religious views of the last autocrat and his relationship to the Church, it is easier to give a diagram than to admit the complexity of the problem, its ambiguity. It is no coincidence that in the recently compiled Life of the Monk Abel the Soothsayer, Nicholas II is compared with the Son of God, just as He is betrayed by His people.
The creation of the image of the holy tsar is supplemented by unconfirmed information about how Nicholas II wanted to resolve the church issue by assuming the burden of the Patriarchal service. Information about this can be found on the pages of the book by S. A. Nilus “On the Bank of God's River. Notes of an Orthodox ”and in the memoirs of Prince Zhevakhov (in his memoirs, the prince also placed an article by a certain B. Pototsky containing material about the desire of Nicholas II to take monastic vows). According to Nilus, during the days of the Russo-Japanese War, when the question of the need to head the Church became topical, the Emperor himself proposed to the members of the Holy Synod to restore the patriarchate, offering himself to the hierarchs as the First Hierarch. Unusually surprised by the proposal, the bishops remained silent. “From that time on, none of the members of the then highest church administration had access to the tsar’s heart. He, according to the duties of their ministry, continued, as needed, to receive them at his place, gave them awards, distinctions, but an impenetrable wall was established between them and His heart, and faith in them was no longer in His heart ... ". Nilus ghostly hints that this story has its source in vl. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), but still prefers not to name him. And this is understandable: Metropolitan Anthony himself never mentioned what happened, even in exile.
Another apocrypha, cited by Zhevakhov from the words of B. Pototsky, is somewhat different from the message of Nilus. Its essence is that in the winter of 1904-1905. the royal couple came to the chambers of the metropolitan Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky). This was seen by a certain student of the Theological Academy (whose name, of course, is not given). The history of the arrival was explained simply: the Sovereign came to ask the Metropolitan for blessings for abdication in favor of Tsarevich Alexei, who had been born shortly before. He himself allegedly wanted to be tonsured a monk. “The Metropolitan refused the Sovereign’s blessing on this decision, pointing out the inadmissibility of building one’s personal salvation on leaving without extreme necessity one’s royal duty, which God indicated to him, otherwise his people would be exposed to dangers and various accidents that may be associated with the era of regency during the infancy of the Heir » . The next story, described by Zhevakhov, already completely repeats the story given by Nilus. So, the problem of the subsequent unwillingness of the Sovereign to assist in the election of the Patriarch receives a psychological explanation. As Nilus wrote, “the hierarchs sought their si in the patriarchate, and not even God’s, and their house was left empty to them.”
But such an answer clearly cannot satisfy anyone who is trying to understand unbiasedly why the Council was not convened before 1917 and why church-state relations were never changed until the collapse of the empire. It is impossible to explain the unwillingness of the autocrat only by a personal insult! Moreover, the election of the Patriarch is only the “front” side of the church problem. Over the 200 synodal years, many other issues have accumulated that needed to be resolved. The emperor could not understand this. To think differently means to recognize Nicholas II as a person who was not aware of the urgent tasks of the time and, therefore, indirectly contribute to the establishment of the old myth about his incompetence and political egoism.
In addition, the “apocrypha” telling us about the emperor’s desire to become a Patriarch or simply take the tonsure cannot be confirmed by independent sources or even direct evidence. By the way, there is no confirmation of the fact that Nicholas II in the winter of 1904-1905. went to Metropolitan Anthony for a blessing, also not, and after all, every step of the emperor was recorded in the journals of the chamberlains. And in the diaries of the autocrat there is only a brief message that on December 28, 1904, Metropolitan Anthony had breakfast with the royal family. No meetings in the Lavra are recorded.
Of course, it is possible to assume that Nicholas II dreamed of taking tonsure and retiring from business - after all, "he was, first of all, a God-seeker, a man who surrendered himself completely to the will of God, a deeply believing Christian of a high spiritual mood", but it is absolutely impossible to build political conclusions on these assumptions . Understanding what is real to reform and what cannot be reformed, the emperor realized, like any statesman, not least based on political practice. This circumstance should not be ignored.
However, one important conclusion from the Apocrypha must be drawn. The last Russian autocrat had no affinity with the Orthodox hierarchy, which he perceived for the most part as "spiritual officials." It is obvious that the reasons for such a perception stemmed from the whole abnormal (from the canonical point of view) structure of church government. As noted by Prot. A. Schmemann, the sharpness of the Petrine reform “is not in its canonical side, but in the psychology from which it grows. Through the establishment of the Synod, the Church becomes one of the state departments, and until 1901, its members in their oath called the emperor "the ultimate judge of this Spiritual College", and all his decisions were made "by their own from the Royal Majesty this authority", "by decree of His Imperial Majesty" . On February 23, 1901, K. P. Pobedonostsev made a report to the emperor, “and from that moment on, the nightmarish oath was silently buried in the Synod Archive.”
This oath was nightmarish not only for the hierarchs, it had a detrimental effect on the autocrats' perception of their ecclesiastical role. It is here that one should look for the roots of all the anti-canonical actions of even the most faithful Russian autocrats (for example, Paul I). Both for the “right” and “left” at the beginning of the 20th century, the Orthodox Church was perceived as an agency of the Orthodox confession, a department of spiritual affairs, the clergy as clergymen who did not have real authority. It was explained in different ways. For extreme rightists like Prince Zhevakhov, the fact that the Russian people had heightened religious demands; for others, for example, for S. P. Melgunov, the fact that there was no true freedom of conscience in Russia. In both cases, the ascertaining part was the same.
For Emperor Nicholas II, as well as for his contemporaries, the caste isolation of the clergy, its complete dependence on secular authorities, was not a secret. But, having become accustomed to this state of affairs, it was difficult to convince oneself that the Church could on her own, without the crutch of the state, restore the canonical structure of government and correct the old synodal system. Marked by Prot. A. Schmemann, the psychological side of the Petrine reform became an obstacle for Emperor Nicholas II. This is the root of the misunderstanding that existed between the autocrat and the Orthodox hierarchs, which was especially manifested during the years of the First Russian Revolution.

The origins of the reign of Nicholas II

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Romanov was born on May 6, 1868, in Tsarskoye Selo, on the day of St. Job the Long-suffering, and therefore considered himself doomed to failure and torment, perhaps thereby justifying his mistakes by the fact that an evil “rock” hangs over him. He was the middle son of Emperor Alexander III. His mother was Princess Dagmara of Denmark, who received the name Maria Feodorovna when she converted to Orthodoxy. The grandfather of Nikolai Alexandrovich, the reformer tsar Alexander II (during his reign in 1861, the peasants were freed from serfdom), died in 1861 at the hands of terrorists.

The reign of Nicholas's father, Alexander III, was cautious and prudent in regard to the reforms being carried out: he believed that the hasty implementation of further reforms would cause a dangerous explosion of anarchism. At the same time, Alexander III did not hesitate to resort to terror in governing Russia and succeeded in this quite well thanks to the skillful actions of the director of the police department, Plehve, who legitimized the arbitrariness of the Okhrana.

At the time of the accession to the throne of Nicholas II, in 1894, 5,400 people were in hard labor or in exile. Young women were especially monitored: in fact, among those convicted of attempting to assassinate the tsar at that time there were 158 young women - a fourth of the total number of those convicted.

Police surveillance of people's moods was aggravated by Great Russian chauvinism and religious reaction. In 1887, quotas were introduced to limit the number of Jews in the universities. “Let's not forget that the Jews crucified Christ,” said Alexander III and personally signed the decree with these words.

However, Tsar Alexander III, just like later Nicholas II, was isolated from the rest of the world by his family, court, and government. Thus, the notorious royal omnipotence is to some extent imaginary. In this regard, Prince Trubetskoy wrote in 1900: “There is an autocracy of the police, governors-general and ministers. The autocracy of the king does not exist, since he knows only what reaches him through a complex system of “filters”, and thus, the king autocrat, due to ignorance of the true situation in his country, is more limited in the actual exercise of his power than a monarch who has direct connections with the elected people”. Although one can argue with such an opinion, it all depends on whether the monarch wanted to delve into what was happening in his country.

The autocracy, with its conservatism, contributed to the emergence of both terrorism and non-resistance to violence. Both of them were condemned, excommunicated from the church, sent to hard labor in Siberia.

Nicholas II learned the principles of his father and faithfully adhered to them, never seeking to limit his power. And if he was forced to do this in 1905, then in 1917 he preferred to abdicate the throne than to give up his power again.

Attempts of concessions by P. D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky

The speech of the zemstvo congress put Svyatopolk-Mirsky, as a minister of the tsarist government, in an extremely uncomfortable position. It turned out that with his connivance, an unprecedented violation of existing norms and an encroachment on the foundations of the existing system took place. On November 21, Mirsky sent a letter to the tsar asking for his resignation. The next day, at an audience with Nicholas, he said that in Russia there is no elementary legality and security of citizens, and that if you do not meet the completely natural requirements of liberal reforms, then there will be a revolution. Nikolai again expressed his well-known opinion that "only the intellectuals want changes, but the people do not want this," but he still did not accept the minister's resignation.

Mirsky continued to stick to his line. In early December, he submitted to the tsar a draft decree instructing the Committee of Ministers to develop bills on some expansion of freedom of speech and the press, religious tolerance and local self-government, on some restriction on the application of emergency laws, on the abolition of certain restrictions in relation to foreigners. Work was to be continued on projects for some expansion of the rights of the peasants. In the last paragraph, it was vaguely stated about the intention to further involve elected representatives from the population in the preliminary development of bills, before they are submitted for consideration by the State Council and the monarch. However, nothing was said about limiting the legislative power of the king. Thus, the program of Svyatopolk-Mirsky, seemingly meeting the wishes of society, seemed to moderate and largely emasculate the demands of the zemstvo congress. But even this extra-cautious program seemed unacceptably radical to Nicholas II.

During the discussion of the project in the government, the tsar remained silent. This was seen by the ministers as a sign of agreement. But on December 12, a Decree was published, called "On the plans for the improvement of the state order." The decree insisted on "the indispensable preservation of the inviolability of the fundamental laws of the empire," that is, the autocracy in its untouched form.

If the Decree was perceived by a significant part of the liberal public as a slap in the face, then the "Message" was already perceived as a "kick" of the gendarmerie's boot. Maklakov, a right-wing liberal, called it “amazing in its tactlessness,” and he regarded the Decree itself, in general, positively.

Svyatopolk-Mirsky again announced his intention to resign.

The views of S. Yu. Witte and V. K. Plehve

The personification of the inconsistency and inconsistency of the domestic policy of Nicholas II was the activity of the two most influential figures, who differed in diametrically opposed views on the prospects for Russia's development: Minister of Finance S. Yu. Witte and Minister of the Interior V. K. von Plehve.

The main political opponent of S. Yu. Witte was the Minister of the Interior V. K. von Plehve.

By its very nature, the policy of both Witte and Plehve was aimed at achieving a single goal: to preserve the existing power. In terms of their personal qualities, these politicians were very similar: they acted by all means available to them in order to remain at the heights of power. But excellent were the methods that they used to remove the main obstacle in their path - the general dissatisfaction with the existing regime. S. Yu. Witte advocated reforms “from above” so that they would not be imposed “from below”. V. K. Plehve, on the other hand, considered any concessions to the opposition movement to be disastrous. In his opinion, it was necessary to manage public sentiment, and not follow them. It was Plehve who became the inspirer of the anti-Semitic course of the government, which led to bloody Jewish programs. It was he who came up with the idea of ​​a "small victorious war”, is able to translate internal discontent into a feeling of hatred for an external enemy. It was Plehve who supported Zubatov's experiments. It was under him that provocateurism was elevated to the rank of state policy.

Thus, by 1905, two approaches to solving the problems of Russian reality were outlined in the upper echelons of power:

1) strengthening the existing system of power, mainly by force;

2) gradual and slow reformation of the traditionalist power as a result of economic transformations.

The third way, rejected by Nicholas II, was proposed by the zemstvos: expanding the rights of local self-government bodies and strengthening their influence on state decision-making.

The main directions of the policy of Nicholas II.

Projects for solving the peasant question

In January 1902, the sovereign made an important decision in principle to move the agrarian question off the dead center. On January 23, the regulation on the Special Conference on the needs of the agricultural industry was approved. This institution had the goal not only to find out the needs of agriculture, but also to prepare "measures aimed at the benefit of this branch of national labor."

Under the chairmanship of the Minister of Finance S. Yu. Witte - although he was always far from the needs of the countryside - with the close participation of D. S. Sipyagin and the Minister of Agriculture A. S. Yermolov, this meeting consisted of twenty dignitaries, and along with members of the State The Council was also attracted by the chairman of the Moscow Society of Agriculture, Prince A. G. Shcherbatov.

At the first meeting, on February 2, the scope of work was determined. S.Yu. Witte pointed out that the conference would also have to touch upon issues of a national nature, for the resolution of which it would then be necessary to turn to the sovereign. D. S. Sipyagin noted that “many of the issues that are essential for the agricultural industry, however, should not be resolved solely from the point of view of the interests of agriculture”; other, national considerations are possible.

The meeting then decided to ask the public concerned how they themselves understand their needs. Such an appeal was a bold move; in relation to the intelligentsia, it could hardly give practical results. But in this case, the question was asked not to the city, but to the countryside - to those sections of the population, nobles and peasants, in whose loyalty the sovereign was convinced.

In all provinces of European Russia, provincial committees were established to ascertain the needs of the agricultural industry. Then committees were also organized in the Caucasus and Siberia. Around 600 committees were formed throughout Russia.

In the summer of 1902, local committees began to work on the needs of the agricultural industry - first provincial, then county. The work was put in a wide framework. In sending out to the county committees a list of questions on which it was desirable to have answers, the Special Conference noted that it “did not mean to constrain the judgments of the local committees, since these latter would raise a general question about the needs of the agricultural industry, giving them full scope in presenting their views. ".

A variety of questions were raised - about public education, about the reorganization of the court; "About a petty zemstvo unit" (volost zemstvo); on the creation of some form of popular representation.

The work of the county committees ended at the beginning of 1903; after that, the provincial committees summed up the results.

What were the results of this great work, this appeal to rural Russia? The proceedings of the committees occupied many dozens of volumes. It was possible to find in these works the expression of the most varied views; the intelligentsia, more mobile and active, hurried to extract from them what seemed to them politically favorable for them. On all questions about the "foundations of law and order", about self-government, about the rights of peasants, about public education, everything that corresponded to the direction of the compilers was extracted from the judgments of the committees; anything that disagreed was either discarded or briefly flagged as ugly exceptions.

The conclusions of the committees on the needs of the agricultural industry were to a large extent obscured by the press: they did not correspond to the views prevailing in society. They came as a surprise to the government as well.

The material collected by the local committees was published in early 1904. Based on this material, Witte compiled his Note on the Peasant Question. He insisted on the abolition of special class bodies of the court and administration, the abolition of a special system of punishments for peasants, the elimination of all restrictions on freedom of movement and choice of occupation, and most importantly, on granting peasants the right to freely dispose of their property and to leave the community along with their communal allotment, which becomes the personal property of the peasant. Witte did not propose the violent destruction of the community.

But at the end of 1903, the so-called Editorial Commission of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, established in June 1902 with the consent of the tsar by the Minister of Internal Affairs V.K. Plehve, presented its directly opposite recommendations to “edit” the existing legislation on peasants. In the traditional patriarchal way of life of the peasants, the Commission saw the pledge of their commitment to autocracy. This was much more important for the Commission than economic expediency. Therefore, it was proposed to protect the class isolation of the peasantry, to remove the supervision of it by the authorities, to prevent the transfer of land into personal property and free trade in it. As a concession to the spirit of the times, the most general wish was put forward "to take measures to facilitate the exit from the community of peasants who have mentally outgrown it." But a reservation immediately followed that, in order to avoid the spread of mutual hostility and hatred in the village, leaving the community was permissible only with the consent of the majority of its members.

The Editorial Commission of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was deliberately created as a counterbalance to Witte's "Special Meeting". In general, VK Plehve was Witte's main opponent in the government districts. He was appointed to replace D.S. Sipyagin, who was killed on April 2, 1902.

In the confrontation with Witte Plehve won. In August 1903, the Minister of Finance was forced to resign. Instead of one of the key ministries, Witte received a purely ceremonial and in no way influencing real politics post of chairman of the Committee of Ministers. The works of the “Conference” headed by him remained without consequences.

Nicholas II was clearly inclined towards the policy proposed by Plehve. On February 6, 1903, on the birthday of his "unforgettable parent", the emperor signed the Manifesto, which had been in preparation for almost a year. It said, "distemper, sown partly by plans hostile to the state order, partly by enthusiasm for principles alien to Russian life, hinders the general work to improve the people's well-being." Having confirmed his vow "to sacredly observe the centuries-old foundations of the Russian state," the tsar at the same time ordered the authorities to unswervingly observe the precepts of religious tolerance and announced the forthcoming revision of the laws "concerning the rural state", about the participation in this revision of "persons enjoying the trust of society." But the local committees of the "Special Conference" were instructed to base their work on "the inviolability of the communal system of peasant landownership." The manifesto spoke only of a temporary search for ways to facilitate the exit from the community of individual peasants and the adoption of urgent measures to abolish mutual responsibility, which was embarrassing for the peasants. The latter was the only practical measure promised in the Manifesto.

Working question

Strikes remained the main weapon of the industrial proletariat. In May 1901, at the Obukhov military plant in St. Petersburg, during a strike of 3.5 thousand workers, clashes with the police unfolded (Obukhov defense).

In July-August 1903, the entire south of Russia, from Kiev to Batum, was engulfed in a general strike, in which more than 200,000 workers took part. The government was forced to adopt a number of laws, in particular, on the remuneration of workers in case of accidents at work (1903), on the election of elders from among workers in factories (1903).

The main measure to appease the workers was the creation of legal workers' organizations under the supervision of the police, whose members could resolve conflicts with the owners through the mediation of the authorities.

On the initiative of the head of the Moscow security department S. V. Zubatov in 1901-1902. More than 30 companies have emerged in 10 largest Russian cities.

Representatives of the intelligentsia, pupils, students who fought for the return of autonomy to universities and held strikes and demonstrations, advanced zemstvo figures also actively participated in the struggle for democratic rights.

Economic development

In order to maintain its international position, fearing that the empire would lose its influence in Europe, lag behind economically and militarily, and even lose its economic independence, the autocracy was forced to pursue a policy of forcing modernization. The Russian version of modernization was distinguished by a number of features. One of the most significant was the leading role of the state and state regulation in the economic life of the country. It is common knowledge that in the West the agrarian revolution was the result of the revolution and preceded the industrial revolution. In Russia, the industrial revolution was completed by the 1980s, before the bourgeois-democratic revolutions, while the agrarian-capitalist revolution was not completed at all. The ruling circles understood the weakness of the prerequisites for industrial modernization "from below", in an evolutionary way, so accelerated industrialization could only be the result of active targeted intervention of the state "from above". This was reflected in the economic policy of the government, a flexible customs policy that protected the domestic industry from the competition of foreign goods; providing factories with large orders for a long period at inflated prices; concession organization of railway construction; attraction of foreign capital; forcing the export of agricultural products (bread) and raw materials.

A feature of the Russian economy at the turn of the century was the fact that, due to the lack of a sufficient amount of its own financial resources, foreign capital was widely attracted. Due to foreign investment, not only railway construction developed, but also new branches appeared in the structure of Russian industry (for example, electrical and chemical). At the same time, Russia itself exported capital abroad (China, Iran, etc.), which was determined not so much by economic as by military-political considerations.

At the beginning of the XX century. Russia, together with other countries (Western Europe, the USA), is experiencing a severe crisis of overproduction. It began with a sharp drop in prices for basic products and led to a significant reduction in production, the ruin of enterprises. During the years of the crisis, about 3,000 large and medium-sized enterprises were closed, which led to mass unemployment. Working performances were held in large industrial centers - St. Petersburg, Rostov-on-Don, the Urals, and southern Russia. In Russia at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. capitalism, bypassing the long phase of free competition, passed into a fundamentally new stage of its development - imperialism. Due to the rapid growth of industrial production, Russia entered this process simultaneously with other leading world powers. However, the Russian version of imperialism was only a superstructure on top of the multiform and rather loose economic basis of society.

In the XX century. Russia entered as a country in which 10% of the population was employed in agriculture, which maintained semi-serf relations. At the beginning of the century, there was an increase in agricultural production in the country. In terms of the total volume of agricultural products, Russia ranks first in the world. It accounted for 50% of the world harvest of rye, about 20% of wheat and 25% of world grain exports. The production of potatoes, sugar beet, flax and other industrial crops increased rapidly. The number and productivity of livestock increased. However, against the background of impressive changes in industry and trade, the situation in agricultural sector looked hopelessly backward and archaic. The situation in the countryside was complicated by two more interrelated circumstances: agrarian overpopulation and the peasant community.

This explains the economic rationale for the peasants' demand during the years of the revolution for the transfer of part of the landowners' lands to them. The situation was aggravated by the backwardness of the material and technical base of agriculture. In addition, the political rights of the peasants were more limited compared to other categories of the population: they were not subject to jury trials, and until 1903 corporal punishment and local class courts were retained. The capitalist evolution of agriculture was hampered by the preservation of the community, which conserved serfdom survivals: working off, redemption payments, mutual responsibility. It regulated the periodic redistribution of land, the calendar terms of agricultural work, etc. The stability of communal traditions prevented the emergence of a new peasant, the owner of his own land. As before, the main figures in the village were the peasant and the landowner. The latter did not seek to modernize agricultural production: due to the rapid growth of the rural population, labor was available in abundance and almost free of charge. By 1905, only 3% of the noble landowners were able to transfer their estates to the capitalist footing with the use of agricultural machines and hired labor.

Thus, considering the social economic development Russia at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries, it should be emphasized that, despite the very high growth rates, Russia at the beginning of the XX century. only approached the industrialized countries, entering the top five powers in terms of the absolute size of industrial production. While stimulating industry, the autocracy was in no hurry to solve the problems of agriculture, the development of which was significantly hampered by the existing system.

Social movements and political parties

The growing political crisis caused the activation of the political forces of Russia, which was expressed in the creation of public organizations and political parties. In 1902 The Southern Socialist-Revolutionary Party and the Union of Socialist Revolutionaries announced their unification into the Party of Russian Socialist Revolutionaries. V. M. Chernov became the main theoretician of the non-populist doctrine. Central to its program was the provision on the socialization of land on the basis of the equalizing labor principle. In March 1898, at their first congress in Minsk, the Marxists announced the creation of a Social Democratic Party. Its organizational design really began with the publication of the Iskra newspaper (1900) (G. V. Plekhanov, V. I. Ulyanov (Lenin), Yu. O. Martov, and others).

The minimum program adopted at the second congress of the RSDLP (1903) formulated tasks at the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution: the overthrow of the autocracy, the establishment of civil liberties, the return of the peasant "segments". The second part of the program (the program - the maximum) was supposed to carry out the socialist revolution and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat after the final maturation of the prerequisites. Relying on the movement of the Zemstvo and the democratic intelligentsia, the liberal movement intensified. In 1903, the founding congress of the Union of Zemstvo-Constitutionalists met illegally.

In 1904, the Liberation Union was created (whose leadership included I. I. Petrunkevich, S. N. Prokopovich, and others), demanding the introduction of a constitutional monarchy, universal, equal, secret, direct suffrage, the nations for self-determination.

In 1901-1904. the previously emerged national parties became more active, mostly of the left wing - non-populist and social democratic: Gnchak (1887) and Dashnaktsutyun (1890) (Armenia), Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania (1893), Bund - General Jewish Workers Union (1897) and etc.

Agricultural policy of P.A. Stolypin

7. The main directions of the Stolypin agrarian policy

Stolypin's agrarian policy

7. The main directions of the Stolypin agrarian policy.

The foreign economic policy of England at the beginning of the 19th century

Chapter 1. The main directions of the foreign policy of England in 1800-1812.

Foreign policy of Russia under Peter the Great

2. The main directions of the foreign policy of Peter the Great

1.1 Main directions of foreign policy

At the end of the XIX-beginning of the XX century. formed new system international relations. The great powers divided the third countries into spheres of political influence, colonies and semi-colonies were created. The struggle for the economic division of the whole world has begun ...

The foreign policy of the Russian Empire in the late XIX - early XX centuries

2.1 Main directions of foreign policy

For the first time, Russia paid attention to Pacific Ocean at the end of the 19th century. Another Russian-Turkish war ended with the intervention of Great Britain and Germany ...

2.1 Main directions of domestic policy

Kennedy was elected to Congress three times, he was re-elected in 1948 and 1950. In Congress, he was considered a moderate liberal, fought for better working conditions and higher wages, supported the social housing program ...

John F. Kennedy - man and politician

2.2 Main directions of foreign policy

In the field of foreign policy, Kennedy as president began with a failure, and ended up with what, over time, could become the greatest achievement in post-war international relations ...

Historical portrait of Ivan the Terrible

§4. Goals, priorities, main directions of the foreign policy of Ivan IV

Caucasian vector of foreign policy during the reign of Paul I

§ 1. The main directions of the Caucasian policy prescribed by Paul I, their assessment

A sign of some weakening of the activity of Russian politics with the accession of Paul I can be the termination of the campaign of the corps of V.A. Zubova…

The culture of the Muscovite kingdom of the late XIV - early XV centuries

1. The first all-Russian sovereign. The main directions of his policy

The Grand Duke's table, Ivan Vasilyevich, was already occupied by an adult with a fully formed character. From a young age, he was distinguished by cold prudence and caution, usually not characteristic of this age ...

Russian state in the second half of the XVI century. Ivan the Terrible

4. The main directions of the foreign policy of Ivan IV

The main directions of Russian foreign policy in the middle and second half of the sixteenth century. were the following: in the east and southeast - the fight against the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates and advance to Siberia, in the south - protection from the raids of the Crimeans ...

Russia of the 16th century: the formation of the monarchy and the policy of Ivan the Terrible

3. GOALS, PRIORITIES, MAIN DIRECTIONS OF THE FOREIGN POLICY OF IVAN THE TERRIBLE

During the reign of Ivan IV, the external environment of Russia developed very unsuccessfully. Internal reforms went hand in hand with the solution of foreign policy problems, the most significant of which by that time was Kazan ...

Russian centralized state in the 16th century

2. The main directions of Russia's foreign policy in the XVI century

The main directions of foreign policy of the XVI century. took shape under Ivan III: Baltic (northwestern), Lithuanian (western), Crimean (southern), as well as Kazan and Nogai (southeastern).

Economic development of Russia during the First World War

3. The main directions and problems of the socio-economic policy of the Provisional Government

military economic provisional government By February 1917, the Russian economy was in a deplorable state. Firstly, the railway was destroyed - there were not enough funds for its maintenance. Lack of fuel...

Monarchist parties of Russia

• "Russian collection" (1900)
• Russian Monarchist Party (1905)
• "Union of the Russian people" (1905)
• "Russian People's Union named after Michael the Archangel" (1908)

Economic Political

● CER and Russian ● Struggle for spheres

economic expansion of influence in China

in Manchuria and Korea

● Lease by Russia ● War as a means

Liaodong peninsula diversion from

and Port Arthur revolutionary

movements in Russia

Read also:

Politics of Nicholas II

The personality of any statesman is revealed in his plans and deeds. Even before the coronation, Nicholas II emphasized that he would firmly adhere to the principles of his father.

Alexander III in the field of international relations provided Russia with 13 peaceful years. But he did not introduce his son to the basic facts that determine the international position of Russia. So, Nicholas became acquainted with the terms of the Franco-Russian alliance only when he became king. He set himself the goal of preventing military clashes and maintaining peace, he did not consider it possible and sufficient to rely on a military alliance in this.

Nicholas II came up with the idea of ​​general and complete disarmament. This historical initiative alone gives him the right to immortality. S. S. Oldenburg suggests that the idea of ​​this originated with the king in March 1898. At the same time, the Minister of Foreign Affairs prepares a note, and by the summer - an Appeal to all countries of the world. In particular, it said: “As the armaments of each state grow, they less and less meet the goal set by the governments. The disruption of the economic system, caused to a large extent by the excess of armaments, and the constant danger that lies in the huge accumulation of military means, turn the armed world of our day into an overwhelming burden, which the peoples endure with great difficulty. It seems obvious, therefore, that if such a situation were to continue, it would fatally lead to precisely the disaster that one seeks to avoid and before the horrors of which the thought of man trembles in advance.

Putting an end to continuous armaments and finding means to avert the misfortunes that threaten the whole world—such is the supreme duty of all states.

Filled with this feeling, the Emperor ordered me to deign to address the governments of the states, whose representatives are accredited to the royal court, with a proposal to convene a conference in the form of discussing this important task.

With God's help, this conference could be a good omen for the coming age. It would rally into one mighty whole the efforts of all states sincerely striving for the great idea of ​​universal peace to triumph over the realm of turmoil and discord. At the same time, it would seal their agreement with a joint recognition of the principles of law and justice, on which the security of states and the prosperity of peoples are based.

How relevant these words sound today, and yet they were written almost 100 years ago.

For the organization of the general peace conference, Russia has done a great deal of work. But political thinking statesmen most of the countries participating in the peace conference was associated with the doctrine of the inevitability of wars and military confrontation. The main proposals of Emperor Nicholas II were not accepted, although some progress was made on certain issues - the use of the most barbaric methods of war was prohibited and a permanent court was established for the peaceful resolution of disputes through mediation and arbitration. The latter institution became the prototype of the League of Nations and the United Nations. For many statesmen, the idea of ​​creating such an international organization seemed foolish.

The crowned brother of Tsar Nicholas II, Wilhelm II, wrote about the creation of this organization: “So that he does not disgrace himself before Europe, I will agree to this stupidity. But in my practice, I will continue to rely and rely only on God and my sharp sword.”

In 1905, Nikolai applied to the International Commission of Inquiry of the Hague Court to settle the incident between Great Britain and Russia at Dogger Bank. In 1914, on the eve of World War I, the Russian tsar turned to the Kaiser with a request to help him resolve the dispute between Austria and Serbia through an international court in The Hague.

Europe was amazed that such an unusual, such a stunning idea of ​​the need for universal peace was born in Russia, which was considered a semi-Asiatic, semi-barbarian state and accused of lacking a rich universal culture, supposedly inherent only in European countries.

The reign of Nicholas II is the period of the highest rates of economic growth in the history of Russia and the USSR. During the years 1880-1910, the growth rate of industry exceeded 9% per year. In terms of growth rates of industrial output and labor productivity, Russia has taken first place in the world, ahead of the rapidly developing United States. In terms of the production of the most important agricultural crops, Russia has taken the first place in the world, growing more than half of the world's production of rye, more than a quarter of wheat and oats, about 2/5 of barley, about a quarter of potatoes. Russia became the main exporter of agricultural products, the first "breadbasket of Europe", which accounted for 2/5 of all world exports of peasant products.

The rapid development of the level of industry and agricultural production allowed Russia during the reign of Nicholas II to have a stable gold convertible currency, which we can only dream of today.

The economic policy of the government of Nicholas II was built on the basis of creating the most favorable conditions for all healthy economic forces through preferential taxation and lending, promoting the organization of all-Russian industrial fairs, and the comprehensive development of means of communication and communication.

Nicholas II attached great importance to the development of railways. Even in his youth, he participated in the laying (and later actively contributed to the construction) of the famous Great Siberian Road, most of which was built during his reign.

The rise of industrial production during the reign of Nicholas II was largely connected with the development of new factory legislation, one of the active creators of which was the emperor himself as the main legislator of the country. The purpose of the new factory legislation was, on the one hand, to streamline relations between employers and workers, and on the other hand, to improve the position of workers living on industrial earnings.

The law of June 2, 1897 for the first time introduced the rationing of the working day. According to this law, for workers employed during the day, working hours should not exceed 11.5 hours a day, and on Saturday and on holidays - 10 hours. “For workers employed, at least partly, at night, the working time should not exceed 10 hours.” A little later, a 10-hour working day was legally established in Russian industry. For that era, it was a revolutionary step. For comparison: in Germany, the question of this was only raised.

Another law, adopted with the direct participation of Nicholas II, is on the remuneration of workers who suffered from accidents (1903). According to this law, “owners of enterprises are obliged to compensate workers, without distinction of their sex and age, for the loss of more than 3 days of disability from bodily injury caused to them by work on the production of the enterprise or occurring as a result of such work.” “If the result of an accident, under the same conditions, was the death of a worker, then the members of his family use the reward.”

The law of June 23, 1912 introduced compulsory insurance of workers against illness and accidents in Russia. The next step was to introduce a law on disability and old age insurance. But the subsequent social cataclysms delayed it for 20 years.

The tsar actively promoted the development of Russian culture, art, science, and the reforms of the army and navy.

So, one of the first acts of Nicholas II was the order to allocate significant funds to assist needy scientists, writers and publicists, as well as their widows and orphans (1895).

The management of this case was entrusted to a special commission of the Academy of Sciences. In 1896, a new statute on privileges for inventions was introduced, "modifying the previous conditions for the operation of inventions to the benefit of the inventors themselves and the development of industrial technology."

Already the first years of the reign of Nicholas led to brilliant intellectual and cultural achievements, later called the "Russian Renaissance" or the "Silver Age" of Russia. New ideas embraced not only politics, but also philosophy, science, music, and art.

In literature, it was A.P. Chekhov, who created plays and short stories that became part of the world classics. In 1898, K. Stanislavsky first opened the doors of the famous Moscow Art Theater, and the re-staging of A. Chekhov's play "The Seagull", written in 1896, determined the theater's success. This was followed by the plays "Uncle Vanya" (1899), "The Cherry Orchard" (1904). With them, a new era in the history of the theater was established.

Among the population of Russia at that time, music, including opera, was loved and popular. Kiev, Odessa, Warsaw, Tiflis had their own opera houses. Only in St. Petersburg there were 4 such theaters. One of them, the People's House, or the People's Palace, was created by Nicholas II in 1901. Realizing that ordinary people are not able to attend luxurious drama and opera theatres, the tsar ordered the construction of a large building that housed theaters, concert halls, restaurants, the entrance fee was 20 kopecks.

1913 Tercentenary of the reign of the Romanov dynasty. This was Last year the usual life of the king, the last year before the ordeals that befell his family.

A year later, the war began. From the balcony of the Winter Palace, Nicholas II himself read out a manifesto about the beginning of the war. This was the period of the king's greatest confidence.

The tsar regularly travels to Stavka to the front, to the rear, to the factories. He himself visits hospitals and infirmaries, rewards officers and soldiers. Nicholas II saw that his presence inspires the soldiers, especially if he was with his son Alexei.

P. Gilliard wrote: “The presence of the Heir next to the sovereign arouses interest in the soldiers, and when he walked away, they could be heard whispering about his age, height, facial expression, etc. But most of all they were struck by the fact that the Tsarevich was in a simple soldier's uniform, no different from the one worn by a team of soldier's children.

Russia was not ready for war, there was only determination to win. Nicholas II decided to head the front command himself. The spirit of defeatism reigned in the rear, and anti-monarchist groups began to form. Nicholas II did not yet know that the autocracy practically no longer exists. Later he wrote: “... all around treason, betrayal and cowardice ...”, Nicholas II was left alone.

There was an organized smear campaign designed to discredit the Tsar. They did not hesitate to use the most vile and dirty accusations - espionage in favor of the Germans, complete moral decay. An increasing part of Russia's educated society is torn away from Russian traditions and ideals and takes the side of these destructive forces.

Of interest is the deep assessment of the events that took place on the eve of the death of the Russian emperor, given by W. Churchill in his book The World Crisis of 1916-1918. “... In March, the king was on the throne. The Russian Empire and the Russian army held out, the front was secured and the victory is indisputable.... According to the superficial fashion of our time, the royal system is usually interpreted as a blind, rotten, incapable tyranny. But an analysis of 30 months of war with Germany and Austria should correct these superficial notions. We can measure the strength of the Russian Empire by the blows it has endured, by the disasters it has endured, by the inexhaustible forces that it has developed, and by the restoration of the forces of which it was capable of ... ".

In an atmosphere of growing confrontation, Nicholas II was forced to abdicate in order to avoid bloodshed. It was the tragic finest hour of Nicholas II.

Nicholas II was separated from his family. On March 21, the Empress was arrested in Tsarskoye Selo, on the same day Nicholas II was to be arrested.

For the first time in 23 years, he did not have to read reports, make ministers and make final decisions on matters of national importance. Nikolai got the opportunity to manage his time at his own discretion: read, smoke, work with children, play snowballs, walk in the park, and began to read the Bible.

Using a movie camera donated to Alexei by the Pate film company before the revolution, Nikolai organized film screenings in the evenings.

Alexei played the role of a sedate host, inviting everyone to his room to watch movies. Count Benckendorff, a frequent guest at these evenings, recalled: “He is very smart and intelligent, he has a pronounced character and a wonderful heart. If we manage to cope with his illness and if God grants him life, he will play an important role in the future in the revival of our unfortunate country. His character was formed under the influence of the suffering of his parents and his own, experienced in childhood. Perhaps God will have mercy and save him and his entire family from the fanatics in whose clutches they are now.”

The provisional government placed responsibility for the safety of the imperial family entirely on the shoulders of Kerensky, who later admitted that, in close contact with the tsar in those weeks, he was struck by “modesty and the complete absence of any posture. This naturalness in behavior, unfeigned simplicity created a special attractive force and charm of the emperor, which were even more sharply enhanced by amazing eyes, deep and tragic ... ".

For security reasons, it was decided to move the royal family to Tobolsk. After the conclusion of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the royal family was transferred to Yekaterinburg, where they all became truly prisoners. Security behaved arrogantly and defiantly. Except for daily walks in the garden at noon, the family's life was limited by the four walls of their rooms. Nikolai and Alexandra read, the girls knitted and embroidered, Alexei played in bed with a ship model.

The Ural Council unanimously decided to shoot the entire royal family as soon as possible and destroy all traces of what had been done. Despite attempts to hide forever how the royal family was killed, the circumstances of this cruel act of vandalism became known to the world. The perpetrators of this murder and desecration of the remains are condemned today by people.

10 years ago, the family of Nicholas II was canonized by the Russian Church. In Yekaterinburg, at the site of their tragic death in early 1990, a cross was erected in their memory, at the foot of which fresh flowers constantly lie.

A few months ago, a cross was erected at the Vagankovsky cemetery for all the Romanovs. This cross has become a symbol of Russia's return to spiritual roots, a symbol of spiritual Resurrection.

Lecture Search

Lecture 41. Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.

Basic concepts:

Russification; federal state; petition; Trudoviks; cut; farm;

Lecture text.

Domestic policy of Nicholas II.

Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov was born on May 6, 1868, the day of St. John the Long-suffering, and therefore considered himself doomed to failure and torment. And there were grounds for such a belief. During the round-the-world trip, which Nicholas made while still a crown prince, an attempt was made on his life in Japan. The coronation of Nicholas II in May 1896 went down in history with the tragedy that happened on that day. About a million people gathered for the festive festivities organized on the occasion of the coronation at the Khodynka field in Moscow. During the distribution of gifts, a stampede began, in which about three thousand people were injured, more than a thousand of them died. Nicholas was destined to go through another shock: his long-awaited only son suffered from an incurable serious illness.

Since Nicholas never expounded his views and did not seek to make them public, he was considered a weak ruler, influenced first by his mother and then by his wife. It was also said that the last councilor with whom he spoke always had the last word. In fact, the last word was left to those who shared the views of the emperor. At the same time, when determining his own positions, Nikolai was guided by only one criterion: what would his father have done in his place? Those who knew Nikolai closely believed that if he had been born in an ordinary environment, he would have lived a life full of harmony, encouraged by his superiors and respected by those around him. All memoirists unanimously note that Nikolai was an ideal family man, well-mannered, restrained in showing emotions. At the same time, he was characterized by insincerity and a certain stubbornness, even cunning. Contemporaries accused him of being a "medium-sized man" who was burdened by state affairs.

The accession of Nicholas to the throne caused a wave of expectations in society. Many hoped that the new emperor would complete the reforms conceived by his grandfather, Alexander II, they hoped that he would undertake the restructuring of the political system. The main idea of ​​a liberal-minded society was the introduction of "people's representatives" into government bodies. That is why, after the accession to the throne of Nicholas II, numerous petitions from zemstvos began to arrive in his address, in which (in a very cautious form) they expressed hope for the implementation of “the possibility and right of public institutions to express their opinion on issues relating to them, so that up to the height of the throne could achieve the expression of the needs and thoughts of not only representatives of the administration, but also the Russian people.

But on January 17, 1895, in his first public speech Nikolai declared that he would protect the foundations of autocracy as firmly and unswervingly as her "unforgettable late parent" did. This marked the first split in the new reign between the supreme power and the liberal social forces. And the whole further political life of Russia went under the sign of the struggle for the idea of ​​"people's representation".

The struggle between conservative and liberal forces in the highest echelons of power. In the immediate environment of the emperor, there were different points of view on the prospects for the development of Russia. Finance Minister S. Yu. Witte was aware of the need for reforms in the country. He stated that “the same thing is happening in Russia now that happened in its time in the West: it is moving to the capitalist system ... This is the world's immutable law.” He considered economic reforms to be of priority, and among them - reforms in the field of industrial production and finance. He believed that the industrialization of the country is not only an economic but also a political task. Its implementation would help to accumulate funds for urgent social reforms to engage in agriculture. The result would be the gradual displacement of the nobility, the replacement of its power by the power of big capital. Representatives of big capital in the future would reform the political structure of the country in the right direction.

The main political opponent of S. Yu. Witte was the Minister of the Interior V. K. Plehve, who had a reputation as a firm defender of the “Russian foundations”. S. Yu. Witte. Plehve was convinced that Russia "had its own separate history and special system." Without denying the need for reforms in the country, he considered it impossible for these reforms to be carried out too rapidly, under pressure "from immature youth, students ... and notorious revolutionaries." In his opinion, the initiative in the matter of reforms should belong to the government.

Growing influence of the Ministry of the Interior. In his policy, V. K. Plehve relied on punitive measures: “If we are not able to change the historical course of events leading to the oscillation of the state, then we must put up barriers to it in order to delay it, and not go with the flow, trying to be Always ahead". He began his work by strengthening the positions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Only 125 officials served in the police department, but it was only the headquarters of a whole army of police officers, filers, secret agents. In all provinces, counties, on the railways there were gendarme departments. Russian educated society treated the gendarmes with disgust. However, part of the noble youth, carried away by the halo of mystery and romance, sought to enter the service in the gendarme corps. The government made serious demands on applicants. Only a hereditary nobleman who successfully graduated from a military or cadet school and served in military service for at least six years could become a gendarme. There were other requirements: not to have debts, not to profess Catholicism, it was necessary to pass preliminary tests at the headquarters of the gendarme corps, attend four-month courses in St. Petersburg and successfully pass the final exam.

V. K. Plehve paid special attention to the expansion of the network of departments for the protection of order and public security, which were popularly called “Okhranok”. So later they began to call the entire secret police. Surveillance agents - filers - according to the instructions were supposed to be "with strong legs, with good eyesight, hearing and memory, with such an appearance that would make it possible not to stand out from the crowd."

V. K. Plehve considered the opening of letters to be one of the most effective methods of detective work. To intercept letters, there were technical means that made it possible to discreetly open and copy the message, forge any seal, develop sympathetic ink, decipher cryptography, etc. The Minister of the Interior was aware of private correspondence and foreign diplomatic representatives. Only two people in the empire - the king and the minister of the interior - could be calm about their correspondence.

"Zubatovsky socialism".

At the same time, an attempt was made to take control of the labor movement. This idea belonged to the head of the Moscow security department, Colonel S. V. Zubatov.

The idea of ​​S. V. Zubatov was to wrest the workers from the influence of anti-government organizations. To do this, he considered it necessary to instill in them the idea that the interests of state power do not coincide with the narrowly selfish interests of entrepreneurs, and that workers can improve their financial situation only in alliance with the authorities. On the initiative of S. V. Zubatov and with the support of the Governor-General of Moscow, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich in 1901 - 1902. in Moscow, and then in other cities, legal workers' organizations were created, built on a professional basis.

But for the success of Zubatov's idea, the authorities had to do something real for the workers. The state, however, limited its "protective" policy by the law "On the establishment of elders in factory enterprises" (June 1903). The workers could elect from their midst a headman who monitored the fulfillment by the employer of the conditions of employment. Zubatov's theory did not forbid workers to participate in economic strikes, therefore, in the sweeping in 1902 - 1903. members of the Zubatov organizations took an active part in a wide strike wave. This angered the manufacturers. Complaints about "risky experiments" poured into the government. SV Zubatov was dismissed.

Plehve was also distrustful of Zubatov's initiative. He considered the tactic of destroying revolutionary organizations from within by introducing police agents into them more effective. One of the greatest successes was the introduction of secret police agent E. Azef into the leading core of the largest terrorist organization. However, this did not save V.K. Plehve himself. In 1904 he was killed.

Meanwhile, the situation in the country remained difficult. Worker and peasant uprisings, student unrest did not stop, Zemstvo liberals showed perseverance, the army was defeated in the war with Japan. All this brought Russia to the brink of a revolutionary explosion. Under these conditions, when appointed to the key post of Minister of the Interior, the tsar's choice fell on the Vilna governor, Prince P. D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky, known for his liberal sentiments.

In the very first public speaking in September 1904, the new minister spoke about trust between the government and society as a decisive condition for state policy.

Proclaiming a policy of cooperation between the authorities and the zemstvos, Svyatopolk-Mirsky understood that the zemstvos were the only legal organizations in Russia. He believed that through an alliance with the zemstvo leadership, it was possible to expand and strengthen the socio-political support of power.

In November 1904, Svyatopolk-Mirsky handed the tsar a note in which he listed priority measures in the field of state reorganization. He proposed to include in the composition of the State Council a certain number of elected representatives from zemstvos and city dumas. It was necessary to significantly expand the circle of voters in the zemstvo and city governments, as well as to form volost zemstvos. He intended to extend the zemstvos throughout the empire. Svyatopolk-Mirsky also tried to resolve other issues: to create conditions for bringing the peasants closer in property rights with other estates, to expand the rights of the Old Believers, to issue a law on the rights of the Jewish population, etc.

In early December 1904, Nicholas II gathered the highest state dignitaries and grand dukes to discuss the program of Svyatopolk-Mirsky. The result was an imperial decree of December 12, 1904, promising some changes. However, the decree did not mention popular representation. Moreover, it was emphasized that all reforms must be carried out while maintaining the autocracy in an unshakable form. The resignation of Svyatopolk-Mirsky was a foregone conclusion.

In this way, domestic politics Nicholas II was a direct continuation of the previous reign and did not meet the mood of the majority of Russian society, which was waiting for decisive reforms from the new tsar.

Revolution of 1905-1907.

Rapid economic development in the 1990s 19th century was replaced at the end of the century by a crisis in a number of industries, especially in heavy industry. Years of stagnation followed. The discontent of all sections of society intensified. The peasants continued to put forward demands for the transfer of all landowners' lands to them. The workers fought for wage increases, the introduction of an 8-hour working day, and health insurance. But the bourgeoisie became the main guiding force of the future revolution, demanding the granting of political freedoms: conscience, meetings, the press, and, finally, the introduction of popular representation to resolve state issues.

The "Union of Liberation" through the zemstvo movement put forward the idea of ​​holding an all-Russian zemstvo conference to discuss not only the economic, but also the political needs of Russia. In the autumn of 1904, a meeting of almost all political movements in Russia was held in Paris. Representatives of the "Union of Liberation", Socialist-Revolutionaries, national movements from the outskirts of Russia. Only the Social Democrats were absent. The conference adopted resolutions on the destruction of the autocracy and its replacement by a free democratic system based on the universal suffrage, on the right of national self-determination of the peoples inhabiting Russia.

The beginning of the revolution.

Interior Minister P.D. At the end of 1904 Svyatopolk-Mirsky supported the idea of ​​holding a zemstvo congress, but Nicholas II actually banned it. However, with the permission of Svyatopolk-Mirsky, such a congress unofficially took place in November 1904. The resolution of the congress contained demands for freedom and the abolition of autocracy.

A political campaign in support of the decisions of the congress intensified throughout Russia. This movement coincided with the increased activity of the “Society of Factory Workers” in St. Petersburg, headed by the priest G.A. Gapon. The society was created with the support of the authorities as one of the Zubatov organizations. However, the authorities failed to keep it under control. In December, the management of the Putilov factory was presented with a demand that it refused to fulfill: the dismissal of the hated foreman, an 8-hour working day, and an increase in wages. The result of the conflict was a strike. At the suggestion of Gapon, the workers at the meeting decided to turn to the tsar with their needs, making a peaceful procession to the Winter Palace. On January 6, a petition was drawn up to Nikolai P. Along with economic demands, it also included political demands, including the demand to adopt the Constitution and convene a Constituent Assembly.

Despite the fact that Nicholas II was not in St. Petersburg, the authorities decided not to allow the procession to the Winter Palace. The result was the execution by the troops of a peaceful Sunday demonstration on January 9, 1905, the death of hundreds of people. "Bloody Sunday" stirred up the whole country, the prestige of the authorities was severely undermined.

On February 18, the emperor issued a Manifesto, in which he announced his intention to convene a legislative State Duma. However, this could no longer extinguish the unrest. On August 6, a Manifesto was issued on the convocation of the State Duma with the rights of a legislative conference under the emperor. The peasantry received the right to participate in the Duma, and the workers could not be elected. Such a Duma did not suit anyone.

While the authorities were deciding on the issue of a new state body, such a body was being formed from below. In May 1905, during a strike of textile workers in Ivanovo-Voznesensk, he was elected to lead the strike. Council of Workers' Commissioners. It included about 150 workers, among whom were social democrats. The Soviet established strike funds for the workers, and the merchants, at the request of the Soviet, issued groceries to the workers on credit. To protect the rallies, workers' squads were created. The Council began to perform some management functions in the city.

Following the type of Ivanovo-Voznesensk workers, Soviets also began to emerge in other cities of Russia. This more than once led to the creation of dual power in the cities. But the most disturbing thing for the government was the unrest in the army, which was always considered a reliable support for the throne. In June 1905, an uprising broke out on the battleship of the Black Sea Fleet "Prince Potemkin-Tavrichesky". The sailors killed many officers and took control of the ship in their own hands. Arriving in Odessa, the battleship supported the strike of the workers of the city. The ships of the Black Sea squadron sent to capture the Potemkin refused to fire on the rebels, but did not go over to their side either. For more than a week the battleship was at sea, however, having no coal and food supplies, she was forced to surrender to the Romanian authorities.

©2015-2018 poisk-ru.ru
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Copyright Violation and Personal Data Violation

Emperor Nicholas II Romanov (1868-1918) succeeded to the throne on 20 October 1894 after the death of his father Alexander III. The years of his reign from 1894 to 1917 were marked economic recovery Russia and at the same time the growth of revolutionary movements.

The latter was due to the fact that the new sovereign in everything followed the political guidelines that his father inspired him. In his heart, the king was deeply convinced that any parliamentary form of government would harm the empire. For the ideal, patriarchal relations were taken, where the crowned ruler acted as a father, and the people were considered as children.

However, such archaic views did not correspond to the real political situation in the country by the beginning of the 20th century. It was this discrepancy that led the emperor, and with him the empire, to the catastrophe that occurred in 1917.

Emperor Nicholas II
artist Ernest Lipgart

The years of the reign of Nicholas II (1894-1917)

The reign of Nicholas II can be divided into two stages. The first before the revolution of 1905, and the second from 1905 until the abdication of the throne on March 2, 1917. The first period is characterized by a negative attitude towards any manifestation of liberalism. At the same time, the tsar tried to avoid any political transformations and hoped that the people would adhere to autocratic traditions.

But the Russian Empire suffered a complete defeat in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905), and then a revolution broke out in 1905. All this became the reasons that forced the last ruler of the Romanov dynasty to make compromises and political concessions. However, they were perceived by the sovereign as temporary, so parliamentarism in Russia was hampered in every possible way. As a result, by 1917 the emperor lost support in all strata of Russian society.

Considering the image of Emperor Nicholas II, it should be noted that he was an educated and extremely pleasant person to communicate with. His favorite hobbies were art and literature. At the same time, the sovereign did not have the proper determination and will, which were fully present in his father.

The cause of the disaster was the coronation of the emperor and his wife Alexandra Feodorovna on May 14, 1896 in Moscow. On this occasion, mass celebrations on Khodynka were scheduled for May 18, and it was announced that royal gifts would be distributed to people. This attracted a huge number of residents of Moscow and the Moscow region to the Khodynka field.

As a result, a terrible stampede arose, in which, as journalists claimed, 5 thousand people died. The Mother See was shocked by the tragedy, and the tsar did not even cancel the celebrations in the Kremlin and the ball at the French embassy. People did not forgive the new emperor for this.

Second terrible tragedy became Bloody Sunday on January 9, 1905 (for details, see the article Bloody Sunday). This time, the troops opened fire on the workers who were going to the tsar to hand over the petition. About 200 people died, and 800 were injured of varying severity. This unfortunate incident took place against the backdrop of Russo-Japanese War, which was extremely unsuccessful for the Russian Empire. After this event, Emperor Nicholas II received the nickname Bloody.

Revolutionary sentiments turned into revolution. A wave of strikes and terrorist attacks swept across the country. They killed policemen, officers, tsarist officials. All this forced the tsar on August 6, 1905 to sign a manifesto on the creation of the State Duma. However, this did not prevent an all-Russian political strike. The emperor had no choice but to sign a new manifesto on 17 October. He expanded the powers of the Duma and gave the people additional freedoms. At the end of April 1906, all this was approved by law. And only after that the revolutionary unrest began to decline.

Heir to the throne Nicholas with his mother Maria Feodorovna

Economic policy

The main creator of economic policy at the first stage of the reign was the Minister of Finance, and then Chairman of the Council of Ministers Sergei Yulievich Witte (1849-1915). He was an active supporter of attracting foreign capital to Russia. According to his project, gold circulation was introduced in the state. At the same time, domestic industry and trade were supported in every possible way. At the same time, the state strictly controlled the development of the economy.

Since 1902, the Minister of the Interior Vyacheslav Konstantinovich Plehve (1846-1904) began to exert great influence on the tsar. The newspapers wrote that he was the royal puppeteer. He was an extremely intelligent and experienced politician, capable of constructive compromises. He sincerely believed that the country needed reforms, but only under the leadership of the autocracy. This outstanding man was killed in the summer of 1904 by the Socialist-Revolutionary Sazonov, who threw a bomb into his carriage in St. Petersburg.

In 1906-1911, the decisive and strong-willed Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin (1862-1911) determined the policy in the country. He fought against the revolutionary movement, peasant revolts and at the same time carried out reforms. He considered the main agrarian reform. Rural communities were disbanded, and the peasants received the rights to create their own farms. To this end, the Peasants' Bank was reorganized and many programs developed. The ultimate goal of Stolypin was the creation of a numerous layer of wealthy peasant farms. He spent 20 years doing this.

However, Stolypin's relationship with the State Duma was extremely difficult. He insisted that the Emperor dissolve the Duma and change the electoral law. Many perceived it as a coup d'état. The next Duma turned out to be more conservative in its composition and more submissive to the authorities.

But not only the Duma members were dissatisfied with Stolypin, but also the tsar and the royal court. These people did not want fundamental reforms in the country. And on September 1, 1911, in the city of Kiev, at the play "The Tale of Tsar Saltan", Pyotr Arkadievich was mortally wounded by the Socialist-Revolutionary Bogrov. On September 5, he died and was buried in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. With the death of this man, the last hopes for reforms without a bloody revolution disappeared.

In 1913, the country's economy was on the rise. It seemed to many that the "silver age" of the Russian Empire and the era of prosperity of the Russian people had finally come. This year the whole country celebrated the 300th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty. The festivities were magnificent. They were accompanied by balls and festivities. But everything changed on July 19 (August 1), 1914, when Germany declared war on Russia.

The last years of the reign of Nicholas II

With the outbreak of the war, the whole country experienced an extraordinary patriotic upsurge. Demonstrations were held in provincial cities and the capital expressing full support for Emperor Nicholas II. A struggle with everything German swept across the country. Even Petersburg was renamed Petrograd. The strikes stopped, and the mobilization covered 10 million people.

At the front, Russian troops first advanced. But the victories ended in defeat in East Prussia at Tannenberg. Also at the beginning, military operations against Austria, which was an ally of Germany, were successful. However, in May 1915, the Austro-German troops inflicted a heavy defeat on Russia. She had to cede Poland and Lithuania.

The economic situation in the country began to deteriorate. The products manufactured by the military industry did not meet the needs of the front. Theft flourished in the rear, and numerous victims began to cause indignation in society.

At the end of August 1915, the emperor took over the functions supreme commander, removing Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich from this post. This was a serious miscalculation, since all military failures began to be attributed to the sovereign, and he did not have any military talents.

The crowning achievement of Russian military art was the Brusilovsky breakthrough in the summer of 1916. During this brilliant operation, a crushing defeat was inflicted on the Austrian and German troops. The Russian army occupied Volyn, Bukovina and most of Galicia. Large war trophies of the enemy were captured. But, unfortunately, this was the last major victory of the Russian army.

The further course of events was deplorable for the Russian Empire. Revolutionary moods intensified, discipline in the army began to fall. It became common to disobey the orders of commanders. Desertions have become more frequent. Both society and the army were annoyed by the influence that Grigory Rasputin had on the royal family. A simple Siberian peasant was gifted with extraordinary abilities. He was the only one who could relieve attacks from Tsarevich Alexei, who suffered from hemophilia.

Therefore, Empress Alexandra Feodorovna immensely trusted the elder. And he, using his influence at court, interfered in political issues. All this, of course, irritated society. In the end, a conspiracy arose against Rasputin (for details, see the article The Murder of Rasputin). The presumptuous old man was killed in December 1916.

The coming year of 1917 was the last in the history of the Romanov dynasty. The royal power no longer controlled the country. A special committee of the State Duma and the Petrograd Soviet formed a new government headed by Prince Lvov. It demanded that Emperor Nicholas II abdicate the throne. On March 2, 1917, the sovereign signed a renunciation manifesto in favor of his brother Mikhail Alexandrovich. Michael also renounced supreme power. The Romanov dynasty ended.

Empress Alexandra Feodorovna
artist A. Makovsky

Personal life of Nicholas II

Nicholas married for love. His wife was Alice of Hesse-Darmstadt. After the adoption of Orthodoxy, she took the name Alexandra Feodorovna. The marriage took place on November 14, 1894 at the Winter Palace. In marriage, the Empress gave birth to 4 girls (Olga, Tatyana, Maria, Anastasia) and in 1904 a boy was born. They named him Alex.

The last Russian emperor lived with his wife in love and harmony until his death. Alexandra Fedorovna herself had a complex and secretive character. She was shy and uncommunicative. Her world was closed on the crowned family, and the wife had a strong influence on her husband in both personal and political affairs.

As a woman, she was deeply religious and prone to all sorts of mysticism. This was greatly facilitated by the illness of Tsarevich Alexei. Therefore, Rasputin, who had a mystical talent, gained such influence at the royal court. But the people did not like the mother empress for her excessive pride and isolation. This harmed the regime to a certain extent.

After the abdication, the former Emperor Nicholas II and his family were arrested and stayed in Tsarskoye Selo until the end of July 1917. Then the crowned persons were transported to Tobolsk, and from there in May 1918 they were transported to Yekaterinburg. There they were settled in the house of the engineer Ipatiev.

On the night of July 16-17, 1918, the Russian Tsar and his family were brutally murdered in the basement of the Ipatiev House. After that, their bodies were mutilated beyond recognition and secretly buried (for details on the death of the imperial family, see the article of the Kingslayer). In 1998, the found remains of the dead were reburied in the Peter and Paul Cathedral in St. Petersburg.

Thus ended the 300-year epic of the Romanov dynasty. It began in the 17th century in the Ipatiev Monastery, and ended in the 20th century in the house of the engineer Ipatiev. And the history of Russia continued, but in a completely different capacity.

Burial place of the family of Nicholas II
in the Peter and Paul Cathedral in St. Petersburg

Leonid Druzhnikov

The spring and summer of the Russian people were hot at times - it was necessary to grow a crop. In autumn, hard work gave way to rest. Therefore, from the beginning of autumn and throughout the winter, young people gathered for gatherings, conversations, and parties.

Vladimir Dal described this occupation as "a gathering of peasant youth on autumn and winter nights, under the guise of needlework, yarn, and more for stories, fun and songs." This form of communication among young people was widespread throughout almost all of Russia and was called differently in different areas. A huge number of names associated with the verb to sit appeared: pisidki, posidy, gatherings, sittings, sittings, sittings, gray hairs, saddles, sittings. The names of the evening, evening, evenings, evenings, parties, parties, parties give a temporary description: young people were at home during the day and only gathered together in the evening. The words gazebos, conversations, conversation in folk culture reflect the nature of the pastime of the youth. And from the verb "spin", denoting activity, came the name of the supryadka. In some places, gatherings are called cells, (after the name of the room in which the youth gathered).

What made the youth come together? This is the desire to communicate, have fun, and exchange of experience, and most importantly, the opportunity to choose and show oneself in front of the future bride and groom.

The timing of gatherings of young people largely depended on the climate: in the North in many areas they began from the end of September or the beginning of October. In Siberia, even in its southern part, matings began as early as mid-September. In some of the northernmost regions, evenings were held all year round. In the middle lane, gatherings began after the end of autumn work. “As soon as the potatoes were pulled out - we have sittings.”

Two types of gatherings can be distinguished: everyday (working) and festive. At work gatherings, the girls spun, knitted, sewed, told fairy tales and stories, sang long songs. Boys were also allowed, but they behaved modestly. Gogol wrote about them: "In winter, women gather in someone's (hut) to spin together." Festive gatherings differed from everyday ones: they were more crowded, and they almost never worked at festive gatherings, but sang, danced and played different games. And there were often meals.

Depending on the venue, three types of gatherings can be distinguished: gatherings organized in turn in the houses of girls (“from hut to hut”); gatherings in a specially rented, “buyed out” house; sitting in the bath.

Gatherings were arranged in turn by all the girls, and occasionally by the guys. The line went from one end of the village to the other. "A week for some, a week for others - who walks keeps the evening." If a family has several daughters, then gatherings were held several times in a row. And if for some reason the parents of the waiting room could not or did not want to host the conversation, they bought the house from some grandmother for the prescribed period. The girl - the hostess of the gatherings - cleaned the hut herself before and after, and her friends could help her. The first day the marriage was opened like this: the day before, one of the housewives went from house to house and invited the girls to her place. They came to her for dinner, dressed as a weekday, and set to work.

Sitting in the baths is known in the Bryansk region, in the Kaluga, in the Irkutsk provinces, in some villages of Pomorye. Here is how an elderly peasant woman described such gatherings: “The girls who gather in the baths from the tows: they will heat the bath, and if it is crowded in one, then they will heat the other, well, they scratch, they sing songs. Another time, the fellow guys are joking. Like girls a lesson, how much they will be asked, they finish - they play. They will make a pool, eat something sweeter, put a samovar, drink tea. (Zhizdrinsky district of the Kaluga province)

Gatherings in rented premises were most often arranged with old grandmothers, old maids and widows, or with a poor family. The girls found a house in advance and agreed on the terms of its payment.

Since for some time the “farmed house” became a second home for the girls, they tried to keep it clean and make it cozy: “every Saturday they washed the floors”, “we will decorate the cell with newspapers, pictures, wash it clean”, “the hut was decorated with branches, towels, all sorts of drawings.
The heating and lighting of the hut where the gatherings take place, as well as the rent for the premises, are assumed by all the participants in the gatherings. They usually rent a room for the whole winter and often pay for it with the work of all participants, for example, harvesting in the summer (“they helped the hostess dig potatoes”), spinning, firewood, products: potatoes, tea, bread, flour, grain, etc. In a number of places in autumn, the girls all together squeezed out several strips of rye in favor of the owner of the house in which they “sat” the previous winter. Harvesting took place most often on a feast day after dinner. Well-dressed girls gathered in a crowd and went to the field, accompanied by guys with an accordion: they sang along the way, and sometimes they danced. The work was taken "merrily and zealously": the youth strove to turn working off for conversations into entertainment. The only pity is the girls, the guys took up the sickle, perhaps as a joke. But they started a fuss, running around, entertained the reapers with witticisms. The work moved quickly, as each girl wanted to show herself a good reaper. The old people also came to see this harvest.

Although in some places there was just a cash settlement with the owner of the hut at certain stable rates. In many villages they paid by the week: the guys paid for weekdays, and the girls - on Sundays. And, finally, there were also evening dues: guys - 10 kopecks, girls - 5, teenagers - 3. guys from a foreign community, and even more so a foreign volost, made a “sex” in double size. It was possible to attend the gathering without paying anything, but such a guy did not dare, according to local tradition, “neither sit down with any girl, nor dance with her.” In some places, it was accepted that the house was rented, that is, the guys paid for it. But most often it was the girls who paid for the place for gatherings. “And the guys, they are in different cells, they didn’t pay - they will go there and they will go here ... And if he is a friend of a divka - in this cell, but left a divka - he went to another, he stays there. Why pay him!?” The guys only tried to come with goodies - "full pockets of seeds, nuts, gingerbread." The fee necessarily included heating and lighting the house - the girls, as it were, supported it: “they themselves heat and light all the winter those houses where they gather daily.” Everyday contributions were also made in different ways: either each girl, going to gatherings, carried a log (“two logs per person”), a handful of splintered stalks, a bag of bread, or the norm for the entire season - a cart from the participant. Sometimes, during the whole winter, the guys carried firewood, and the girls prepared torches and washed the floors in a rented hut.

F. Sychkov. Girlfriends

Usually, two main groups of girls stood out in the village: girls of marriageable age and teenagers. Accordingly, conversations were organized between the elders (“brides”) and the younger ones (“younger children”). Girls started visiting pavilions at the age of 12-15, when the age corresponds to the accepted boundaries separating girls from girls. However, the beginning was determined not only by age and physical development, but also by the girl's labor skills in women's work - spinning. “They started going to cells from the age of 12-13, when the girl could already spin.” Teenage daughters were given daily work by their mothers (for every evening or for the whole season): “here, to spin you 25 taleks” (talc is a manual reel for winding yarn), “in the evenings, the bobbin was yarn”, and they strictly monitored the implementation of “ lesson." The younger ones did not have the right to spend the night in someone else's house. “The younger ones only spun and sang, and the guys went to the rest.” The younger ones sometimes went to the middle sitting “to see, to learn”.

Married women in many places came to get-togethers with work. As a rule, married people did not take part in entertaining gatherings of young people. Sometimes their participation caused a protest from the side of single youth. No wonder there is a Russian proverb: "A married man is driven from gatherings with a spindle." There are references to the gatherings of old women: “They gather from all over the village and even from other villages to one house and spin at moonlight... old men, girls and boys come to them. All sorts of stories, fairy tales, legends and memories - a lot. “Here they sang, ... they told the youth about the “pre-violent” life, they taught to guess.” Therefore, the "old woman's conversations" are willingly attended by girls.

There were also “overaged” girls, that is, those who did not manage to get married in due time (usually after 20 years). Most of them were ugly or too broken, about which there was a bad reputation: “From the age of 23 - old maids. They wore everything black, ugly, they could no longer put on girls' red scarves.

Everyday gatherings included work and entertainment. The work was the structural core of the gatherings. “The girls came first, they were going to get a little dark. They sat down on the benches and got to work. At gatherings, they spun, knitted, wove lace: “tea, we all spun”, “who knits, who weaves, who spins”, “knitted lace, stockings, socks, mittens, who is a FAQ”. Knitting and lace making were side jobs, spinning was the main job. And they turned to sewing and embroidery when the linen ran out. In order to spin faster, some “set off on tricks: she spins her own, but is lazy to work, yes, maybe she’s still rich, they will take the torch to burn, but we, who lived in people, did not dare to do this.” Sometimes guys also worked at the gatherings: some to weave bast shoes, some to knit a net, some to knit a net, some to go to the forests with some kind of winter tackle for a sleigh. Usually the guys came to the gatherings at a time when the girls had already managed to do a significant part of the daily noma. Unlike the girls' team, the guys were not "tied" to a certain place. During the evening, the guys went around several girls' companies and even went into neighboring villages. But in the hut at gatherings, the leading role was played by girls. The dependent position of the guys was already expressed in the fact that they often sat on the floor, each in front of the one he liked. The custom was to sit on the knees of the girls. But then again, the girl herself decided whether to allow her to sit next to her, whether on her knees or not. "The girls are spinning on the benches, our brother is sitting on the floor." “Guys with harmonicas will come. They will all sit on the floor, only the harmonica player sits on the bench.”

The well-known folklorist P. I. Yakushkin described in detail the gatherings near Novgorod. The girls came to the gatherings first, sat down on the benches and began to spin. Guys approached one by one, two by two and in groups; then greeted: "Hello, red girls!" In response, a friendly voice was heard: “Hello, good fellows!” Many guys brought candles. The guy lit a candle and put it on the girl he liked. She spoke with a bow: “Thank you, good fellow,” without interrupting her work. And if at that time they sang, she only bowed, without interrupting the song. The guy could sit next to the girl; if the place was occupied by another, then, having placed a candle, he stepped aside or sat down near another. Many of the spinners burned two candles. They talked in an undertone, sometimes they sang. The song was accompanied by a pantomime game that depicted the actions that the song was about. The guy who walked around the singers with a handkerchief threw it to one of them on her knees (“He throws, he throws a silk handkerchief on the girl’s knees ...”). The girl went to the middle, the song ended with a kiss. Now the girl threw the handkerchief to one of those sitting, and so on. Throwing a handkerchief immediately to the guy or girl who (or who) had just chosen was considered shameful. The guys at the gatherings looked out for brides: “both hardworking and beautiful, and she won’t go into her pocket for a word.”

For Belarusians at such gatherings, there is no difference between a rich and poor guy, handsome and ugly. All are equally equal. The poorest and most ugly girl can sit down with a beautiful and rich girl, joke with her, regardless of whether she sympathizes with him or not. A girl should not insult a guy, she also cannot prevent a guy from getting hooked on her, while at any other moment even the most innocent jokes with girls are not allowed for guys and can cause displeasure, scolding and beatings.

In the Kaluga province, where any gatherings were arranged only with the knowledge of the elderly, only single boys and girls, occasionally young widows, gathered for festive gatherings. Married and married to them did not happen. They were entertained with dances, songs, games. Guys usually treated girls with nuts, sunflowers and gingerbread. The style of communication was quite free (kisses, fuss), but things did not go further.

In the Oryol province, winter holiday gatherings were held in a spacious hut, along the walls of which benches were placed. Adult youth were seated on the benches, while teenagers were located on the beds. Here, young widows and soldiers were widely accepted to attend gatherings along with girls. Older fellow villagers, as a rule, did not come. They played "neighbors", "beads", "tanka", cards. During this game, the guys slowly put “milks” (mint gingerbread) or “bowlers” (pretzels baked in a boiling cauldron) into the sleeves of their neighbors; the girls cleverly hid them and ate them at home - it was considered indecent to eat in front of everyone.

The Russian North knew the gatherings organized by the guys. Young people pooled together to buy candles and give a small fee for renting a place from a lonely old woman or poor fellow villagers. Not everyone agreed to hand over the hut. There was an idea here that to let a party into your house meant to let evil spirits in for three years. Little guys were sent for the girls - to call ("to hammer", "announce"). It was not accepted to invite good fellows: they had to "know themselves in spirit." An indispensable attribute of entertaining gatherings here, as almost everywhere, was the game of "neighbors". Often they started a “rope”: all the participants, holding hands, led a round dance with complex loop-shaped figures to various songs. "Rope" rolled out into the canopy, returned to the hut. Those who led the round dance first, gradually unhooked from the "rope" and sat down along the walls. After some time, they were again included in the game - the “rope” twisted and twisted, and the songs replaced one another.

I. Kulikov. Spinners

Courtship etiquette at gatherings boiled down to the fact that the guys prevented the girls from working: they unraveled the threads, tangled them, sometimes set fire to the tow, took away the spindles and spinning wheels, hid or even broke them. “They were mischievous: they would set fire to the tow, drag the spinning wheel away, take away the yarn”; “The guys spoiled: they burned the lobes, otherwise another girl, a mischievous girl, would call the guy somehow. His surname is Miney, then “Meney is a pig herder!” he will steal a towel from her - all her work”, “they will also stretch the yarn around the hut and shout:“ Whose phone is it? ””; climb onto the roof and put glass on the pipe. Difchonki will be flooded, smoke will pour all into the hut.

A significant place in the composition of the Nizhny Novgorod gatherings was occupied by games and fun, including whipping with a belt and obligatory kissing. In stories about gatherings, games are mentioned: “crackers”, “column”, “to bundles”, “first-born friends”, “in pranks”, “in the tip”, “in rimen”, “hare”, in “gates ”, in the “little hare”, in the “boyar”, “in the ring”, “in the blind man's eye”, “in the claps”, “doves”, “goat”, “tree”, “grapes”, “in the deer”, etc. In this case, the list under different names may be the same game.

The choice of a partner in some games was based on the principle of lots. Such was the game “to the tip”: the driving girl collected handkerchiefs from all the playing friends and held them in her hand, sticking out the tips; the guy, pulling out one, had to guess whose it was. If he guessed, then the couple kissed. Each prepared a handkerchief for the game in advance and came with it to the gazebo.

In the sit-round game “goat”, the guy walked around the rows of girls sitting on benches, then sat on a chair standing in the middle of the hut, and, pointing to one of the girls, said: “Goat!”, She had to come up to him and kiss him so much as many times as he says. If the girl refused to come out, one of the guys whipped her with a belt. The girl remained in the chair, and the choice now belonged to her.

In the game “Sinking” (“sinking”), which is also widespread in the Russian North, an incoming person approached a guy or girl, took something from them (usually a hat from a guy, a scarf from a girl), threw it on the floor and shouted: “... drowning !" (given the name of the owner of the thing). Everyone asked in chorus: “Who will pull you out?” She or the one named by the owner of the thing had to pick up the thing and kiss it.

In Karelia, the game of "kings" was known. The girl asks the guy: “The king is a service, what do I need to do?” He comes up with any task, and the girl must complete it. “He will say - kiss, so he will say - kiss twelve or several times.”

Popular among the games was the game "doves", the same game was also called "neighbor", "look", "oblique", "turntable". They played it as follows: “they put a bench in the middle of the hut. At one end, the guy sits down, at the other, the girl he calls. Another guy leading, as it were, whips three times in the middle of the bench. As it whips three times, and the girl and the guy should turn around. If they turn in one direction, then they are forced to kiss, and if they turn in different directions, then the guy leaves, but the girl remains and calls the guy herself. So it happens again."

In some games, the final kiss was preceded by some test of the guy. For example, in the game "grapes", the girl stood on a chair, and the driving guy had to contrive and reach out to kiss her. In another version, the guy was helped by two drivers, who lifted him higher on their hands. The game began with the question of the driver: “Who wants grapes? Who will get the grapes? It used to be that girls were not allowed to go home until the “grapes” were harvested.

Dancing was also common at the gatherings. The girls "sing songs, the boys play the harmonica, they dance a quadrille to the game." They also danced Krakowiak, Lancier, Polka, Six, Waltz. “They will gather in the next hut, play songs and have fun until the roosters.”

In Ukraine, there was a custom of “dosvitok” or “sleeping”, when a guy, sometimes even two or three guys, stayed with a girl until the morning. Only the connection of a girl with a guy from a foreign village was strictly forbidden. This custom continued even into the 1920s. In the Kharkov province, only those guys who are asked by the girl to stay all night stay - not personally, but through a friend. If a guy remains who has not received an invitation, colorful shreds are hung on his back or soot and crushed chalk are poured into his hat, etc. An ancient Ukrainian custom requires that chastity be maintained at the same time. A couple who violates this requirement is immediately expelled from society. And in such cases, the guys remove the gate from the hinges in the girl’s house, hang a cradle in the gate, smear the house with soot, etc.

Among Russians, joint overnight stays of youth are found only in very few places as an exception. However, even at Russian gatherings, morals are quite free: kisses and sitting on your knees are the most common phenomena. “Hugging a girl by a guy during a conversation in the eyes of the population has nothing reprehensible, but hugging a girl by a guy is considered the height of immorality.” The girls were allowed to spend the night in the “farming house”. In this case, they each brought their own "bed" in advance. “Right in the cell and slept, on the floor or on the canvas. You will weave matting for yourself and sleep”, “The guys left at 3, and we lay down on the floor.”

There is evidence that in a number of places, by custom, boys were also allowed to stay overnight. "The guy lay down next to the one he liked." “Girls and boys spent the night in the cells - they all spent the night together. Shall we go home at one in the morning?” “The guys were sent out to cheat. And slept with the grooms. Well, they didn’t give - they didn’t give. There was a custom that the "destroyer of girlish beauty" was forever expelled from girlish society and deprived of the right to marry an innocent girl. At the same time, rumors were enough to form the opinion of the community that young people were “loved”, and then the guy “left” the girl. Public opinion was no less severe with regard to girls: if it was noticed at gatherings that any of their participants likes to “rush from one to another”, she gained a reputation as “straying” and lost all her charm in the eyes of young people. Her friends avoided her, and the guys laughed at her. To fall in love with a girl with such a reputation was “ashamed in front of her comrades,” and to marry her was “shame in front of her parents, a shame in front of the world.” “Even a widower will disdain such a girl,” as he considers that she “will be both a bad mother and an unreliable mistress.”

Girls who lost their innocence were subjected to special punishments, as, for example, at a wedding: guys at night secretly smeared the gates of the parents of such girls with tar, cut off their braids, publicly beat them, cut their dresses into shreds, etc. (Kirsanovsky district of the Tambov province). In the Samara province, lovers caught at the scene of a crime were forced to exchange clothes, i.e. a woman put on a man's dress, and a man - a woman's, and in this outfit they were taken through the streets of the city.

Gatherings have long been exposed to denunciations of immorality and persecution, first by the clergy, then by the administrative authorities. So, in 1719, the Kiev Spiritual Consistory prescribed to take care that “they stop ... the hated festivities, called Vespers, which are hated by God and man”; disobedient were threatened with excommunication from the church. The book on Christian life directly states that “to go to gatherings with worldly people ... it is detrimental to Christian souls and pious faith, harmful and reproachful and reproachful to all Christ's servants, according to Holy Scripture, it is very disgusting.”