Plan: page

Intro 3

I. The beginning of the reign of Nicholas II 4

1) "Senseless dreams" of liberals 4

2) Projects for solving the peasant question 6

a) "Special meeting on the needs of the agricultural industry." (S.Yu. Witte) 6

b) Editorial Commission of the Ministry of Internal Affairs 8

c) The Tsar's Manifesto of February 6, 1903 (V.K. Plehve) 9

3) Foreign policy initiatives of the king 10

4) Attempts of concessions. "Autumn Spring" Svyatopolk-Mirsky 13

II. Nicholas II and the first Russian revolution 15

1) "Bloody" Sunday 15

2) Power maneuvers 17

3) "Bulyginskaya Duma" 19

5) Nicholas II and the State Duma 23

a) "The First Russian Constitution" 23

b) First State Duma 26

III. Calm and reform 29

IV. Duma Monarchy 31

V. Nicholas II and the First World War 34

VI. February Revolution and the abdication of Nicholas 36

Conclusion 39

Introduction

Mankind will always be tormented by the question: What happened in Russia in the seventeenth? Is Nicholas II the culprit or the victim?

Starting to write an essay, I set myself the task of figuring out through the deeds of Emperor Nicholas II whether he was justly accused of being the culprit of all the tragedies that occurred in Russia during his reign. Contemporaries saw in him a good family man, but not a very good ruler. Here is what his contemporaries said about him:

A.F. Koni (famous judicial figure): “Cowardice and betrayal ran like a red thread through his whole life, through his whole reign, and in this, and not in a lack of mind or will, one must look for some of the reasons for what ended for him and that and other".

P.N. Milyukov (leader of the Cadets): “Nicholas II was undoubtedly an honest man and a good family man, but he had an extremely weak-willed nature ... Nicholas was afraid of the influence of a strong will on himself. In the fight against her, he used the same, the only means available to him - cunning and duplicity.

I used many books to write the essay, but I will focus on some of them in more detail:

S.S. Oldenburg "The Reign of Emperor Nicholas II". In this book, the material is presented consistently, maybe not in great detail, but in it I found all the necessary information that is not found in other publications.

Gilliard "The Emperor and his family". In this book, the closest person in the family - Gilliard - the educator tells about Nicholas II something that other people could not know and see.

However, when writing the essay, I used a 10th grade history textbook. Many of the events in this textbook are presented in a way that no other book has. For example, I took material from this textbook about the creation of the Constitution.

The very name of the essay I took from the book of Shatsillo F.K., which is called: "Nicholas II: reforms or revolution."

I . The beginning of the reign of Nicholas II

1. The “meaningless dreams” of liberals

Alexander III died unexpectedly on October 20, 1894. The eyes of the liberal public with hope turned to his son and heir. It was expected from the new Emperor Nicholas II that he would change the conservative course of his father and return to the policy of liberal reforms of his grandfather, Alexander II. Society closely followed the statements of the young king, looking for the slightest hint of a turn in politics. And if words became known that at least to some extent could be interpreted in a liberal sense, they were immediately picked up and warmly welcomed. Thus, the liberal newspaper Russkiye Vedomosti praised the tsar's notes on the margins of a report on the problems of public education that had become public. The notes acknowledged the trouble in this area. This was seen as a sign of the tsar's deep understanding of the country's problems, a sign of his intention to embark on reforms.

The public did not limit themselves to laudatory reviews, designed, as it were, to delicately push the new tsar onto the path of reforms. Zemstvo assemblies literally overwhelmed the emperor with greetings - addresses that, along with expressions of love and devotion, contained very cautious wishes of a political nature.

The question of a constitution, of a real limitation of autocratic power, was not raised in the appeals of the zemstvos to the emperor. The modesty and moderation of the wishes of the public was explained by the confidence that the new king would not be slow to meet the dictates of the times.

Everyone was looking forward to what the new emperor would say to society. The reason for the first public speech presented itself to the king soon. On January 17, 1895, on the occasion of the sovereign's marriage, a solemn reception was announced for deputations from the nobility, zemstvos, cities and Cossack troops. The great hall was full. A nondescript colonel of the Guards passed through the respectfully parted deputies, sat down on the throne, put his cap on his knees and, lowering his eyes into it, began to say something indistinctly.

“I know,” the tsar muttered quickly, “that lately in some Zemstvo meetings the voices of people carried away by senseless dreams about the participation of Zemstvo representatives in matters of internal administration have been heard; let everyone know,” and here Nikolai tried to add metal in his voice, “that I will guard the beginnings of autocracy as firmly and unswervingly as my unforgettable late parent guarded it.”

2. Projects for solving the peasant question

a) "Special meeting on the needs of the agricultural industry." (S.Yu. Witte)

In January 1902, the sovereign made an important decision in principle to get the agrarian question off the ground. 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 village - with the close participation of D.S. Sipyagin and Minister of Agriculture A.S. Yermolov, this meeting consisted of twenty dignitaries, and along with the members of the State Council, 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 then it was necessary to turn to the sovereign. D.S. Sipyagin noted that "many of the issues essential for the agricultural industry should not, however, be resolved solely from the point of view of the interests of agriculture" 2 ; 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 produce 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 district 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.

b) Editorial Commission of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

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 the special class bodies of the court and administration, the abolition of the special system of punishments for peasants, the elimination of all restrictions on freedom of movement and the 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 for "editing" 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.

c) The Tsar's Manifesto of February 6, 1903 (V.K. Plehve)

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

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.

3. Foreign policy initiatives of the king

The Russian government in December 1898 drew up a note based on the experience of recent months and reducing the general proposals of the note of August 12 to a few specific points.

“Despite the apparent desire of public opinion in favor of general appeasement,” the note said, “the political situation has changed significantly in recent times. Many states have embarked on new armaments, trying to further develop their military forces. Naturally, in such an indeterminate state of affairs, it was impossible not to wonder whether the Powers considered the present political moment convenient for international discussion of the principles set forth in the circular of August 12 ...

It goes without saying that all questions relating to the political relations of states and the order of things existing on the basis of treaties, as well as in general all questions that will not be included in the program adopted by the cabinets, will be subject to unconditional exclusion from the subjects of discussion of the conference.

Calming, thus, I am dangerous Franz ai and Germany about the possibility of posing political questions, the Russian government put forward the following program:

1. Agreement on the preservation for a certain period of time of the present composition of the land and sea armed forces and budgets for military needs.

7. Revision of the declarations of 1874 on the laws and customs of war.

On this note, the original basic idea of ​​the reduction and limitation of armaments already remained only "the first one" along with other proposals.

The Russian program for the peace conference was thus reduced to a few, quite specific, propositions. The Hague, the capital of Holland, one of the most “neutral” countries (and at the same time not officially “neutralized” like Switzerland and Belgium) was chosen as the place of its convocation.

In order to ensure the participation of all the great powers, it was necessary to agree not to invite the African states, as well as the Roman curia. The states of Central and South America were also not invited. The conference was attended by all twenty European states, four Asian and two American.

The Hague Peace Conference met from May 18 (6) to July 29 (17), 1899, under the chairmanship of the Russian ambassador in London, Baron Staal.

The struggle was waged on it around two points - arms limitation and compulsory arbitration. On the first issue, the debate took place in the plenary session of the first commission (June 23, 26 and 30).

“Restrictions on the military budget and armaments are the main goal of the conference,” said the Russian delegate, Baron Staal. - We are not talking about utopias, we are not proposing disarmament. We want restrictions, stopping the growth of armaments” 4 . The military representative of Russia, Colonel Zhilinsky, proposed: 1) undertake not to increase the previous number of peacetime troops for five years, 2) establish this number exactly, 3) undertake not to increase military budgets within the same period. Captain Shein proposed limiting maritime budgets for a three-year period, as well as publishing all data on fleets.

Several states (including Japan) immediately stated that they had not yet received instructions on these matters. The unpopular role of official opponent was assumed by the German delegate, Colonel Gross von Schwarzhof. He ironically objected to those who spoke of the unbearable hardships of weapons.

The issue was referred to a subcommittee of eight military men, which, with the exception of the Russian delegate Zhilinsky, unanimously recognized that 1) it is difficult even for five years to fix the number of troops without simultaneously regulating other elements of national defense, 2) it is no less difficult to regulate other elements by international agreement , different in different countries. Therefore, unfortunately, the Russian proposal cannot be accepted. With regard to naval armaments, delegations referred to the lack of instructions.

Passionate disputes were raised only by the question of the arbitration court. The German delegation took an uncompromising position on this issue.

A compromise was found by waiving the obligation of arbitration. The German delegation agreed, in turn, to the establishment of a permanent court. Wilhelm II, however, considered this a big concession made by him to the sovereign. The same was expressed by statesmen of other countries.

Russian public opinion, until the end of the Hague Conference, showed a rather weak interest in this issue. In general, a sympathetic attitude prevailed, with an admixture of skepticism and some irony.

The Hague Conference of 1899, however, played its part in world history. It showed how far at that moment it was from general pacification, how fragile the international calm was. At the same time, it raised the question of the possibility and desirability of international agreements to ensure peace.

4. Attempted concessions. "Autumn Spring" by 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 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. The last paragraph vaguely spoke of 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, as if meeting the wishes of the 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 then, on December 12, a Decree was published, loudly titled "On the plans for the improvement of the state order" 5 . 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 in 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.

II . Nicholas II and the first Russian revolution

1. "Bloody" Sunday

The ninth of January was a "political earthquake" - the beginning of the Russian revolution.

About 140,000 people took to the streets on January 9. The workers walked with their wives and children, festively dressed. People carried icons, banners, crosses, royal portraits, white-blue-red national flags. Armed soldiers warmed themselves by the fires. But no one wanted to believe that the workers would be shot at. The king was not in the city that day, but they hoped that the sovereign would come to personally accept the petition from their hands.

A few hours later, the priest composed a new appeal to the people. He now called Nicholas II "the beast-king." “Brothers, comrade-workers,” wrote G. Gapon. - Innocent Blood all-it spilled ... The bullets of the tsar's soldiers ... shot through the tsar's portrait and killed our faith in the tsar. So let us take revenge, brothers, on the tsar cursed by the people and all his snake offspring, ministers, all the robbers of the unfortunate Russian land. Death to them all! January 7, 9, 1905 is considered the birthday of the first Russian revolution.

2. Maneuvers of power

Years of revolutionary propaganda could not have done so much to undermine the authority of the existing power in Russia as did the execution on January 9th. What happened on that day shattered the traditional ideas of the people about the king as a protector and patron. Returning from the blood-drenched streets of the capital to the departments of the "Assembly", gloomy people trampled on the portraits of the king and icons, spitting on them. "Bloody Sunday" finally pushed the country into revolution.

The first desperate, albeit scattered, outbursts of workers' fury occurred already in the afternoon of January 9 and resulted in the destruction of weapons shops and attempts to build barricades. Even Nevsky was blocked off by benches dragged from everywhere. On January 10, all 625 enterprises of the capital stopped. But for the next few days, the city was dominated by Cossack reprisals and police brutality. Cossacks rampaged in the streets, beat passers-by without any reason. There were searches in private apartments, newspaper offices, premises of public organizations, arrests of suspects. They were looking for evidence of a broad revolutionary conspiracy. Gapon's "Assembly" was closed.

On January 11, a new post of Governor-General of St. Petersburg was established with extraordinary, in fact, dictatorial powers. Nicholas II appointed D.F. Trepov. In early January, he defiantly resigned from the post of chief police chief of Moscow, defiantly declaring that he did not share the liberal views of the Minister of the Interior.

In reality, Trepov did not have any definite views, simply because he did not understand politics at all. Therefore, in the future, faced with the raging ocean of revolution and making sure that the only team he knew well, “Hands at the seams!” does not work here, he rushed to the most opposite extremes and at times expressed very leftist proposals. He began, however, with a ban on restaurants renting rooms for political banquets.

The strike subsided. The workers of the capital were for some time in a state of depression and stupor. But this state quickly passed, which was again facilitated by the tsarist government. On January 19, Nicholas II, on the advice of Trepov, received a "workers' delegation" hastily organized by the former police chief. According to pre-compiled lists, the police and gendarmes grabbed the most "trustworthy" workers indicated by the employers, searched them, changed their clothes and took them to Tsarskoye Selo. It was to this carefully selected buffoonish “delegation” that the Russian emperor read his harsh assessment of what had happened from a piece of paper:

The events of January 9 resounded throughout the country. Already in January, more than 440,000 people were on strike in 66 Russian cities, more than in the previous 10 years combined. Basically, these were political strikes in support of the St. Petersburg comrades. The Russian workers were supported by the proletariat of Poland and the Baltic states. Bloody clashes between the strikers and the police took place in Tallinn and Riga 8 .

Trying, nevertheless, to make amends for the impression of what happened, the tsar instructed Senator N.V. Shadlovsky to convene a commission « for the urgent clarification of the causes of the discontent of the workers in the city of St. Petersburg and the search for measures to eliminate them in the future. The commission was to include representatives of the owners and elected workers.

But the commission was never able to get to work. Among the electors nominated by the workers, the majority turned out to be Social Democrats, who initially characterized Shidlovsky's commission as a "commission of state tricks" intended to swindle the workers.

At the same time, the government tried to persuade St. Petersburg entrepreneurs to fulfill a number of social and economic demands of the workers and put forward a program for the creation of sickness funds, conciliatory chambers, as well as further reduction of the working day.

3. "Bulygin Duma"

On August 6, 1905, on the day of the Transfiguration of the Lord, the tsar's manifesto on the establishment of the State Duma and the "Regulations" on elections to it were finally published. From the first lines of these documents, born in the throes of political passions, it became clear that the principles underlying them were hopelessly outdated. Russia was granted an elected body - the Duma - for "preliminary development and discussion of legislative proposals and consideration of the list of state revenues and expenditures." The Duma also had the right to ask questions to the government and point out the illegality of the actions of the authorities by directly reporting its chairman to the emperor. But no decisions of the Duma were binding either on the tsar or on the government.

Determining the system of elections, the developers were guided by the example of 40 years ago - the zemstvo regulations of 1864. Deputies were to be elected by "electoral meetings" of the prescribed number of electors from each province. Voters were divided into 3 curia: landowners, peasants and city dwellers.

Large proprietors, who owned more than 150 acres of land, directly participated in district congresses of landowners who voted for electors from the province. The elections for them, therefore, were two-stage. The small landowners elected delegates to district congresses. For them, the elections were three-stage. The landowners, who made up only a few percent of the voters, were to be represented at provincial assemblies by 34% of the electors.

Elections were also three-staged for the townspeople, who were given 23% of the votes of the provincial electors. In addition, for them there was a very high property qualification. Only homeowners and the largest apartment tax payers could vote. Most of the townspeople were not allowed to vote at all. These are, first of all, the workers and the bulk of the intelligentsia. The government considered them the most susceptible to the corrupting influence of Western civilization, and therefore the least loyal.

On the other hand, the government still saw in the peasantry a completely loyal, patriarchal-conservative mass, to which the very idea of ​​limiting tsarist power was alien. Therefore, the peasantry was allowed to participate in the elections in its entirety and even received a fairly significant share of the vote at provincial assemblies - 43%. But at the same time, the elections for them were made in four stages. The peasants voted for representatives in the volost assembly, the volost assemblies elected the uyezd congress of delegates from the volosts, and the uyezd congresses elected the peasant electors to the provincial electoral assembly.

So, the elections were not universal, not equal and not direct. The future Duma was immediately nicknamed "Bulyginskaya" 9 . Lenin called it the most impudent mockery of the representation of the people. And he was not alone in this opinion. All the revolutionary parties and most of the liberals immediately announced their intention to boycott the Bulygin Duma. Those who agreed to participate in the elections stated that they were only using all legal opportunities to expose the false nature of the pseudo-popular pseudo-representation. The confrontation between the authorities and society continued.

According to Witte, the court was dominated in those days by "an interweaving of cowardice, blindness, deceit and stupidity." On October 11, Nicholas II, who was living at that time in Peterhof, made a curious entry in his diary: “We visited the boat (submarine) Ruff, which has been sticking out against our windows for the fifth month, that is, since the uprising on the Potemkin” ten . A few days later, the tsar received the commanders of two German destroyers. Apparently, everything was ready in case of an urgent departure of the king and his family abroad.

In Peterhof, the tsar constantly held meetings. At the same time, Nicholas II continued to persist in trying to deceive history and evade what had already become inevitable. Either he instructed the former Minister of the Interior, conservative Goremykin, to draw up a draft alternative to Witte's, or he suggested to his uncle, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich, that he accept the appointment as dictator in order to forcefully pacify the country. But Goremykin's project turned out to be almost identical to Witte's, and the uncle refused the tsar's offer and, brandishing a revolver, threatened to shoot himself right there, in front of him, if he did not accept Witte's program.

Finally, the tsar gave in and at five o'clock in the afternoon on October 17 signed the manifesto prepared by Count Witte:

1) To grant the population the unshakable foundations of civil freedom on the basis of real inviolability of the person, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and associations.

2) Without stopping the planned elections to the State Duma, now to enlist in participation in the Duma, to the extent possible, corresponding to the shortness of the period remaining until the convocation of the Duma, those classes of the population who are now completely deprived of voting rights, thereby providing further development of the beginning of general suffrage again established legal order.

3) Establish as an unshakable rule that no law can take effect without the approval of the State Duma, and that the elected representatives of the people are provided with the opportunity to really participate in monitoring the regularity of the actions of the authorities appointed by Us.

5. Nicholas II and State Duma

a) "The first Russian constitution"

The events that unfolded at the end of 1905 and the beginning of 1906 did nothing to improve relations between the government and the democratic community.

It cannot be said that the government did not try to do anything in the spirit of the promises of the October 17 Manifesto. On November 27, "provisional rules" on the press were issued, abolishing preliminary censorship and the authorities' right to impose administrative penalties on periodicals. On March 4, 1906, "provisional rules" on societies and unions appeared. The rules themselves were quite liberal. On the same day, the "provisional rules" on public assemblies came out.

The main goal of the government in issuing all these rules was to introduce at least some framework into the enjoyment of political freedoms, which since the beginning of the revolution was carried out by Russian society "on a whim", spontaneously and without any restrictions.

Along the way, new restrictions were introduced, directly contradictory newly adopted rules. On February 13, 1906, a very vague law was passed, according to which any person guilty of "anti-government propaganda" could be prosecuted. A decree on March 18 introduced new "temporary rules" on the press. The publication of these rules, as stated in the decree, was due to the fact that the previous rules “are insufficient to deal with violators of the prescribed requirements. The new rules effectively restored prior censorship. The “Temporary Regulations” of 1881 on enhanced and extreme protection continued to operate in full, making the use of all the rights and freedoms proclaimed in the Manifesto on October 17, completely dependent on the discretion of the authorities.

The new electoral law, issued on December 11, 1905, could not satisfy the public either. Although it allowed a significant number of citizens excluded from them under the first electoral law to take part in the elections, and made the elections almost universal, they remained multi-stage and very disproportionate for various segments of the population .

The question of who would draw up the constitution and for whose benefit was decided during the armed confrontation between the government and the revolutionaries in December 1905-January 1906. The government won and considered it possible to dictate the terms of the swap. Therefore, everything was done to minimize the influence of the future Duma on decision-making, to save as much as possible from autocracy.

The new "Basic State Laws" of the Russian Empire were promulgated on April 23, 1906. The emperor retained all executive power. He appointed and dismissed ministers at his discretion. The exclusive right to conduct international affairs, declare war and conclude peace, impose martial law and declare amnesty also belonged to the king.

As for legislative power, it was now distributed between the monarch, the Duma and the reformed State Council. This formerly purely deliberative assembly of elderly dignitaries appointed by the tsar for life was made semi-elected by decree on February 20 and turned into the second chamber of the Russian parliament, endowed with rights equal to those of the Duma. For the law to come into force, it now needed the approval of both chambers and, in the last resort, the monarch. Each of the three could completely block any bill.

Thus, the king could no longer legislate as he saw fit, but his veto was absolute.

Legislative chambers were to be convened annually by decrees of the emperor. The duration of their classes and the timing of the break were determined by the king. The tsar could generally dissolve the Duma at any time before the expiration of the five-year term of its powers.

Article 87 of the Fundamental Laws subsequently assumed particular importance. According to it, in the intervals between sessions of the Duma, in case of emergency, urgent circumstances, the tsar could issue decrees having the force of law.

b) I The State Duma

The Duma met on April 27, 1906. At the request of the tsar, a new era in the state life of Russia was to open in a solemn manner. On this occasion, a reception was held at the Winter Palace for members of both legislative chambers.

At the entrance to the hall of the royal couple, a loud “hurray” was heard from the ranks of the members of the State Council. From the crowd of Duma deputies, only a few people shouted “Hurrah” and immediately stopped short, not meeting support.

In his throne speech, Nicholas II greeted in the person of the deputies the "best people" elected by the people at his command. He promised to unwaveringly protect the new institutions granted to him, said that the era of renewal and revival of the Russian Land was beginning, expressed confidence that the deputies would give this cause all their strength in unity with the authorities. The conciliatory speech of the tsar was, however, met by the deputies rather coldly.

The first question, the answer to which the deputies so wanted to hear but did not hear, concerned a political amnesty. The second question, which worried everyone, can be called a constitutional question. And although no political decisions were made at the first - organizational - meeting of the Duma, the challenge was thrown. The fight has begun. A clash with the government became inevitable.

By the beginning of 1906, in the higher spheres, they had already come to terms with the inevitability of the rejection of the community so dear to their hearts. Work was underway on draft relevant regulations. But the authorities, as always, did not keep pace with events. The country was swept by a series of peasant riots and pogroms. The movement unfolded under the slogan of the destruction of private ownership of land. The All-Russian Peasant Union based its program on these requirements. And it was with his support that most of the peasant deputies were elected to the First State Duma, who then united in the Trudoviks faction.

The point, however, was not only in the centuries-old resentment. The last time the peasants were "offended" was relatively recently - during the reform of 1861. The conditions for the abolition of serfdom were considered by the peasants to be flagrant injustice.

The terms of the 1861 reform were indeed defiantly hothouse for the landlords and unjustifiably harsh for the peasants. Resentment at this injustice gave rise to dull hostility in the village.

With any agrarian reform, the nobles had to sacrifice something, give up their interests, so much so that everyone could see it. The peasantry would not have accepted any other solution to the problem.

The Cadets understood this and tried to take it into account in their Party program. The alienated land formed the state land fund, from which plots were to be allocated to the peasants, but not for ownership, but again for use.

On May 8, the Cadets submitted to the Duma their bill on agrarian reform (the "draft of the 42s"). On May 19, the Trudoviks also submitted their draft (“project of the 104th”). Whereas under the Kadet project highly productive estates, recognized as having general utility, were retained by the owners, under the Trudovik project all privately owned lands exceeding the so-called “labor norm,” i.e., the area that a family can cultivate on its own, were transferred to the public fund. According to the Cadet project, agrarian reform was to be carried out by land committees composed on an equal footing of representatives of the peasants, landowners and the state, according to the Trudovik project, by bodies elected by the local population by general and equal elections. The question of whether to pay the ransom to the landowners at all, the Trudoviks wanted to turn over to the people for a final decision.

The "government message" was perceived by the Duma as another challenge and humiliation of the people's representation. The Duma decided to answer the challenge with a challenge. At a meeting on July 4, it was decided to appeal to the people with an "explanation" that it - the Duma - would not deviate from the principle of forced expropriation and would block any bill that did not include this principle. The tone of the final version of the text, adopted on July 6, was somewhat softened, but the essence remained the same.

As a result of the exchange of "explanations" on the agrarian question, the conflict between the government and the Duma took on a threatening character. The government unambiguously took the Duma's appeal to the population as a direct call to seize the landlords' lands.

Nicholas II had long wanted to disperse the rebellious Duma, but he could not decide on this in any way - he was afraid of an explosion of mass indignation. In response to the suggestion of Nicholas II, Stolypin, after a sluggish attempt to refuse under the pretext of ignorance of the secret currents and influences of St. Petersburg, raised the question of the immediate dissolution of the Duma.

During the two-day meetings of the tsar, Goremykin and Stolypin in Peterhof, the question of the new appointment and the fate of the Duma was finally decided. On July 9, a large castle flaunted on the doors of the Tauride Palace, and on the walls - the tsar's Manifesto on the dissolution of the Duma.

III . Calm and reform

Stolypin's program also had another side. Speaking as Minister of the Interior in the First Duma, he said: in order to carry out reforms, it is necessary to restore order in the country. Order is created in the state only when the government shows its will, when it knows how to act and dispose.

Stolypin was completely convinced of the need to preserve and strengthen tsarist power as the main instrument of change. That is why, when he failed to persuade the liberal opposition to a compromise, he came to the idea of ​​dissolving the Duma.

But even after the suppression of open rebellions in the army and navy, the situation in the country was far from calm. On August 2, in Warsaw, Lodz, Plock, bloody clashes of crowds with troops and police took place, with a large number of victims on both sides. In the rural areas of the Urals, the Baltic States, Poland, the Caucasus, there was a real guerrilla war.

Armed revolutionaries seized printing houses, printed calls for a general uprising and reprisals against government officials, and proclaimed local regional republics headed by Soviets. Revolutionary terror reached its maximum level - political assassinations and expropriations, that is, robberies for political purposes.

Gradually terror and exes degenerated. People were killed "for the position", they killed those who were easier to reach. Often they sought to kill the most worthy officials who had authority among the population and thus could raise the authority of the authorities. The objects of attacks were small shops, workers after their salaries. Increasingly, the participants in the attacks themselves began to leave part of the money for themselves “for the economy”. Robbery was too much of a temptation. The "expropriators" were also mixed with purely criminal elements who sought to "fish in troubled waters."

Stolypin acted decisively. Peasant riots were suppressed with the help of special punitive detachments. Weapons were seized. The places of the strikers were occupied by volunteers from monarchist organizations under the protection of troops. Dozens of opposition publications were suspended. However, the new prime minister understood that this was not enough for a lasting calm and that it was impossible to postpone the start of reforms until future stabilization. On the contrary, for the final victory over the revolution, it is necessary to show everyone as soon as possible that the reforms have begun.

Stolypin continued his attempts to attract public figures from the liberal camp to the government. Already on July 15, he again met with Shipov. Together with Shipov, his comrade in the leadership of the All-Zemskaya Organization, Prince G.E., was invited. Lvov.

Stolypin briefed Shipov and Lvov on his reform program. But the agreement again did not take place. Public figures again set certain conditions for the liberal opposition: immediate amnesty, termination of the exceptional laws, suspension of executions. In addition, they strongly objected to Stolypin's intention to start a series of reforms on an emergency basis, without waiting for the convocation of a new Duma, seeing in this a desire to belittle the importance of parliament and gain additional political points for themselves, and at the same time for the tsarist government in general. Stolypin, on the other hand, argued that the situation required urgent action, that in the end it did not matter who started.

IV . Duma monarchy

On June 3, 1907, the tsar's manifesto was published on the dissolution of the Second State Duma and the change in the regulation on elections. The publication of the new electoral law was in fact a coup d'état, since it violated the "Basic State Laws", according to which no law could be followed without the approval of the Duma.
The State Duma of the first two convocations was only formally a legislative body. During the 72 days of the activity of the First State Duma, Nicholas II approved 222 legislative acts, but only one of them was considered in the Duma and the State Council and was approved by them. During the 102 days of the existence of the Second Duma, the emperor approved 390 laws, and only two of them passed through the State Duma and the State Council.

The new electoral law increased the number of electors from the landowners by almost 33%, while the number of electors from the peasants decreased by 56%. The law of June 3, 1907 gave the Minister of the Interior the right to change the boundaries of electoral districts and to divide electoral meetings into independent sections at all stages of elections. The representation from the national outskirts was sharply reduced. The total number of Duma deputies was reduced from 524 to 442.

The electoral law of June 3, its Senate "explanations", the actions of the local administration, the broad election campaign of the right-wing and Black-Hundred parties, the atmosphere of disappointment in the revolution, and the repressions gave an election result that corresponded to the hopes of the government.
The following were elected to the III Duma: moderate right and nationalists - 97, extreme right - 50, Octobrists - 154, progressists - 28, Cadets - 54, Trudoviks - 13 and social democrats - 19, Muslim group - 8, Polish-Lithuanian - 18. At the very first meetings of the Third Duma, which opened its work on November 1, 1907, a Right-Octobrist majority was formed, which consisted of 300 members. The presence of this majority determined the nature of the activities of the Third Duma and ensured its efficiency. During the five years of its existence (until June 9, 1912) it held 611 meetings, at which 2572 bills were considered, of which 205 were put forward by the Duma itself. The main place in the Duma debate was occupied by the agrarian question, connected with the implementation of the reform, labor and national.

In June 1912, the powers of the deputies of the Third Duma expired, and in the fall of that year elections to the Fourth State Duma were held. Sessions of the IV Duma opened on November 15, 1912. The Octobrist M. V. Rodzianko was its chairman. The main factions of the IV State Duma were: right-wingers and nationalists (157 seats), Octobrists (98), Progressives (48), Cadets (59), who still made up two Duma majority. In addition to them, Trudoviks (10) and Social Democrats (14) were represented in the Duma.
The Progressive Party took shape in November 1912 and adopted a program that provided for a constitutional-monarchist system with the responsibility of ministers to popular representation, the expansion of the rights of the State Duma, etc. The appearance of this party (between the Octobrists and the Cadets) was an attempt to consolidate the liberal movement.

The world war that began in 1914 temporarily dampened the flaming opposition movement. At first, the majority of parties spoke in favor of trust in the government. On July 24, 1914, the Council of Ministers was granted emergency powers, that is, it received the right to decide most cases on behalf of the emperor.

At an emergency meeting of the Fourth Duma on July 26, 1914, the leaders of the right-wing and liberal-bourgeois factions issued an appeal to rally around “the sovereign leader leading Russia into a sacred battle with the enemy of the Slavs” 11, putting aside “internal disputes” and “accounts” with the government. However, failures at the front, the growth of the strike movement, the inability of the government to ensure the government of the country stimulated the activity of political parties, their opposition, and the search for new tactical steps.
In August 1915, at a meeting of members of the State Duma and the State Council, the Progressive Bloc was formed, which included the Cadets, Octobrists, Progressives, part of the nationalists (236 out of 422 members of the Duma) and three groups of the State Council. The Octobrist S. I. Shidlovsky became the chairman of the bureau of the Progressive Bloc, and P. N. Milyukov became the actual leader. The declaration of the bloc, published in the newspaper Rech on August 26, 1915, was of a compromise nature, provided for the creation of a government of "public confidence".

V . Nicholas II and World War I

In the summer of 1914, the approach of a great war was felt in Europe. The lady-in-waiting and close friend of the Empress Anna Vyrubova recalled that in those days she often "caught the sovereign pale and upset." When the war became a fait accompli, the mood of Nicholas II changed dramatically for the better. He felt cheerful and enthusiastic and said: “While this question hung in the air, it was worse!” 12

July 20, the day of the announcement se During the war, the sovereign, together with his wife, visited St. Petersburg. Here he was the main participant in the exciting scenes of national upsurge. Vast crowds of people under tricolor banners, with his portraits in their hands, met on the streets of Nicholas II. In the hall of the Winter Palace, the sovereign was surrounded by an enthusiastic crowd of deputies.

Nicholas II delivered a speech, which he ended with a solemn promise that he would not make peace until he had driven the last enemy from Russian soil. His answer was a powerful "Hurrah!". He went out onto the balcony to greet the popular demonstration. A. Vyrubova wrote: “The whole sea of ​​people on Palace Square, seeing him, how one person knelt before him. Thousands of banners bowed, hymns were sung, prayers were sung... everyone was crying... In the midst of a feeling of boundless love and devotion to the Throne, a war broke out” 13 .

In the first year of the war, the Russian army suffered a series of heavy defeats. At the news of the fall of Warsaw, Nicholas left his usual equanimity, and he exclaimed ardently: “This cannot go on, I cannot sit here all the time and watch how smash army; I see mistakes - and I must be silent! fourteen . The situation inside the country also worsened. Influenced by defeats at the front, the Duma began a struggle for a government responsible to it. In court circles and the Headquarters, some plans were brewing against Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna. She aroused general hostility as a "German", there was talk of forcing the Tsar to send her to a convent.

All this prompted Nicholas II to stand at the head of the army, replacing Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. He explained his solve the fact that at a difficult moment the supreme leader of the nation should lead the troops. On August 23, 1915, Nikolai arrived at Headquarters in Mogilev and took over the supreme command.

In the meantime, tension in the society was growing. Chairman of the Duma Mikhail Rodzianko, at each meeting with the tsar, persuaded him to make concessions to the Duma. During one of their conversations already in January 1917, Nicholas II clasped his head with both hands and exclaimed bitterly: “Have I really tried for twenty-two years to make everything better, and for twenty-two years I was wrong!?” fifteen . During another meeting, the emperor unexpectedly spoke about his experiences: “I was in the forest today ... I went to the capercaillie. Quiet there, and you forget everything, all these squabbles, the vanity of people ... It was so good in my soul. There is closer to nature, closer to God…”.

VI . February Revolution and the abdication of Nicholas

In mid-February 1917, there were interruptions in the supply of grain in Petrograd. "Tails" lined up near the bakeries. Strikes broke out in the city; on February 18, the Putilov plant stopped.

February 23 (March 8) was International Women's Day. Thousands of workers took to the streets of the city. They shouted: "Bread!" and "Down with hunger!". On that day, about 90,000 workers took part in the strike, and the strike movement grew like a snowball. The next day, more than 200 thousand people were on strike, and the next day - more than 300 thousand people (80% of all metropolitan workers).

Rallies began on Nevsky Prospekt and other main streets of the city. Their slogans became stronger and stronger. Red flags were already flashing in the crowd, it was heard: “Down with the war!” and "Down with autocracy!" 16 . The demonstrators sang revolutionary songs.

On February 25, 1917, Nicholas II from Headquarters telegraphed the commander of the capital's military district, General Sergei Khabalov: "I order tomorrow to stop the unrest in the capital, which is unacceptable during the difficult time of the war" 17 . The general tried to carry out the order. On February 26, about a hundred "instigators of the riots" were arrested. Troops and police began to disperse the demonstrators with gunshots. In total, 169 people died these days, about a thousand were injured (later, several dozen more people died from among the wounded).

However, the shootings in the streets only led to a new outburst of indignation, but already among the military themselves. The soldiers of the reserve teams of the Volynsky, Preobrazhensky and Lithuanian regiments refused to "shoot at the people." A riot broke out among them, and they went over to the side of the demonstrators.

On February 27, 1917, Nicholas II wrote in his diary: “Unrest broke out in Petrograd a few days ago; unfortunately, the troops began to take part in them. It's a disgusting feeling to be so far away and receive fragmentary bad news! eighteen . The sovereign sent General Nikolai Ivanov to the rebellious capital, ordering him "to restore order with the troops." But in the end nothing came of this attempt.

On February 28, the last defenders of the government, led by General Khabalov, surrendered in Petrograd. “The troops gradually dispersed like that ... - said the general. “They simply dispersed gradually, leaving the guns behind.” 19 . The ministers fled, and then they were arrested one by one. Some themselves came into custody to avoid reprisals.

On the last day of February, the sovereign left Mogilev for Tsarskoye Selo. However, along the way, information was received that the path was occupied by the rebels. Then the royal train turned to Pskov, where the headquarters of the Northern Front was located. Nicholas II arrived here on the evening of March 1.

On the night of March 2, Nicholas II summoned the commander-in-chief of the front, General Nikolai Ruzsky, and informed him: "I have decided to make concessions and give them a responsible ministry."

Nicholas Ruza immediately informed Mikhail Rodzianko of the tsar's decision by direct wire. He replied: “Obviously, His Majesty and you are not aware of what is happening here; one of the most terrible revolutions has come, which will not be so easy to overcome ... Time has been lost and there is no return” 21 . M. Rodzianko said that now it was necessary to abdicate Nicholas in favor of the heir.

Having learned about such an answer from M. Rodzianko, N. Ruzsky, through the Headquarters, asked for the opinion of all the commanders-in-chief of the fronts. In the morning, their answers began to arrive in Pskov. All of them begged the sovereign to sign a renunciation to save Russia and successfully continue the war. Probably the most eloquent message came from General Vladimir Sakharov from the Romanian front. The general called the proposal to abdicate "vile".

At about 2:30 p.m. on March 2, these telegrams were reported to the sovereign. Nikolai Ruzsky also spoke in favor of abdication. “Now you have to surrender to the mercy of the winner” - this is how he expressed his opinion to the king’s close associates. Such unanimity between the leaders of the army and the Duma made a strong impression on Emperor Nicholas II. He was especially struck by a telegram sent by Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich ...

In the evening of the same day, Duma deputies A. Guchkov and V. Shulgin arrived in Pskov. The sovereign received them in his carriage. In the book “Days”, V. Shulgin conveyed the words of Nicholas II in this way: “His voice sounded calm, simple and accurate.

I have decided to abdicate the throne... Until three o'clock today I thought that I could abdicate in favor of my son Alexei... But by this time I have changed my mind in favor of brother Michael... I hope you understand the feelings of the father... He said the last phrase more quietly...” 22 .

Nikolai handed over to the deputies a renunciation manifesto printed on a typewriter. The document was dated and timed: "March 2, 15:55."

Conclusion

In my work on the history of the Fatherland, there was a question about the last Russian autocrat, Nicholas II, as the culprit or victim of those terrible events that we can only judge from the books or memoirs of the older generation.

Having written an essay and analyzed the acts of Nicholas II, I still cannot answer the question, since his life can be viewed both from the side of a deeply religious person, a caring family man, a patriot, where he is a victim, and on the other hand, where he is an autocrat, was a bad ruler because he couldn't handle the situation.

Cited Literature:

1. S.S. Oldenburg Reign of Emperor Nicholas II. Rostov-on-Don, "Phoenix", 1998 - p. 48

2. Ibid. ― page 155

3. Rybachenok I.S. Russia and the Hague Disarmament Conference of 1899 New and recent history, 1996, No. 4

5. A. Bokhanov Emperor Nicholas II. "Russian Word", Moscow, 2001 - p. 229

6. S.S. Oldenburg Decree. op. ― page 292

7. Mosolov A.A. At the court of the emperor. Riga, 1926 - p.125

8. S.S. Oldenburg Decree. op. ― p.224

9. A. Bokhanov Decree. op. ― p.232

10. Diary of Emperor Nicholas II. "Orbit", 1992 - entry for 1905.

11. Muravyov A.M. The first peals of the great storm. Leningrad, 1975 - p. 20

12. Vyrubova A. Pages of my life. Moscow, 1993 - p. 274

13. Ibid. ― page 278

14. A. Bokhanov Decree. op. ― page 352

15. Ibid. ― page 393

16. Ibid. ― page 425

17. S.S. Oldenburg Decree. op. ― page 549

18. Diary ... - entry for 1917

19. S.S. Oldenburg Decree. op. ― page 554

20. Paleolog M. Tsarist Russia on the eve of the revolution. Moscow, 1991 - p. 253

21. Ibid. ― page 255

22. P.E. Shchegolev Abdication of Nicholas II. Moscow, "Soviet Writer", 1990 - p.118

Used Books:

1. S.S. Oldenburg Reign of Emperor Nicholas II. Rostov-on-Don, "Phoenix", 1998

2. The country is dying today. Memories of the February Revolution of 1917 Moscow, "Book", 1991

3. Gilliard P. Emperor Nicholas II and his family, M., 1991

4. A. Bokhanov Emperor Nicholas II. "Russian Word", Moscow, 2001

5. Diary of Emperor Nicholas II. "Orbit", 1992

6. Vyrubova A. Pages of my life. Moscow, 1993

7. Muravyov A.M. The first peals of the great storm. Leningrad, 1975

8. S. Lubos The Last Romanovs. Leningrad-Moscow, "Petrograd", 1924

9. Shatsillo K.F. Nicholas II: reforms or revolution // History of the Fatherland: People, ideas, decisions. Moscow, 1991

10. K. Valishevsky The first Romanovs. Moscow, 1993

11. K. Valishevsky Time of Troubles. Moscow, 1989

12. P.Kh. Grebelsky, A.B. Mirvis House of Romanovs. "Editor", 1992

13. V.P. Obninsky The last autocrat. "Book", 1912

14. Sokolov N.A. The last days of the Romanovs. "Book", 1991

15. Kasvinov M.K. Twenty-three steps down (3rd edition, revised and expanded). Moscow, 1989

On the reforms of Nicholas II, I quote from Alfred Mirek's book "Emperor Nicholas II and the fate of Orthodox Russia."

In the second half of the 19th century in Russia, there was a progressive desire of the monarchical government to reform in all areas of state activity, which leads to the rapid flourishing of the economy and the growth of the country's welfare. The last three Emperors - Alexander II, Alexander III and Nicholas II - with their mighty hands and great royal mind raised the country to an unprecedented height.

I will not touch on the results of the reforms of Alexander II and Alexander III here, but will immediately focus on the achievements of Nicholas II. By 1913, industry and agriculture had reached such high levels that the Soviet economy was able to achieve them only decades later. And some indicators were blocked only in the 70-80s. For example, the power supply of the USSR reached the pre-revolutionary level only by the 1970-1980s. And in some areas, such as grain production, it never caught up with Nikolaev Russia. The reason for this takeoff was the most powerful transformations carried out by Emperor Nicholas II in various areas of the country.

Trans-Siberian Railway

Although Siberia was a rich, but remote and inaccessible region of Russia, criminals, both criminal and political, were exiled there, like in a huge bag. However, the Russian government, ardently supported by the merchants and industrialists, understood that this was a huge storehouse of inexhaustible natural wealth, but, unfortunately, very difficult to develop without a well-established transport system. For more than ten years, the very necessity of the project was discussed.

Laying the first, Ussuri section of the Trans-Siberian Railway, Alexander III instructed his son - Tsarevich Nikolai. Alexander III showed serious confidence in his Heir by appointing him the chairman of the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway. At that time, it was perhaps the most voluminous, difficult and responsible state. a business that was under the direct leadership and control of Nicholas II, which he began as Tsesarevich and successfully continued throughout his reign. The Trans-Siberian Railway could rightly be called the "Construction of the Century" not only at the Russian, but also at the international level.

The Imperial House zealously followed that the construction was carried out by Russian people and with Russian money. Railway terminology was introduced mainly in Russian: "passage", "path", "locomotive". On December 21, 1901, the labor movement along the Trans-Siberian Railway began. The cities of Siberia began to develop rapidly: Omsk, Krasnoyarsk, Irkutsk, Chita, Khabarovsk, Vladivostok. For 10 years, thanks to the far-sighted policy of Nicholas II, and the implementation of the reforms of Pyotr Stolypin, and due to the opportunities that opened up with the advent of the Trans-Siberian Railway, the population has sharply increased here. The vast wealth of Siberia became available for development, which strengthened the economic and military power of the Empire.

The Trans-Siberian Railway is still the most powerful transport artery of modern Russia.

Monetary reform

In 1897, under the Minister of Finance S.Yu. Witte, an extremely important monetary reform was painlessly carried out - the transition to a gold currency, which strengthened Russia's international financial position. A distinctive feature of this financial reform from all modern ones was that no segments of the population suffered financial losses. Witte wrote: "Russia owes its metallic gold circulation exclusively to Emperor Nicholas II." As a result of the reforms, Russia received its strong convertible currency, which took a leading position in the world foreign exchange market, which opened up huge prospects for the country's economic development.

The Hague Conference

Nicholas II during his reign paid much attention to the defense capability of the army and navy. He constantly took care of improving the entire complex of equipment and weapons of the rank and file - the basis at that time of any army.

When a new set of uniforms was created for the Russian army, Nikolai personally tried it out: he put it on and walked 20 versts (25 km) in it. Returned in the evening and approved the kit. A broad rearmament of the army began, sharply raising the country's defense capability. Nicholas II loved and nurtured the army, lived the same life with it. He did not raise his rank, remaining a colonel until the end of his life. And it was Nicholas II who, for the first time in the world, as the head of the strongest European power at that time, came up with peace initiatives to reduce and limit the armaments of the main world powers.

On August 12, 1898, the Emperor issued a note that, as the newspapers wrote, "will constitute the glory of the Tsar and His reign." The greatest historical date was the day of August 15, 1898, when the young thirty-year-old Emperor of All Russia, on his own initiative, addressed the whole world with a proposal to convene an international conference in order to put a limit to the growth of armaments and prevent the outbreak of war in the future. However, at first this proposal was accepted by the world powers with caution and did not receive much support. The Hague, the capital of neutral Holland, was chosen as the place of its convocation.

Push: "I would like here between the lines to recall an excerpt from the memoirs of Gilliard, to whom, during long intimate conversations, Nicholas II once said:" Ah, if only we could manage to do without diplomats! On that day, humanity would have achieved tremendous success."

In December 1898, the Sovereign made his second, more specific, constructive proposal. It must be emphasized that 30 years later, at a conference on disarmament convened in Geneva by the League of Nations, created after World War I, the same questions were repeated and discussed as in 1898-1899.

The Hague Peace Conference met from May 6 to July 17, 1899. A number of conventions have been adopted, including the Convention on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes by Mediation and Arbitration. The fruit of this convention was the establishment of the Hague International Court, which is still in force today. The second conference in The Hague met in 1907, also on the initiative of the Sovereign Emperor of Russia. It adopted 13 conventions on the laws and customs of war on land and at sea were of great importance, and some of them are still in force.

Based on these 2 conferences, the League of Nations was created in 1919, the purpose of which is to develop cooperation between peoples and guarantee peace and security. Those who created the League of Nations and organized the disarmament conference could not but admit that the first initiative undoubtedly belonged to Emperor Nicholas II, and neither the war nor the revolution of our time could erase this from the pages of history.

Agricultural reform

Emperor Nicholas II, caring with all his heart for the well-being of the Russian people, most of whom were peasants, gave instructions to the outstanding state. figure of Russia, Minister P.A. Stolypin to make proposals for agrarian reform in Russia. Stolypin came up with a proposal to carry out a number of important state reforms aimed at the benefit of the people. All of them were warmly supported by the Sovereign. The most important of these was the famous agrarian reform, which began on November 9, 1906, by the tsar's decree. THE ESSENCE OF THE REFORM is the transfer of the peasant economy from the unprofitable communal economy to a more productive private way. And this was done not by force, but voluntarily. The peasants could now allocate their personal allotment in the community and dispose of it at their own discretion. They were given back all social rights and were guaranteed complete personal independence from the community in managing their affairs. The reform helped bring large areas of undeveloped and abandoned land into agricultural circulation. It should also be noted that the peasants received equal civil rights with the entire population of Russia.

A premature death at the hands of a terrorist on September 1, 1911 prevented Stolypin from completing the reforms. The murder of Stolypin took place before the eyes of the Sovereign, and His Majesty showed the same courage and fearlessness as his August grandfather, Emperor Alexander II, at the time of the villainous attempt on his life. A fatal shot thundered at the Kiev Opera House during a solemn performance. To stop the panic, the orchestra played the national anthem, and the Sovereign, approaching the barrier of the royal box, stood in front of everyone, as if showing that he was there, at his post. So he stood - although many feared a new attempt - until the sounds of the anthem ceased. It is symbolic that M. Glinka's opera A Life for the Tsar was on that fateful evening.

The courage and will of the Emperor were also manifested in the fact that, despite the death of Stolypin, he continued to implement the basic ideas of the illustrious minister. When the reform began to work and began to gain state scope, the production of agricultural products increased sharply in Russia, prices stabilized, and the growth rate of the people's fortune was much higher than in other countries. In terms of the growth of national property per capita, by 1913 Russia was in 3rd place in the world.

Despite the fact that the outbreak of the war slowed down the progress of reforms, by the time V.I. Lenin proclaimed his famous slogan "Land to the peasants!", 75% of the Russian peasantry already owned the land. After the October Revolution, the reform was canceled, the peasants completely lost their land - it was nationalized, then the cattle was expropriated. About 2 million wealthy farmers ("kulaks") were destroyed by entire families, mostly in Siberian exile. The rest were driven into collective farms and deprived of civil rights and freedoms. They were deprived of the right to move to other places of residence, i.e. found themselves in the position of serfs of the Soviet regime. The Bolsheviks de-peasted the country, and so far in Russia the level of agricultural production is not only significantly lower than it was after the Stolypin reform, but even lower than before the reform.

Church transformations

Among the enormous merits of Nicholas II in various state areas, a prominent place is occupied by his exceptional merits in matters of religion. They are connected with the main commandment for every citizen of their homeland, their people to honor and preserve their historical and spiritual heritage. Orthodoxy spiritually and morally held together the national and state principles of Russia, for the Russian people it was more than just a religion, it was a deep spiritual and moral foundation of life. Russian Orthodoxy developed as a living faith, consisting in the unity of religious feeling and activity. It was not only a religious system, but also a state of mind - a spiritual and moral movement towards God, which included all aspects of the life of a Russian person - state, public and personal. Church activity of Nicholas II was very broad and covered all aspects of church life. As never before, during the reign of Nicholas II, spiritual eldership and wandering became widespread. The number of churches built increased. The number of monasteries and monks in them increased. If at the beginning of the reign of Nicholas II there were 774 monasteries, then in 1912 there were 1005. During his reign, Russia continued to be decorated with monasteries and churches. Comparison of statistics for 1894 and 1912 shows that in 18 years 211 new monasteries and convents and 7546 new churches were opened, not counting a large number of new chapels and prayer houses.

In addition, thanks to the generous donations of the Sovereign, in the same years, 17 Russian churches were built in many cities of the world, which stood out for their beauty and became attractions of the cities in which they were built.

Nicholas II was a true Christian, carefully and reverently treating all the shrines, making every effort to preserve them for posterity at all times. Then, under the Bolsheviks, there is a total looting and destruction of temples, churches and monasteries. Moscow, which was called golden-domed by the abundance of churches, lost most of its shrines. Many monasteries that created the unique flavor of the capital disappeared: Chudov, Spaso-Andronevsky (the gate bell tower was destroyed), Voznesensky, Sretensky, Nikolsky, Novo-Spassky and others. Some of them are being restored today with great effort, but these are only small fragments of noble beauties that once towered majestically over Moscow. Some monasteries were completely razed to the ground, and they are lost forever. Russian Orthodoxy has never known such damage in its almost thousand-year history.

The merit of Nicholas II is that that he put all his spiritual strength, mind and talent, to revive the spiritual foundations of living faith and true Orthodoxy in the country, which was at that time the most powerful Orthodox power in the world. Nicholas II made great efforts to restore the unity of the Russian Church. April 17, 1905 On the eve of Easter, he issues a decree "On strengthening the principles of religious tolerance", which laid the foundation for overcoming one of the most tragic phenomena in Russian history - the church schism. After almost 50 years of desolation, the altars of the Old Believer churches (sealed under Nicholas I) were unsealed and allowed to serve in them.

The sovereign, who knew the church charter perfectly, well understood, loved and appreciated church singing. The preservation of the origins of this special path and its further development allowed Russian church singing to take one of the places of honor in world musical culture. After one of the spiritual concerts of the Synodal Choir in the presence of the Sovereign, as the researcher of the history of synodal schools, Archpriest Vasily Metalov, recalls, Nicholas II said: "The choir has reached the highest degree of perfection, beyond which it is difficult to imagine that one can go."

In 1901, the Emperor ordered to organize a committee of trustees for Russian icon painting. Its main tasks were formed as follows: to preserve in icon painting the fruitful influence of samples of Byzantine antiquity and Russian antiquity; to establish "active connections" between the official church and folk iconography. Under the leadership of the committee, manuals for icon painters were created. Icon-painting schools were opened in Palekh, Mstera and Kholui. In 1903 S.T. Bolshakov released the original icon painting, on the 1st page of this unique edition the author wrote words of gratitude to the Emperor for his sovereign patronage of Russian icon painting: "... We all hope to see a turn in modern Russian icon painting towards ancient, time-honored examples ..."

Since December 1917, when the arrested Nicholas II was still alive, the leader of the world proletariat began the massacre of the clergy and the looting of churches (according to Lenin's terminology - "cleansing"), while icons and all church literature, including unique notes, were burned everywhere on bonfires near churches. This has been done for over 10 years. At the same time, many unique monuments of church singing disappeared without a trace.

The cares of Nicholas II about the Church of God extended far beyond the borders of Russia. In many churches in Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Montenegro, Turkey, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Libya, there is this or that gift of a martyr. Entire sets of expensive vestments, icons and liturgical books were donated, not to mention generous cash subsidies for their maintenance. Most of the Jerusalem churches were supported by Russian money, and the famous decorations of the Holy Sepulcher were gifts from the Russian Tsars.

The fight against drunkenness

In 1914, despite the wartime, the Sovereign resolutely set about realizing his old dream - the eradication of drunkenness. For a long time, Nikolai Alexandrovich was imbued with the conviction that drunkenness is a vice that corrodes the Russian people, and that it is the duty of the Tsar's power to join the fight against this vice. However, all his attempts in this direction met with stubborn resistance in the Council of Ministers, since the income from the sale of alcoholic beverages was the main budget item - one-fifth of the state. income. The main opponent of this event was the Minister of Finance V.N. Kokovtsev, who became the successor of P.A. Stolypin as Prime Minister after his tragic death in 1911. He believed that the introduction of Prohibition would deal a serious blow to the Russian budget. The sovereign deeply appreciated Kokovtsev, but, seeing his misunderstanding of this important problem, he decided to part with him. The efforts of the Monarch were in line with the general popular opinion at the time, which accepted the prohibition of alcoholic beverages as a deliverance from sin. Only wartime conditions, which overturned all normal budgetary considerations, made it possible to carry out a measure that meant the state's renunciation of the largest of its revenues.

No other country before 1914 had taken such a radical measure to combat alcoholism. It was a grandiose, unheard of experience. "Accept, Great Sovereign, the bow of the earth to your people! Your people firmly believe that from now on the past grief is put to an end!" - said the Chairman of the Duma Rodzianko. Thus, by the firm will of the Sovereign, an end was put to state speculation on the people's misfortune and the state was laid. basis for the further fight against drunkenness. A "lasting end" to drunkenness lasted until the October Revolution. The beginning of the general drunkenness of the people was laid in October during the capture of the Winter Palace, when most of the "stormed" the palace went to the wine cellars, and they got drunk there to such an extent that the "heroes of the assault" had to be carried up by their feet. 6 people died - these were all the losses that day. In the future, the revolutionary leaders drunk the Red Army soldiers into unconsciousness, and then sent them to rob churches, shoot, smash and commit such inhuman blasphemy that people would not dare to do sober. Drunkenness to this day remains the most terrible Russian tragedy.

The material is taken from Mirek Alfred's book "Emperor Nicholas II and the fate of Orthodox Russia. - M .: Spiritual education, 2011. - 408 p.

The beginning of the reign of Nicholas II

Alexander III died unexpectedly on October 20, 1894. The eyes of the liberal public with hope turned to his son and heir. It was expected from the new Emperor Nicholas II that he would change the conservative course of his father and return to the policy of liberal reforms of his grandfather, Alexander II. Society closely followed the statements of the young king, looking for the slightest hint of a turn in politics. And if words became known that at least to some extent could be interpreted in a liberal sense, they were immediately picked up and warmly welcomed. Thus, the liberal newspaper Russkiye Vedomosti praised the tsar's notes on the margins of a report on the problems of public education that had become public. The notes acknowledged the trouble in this area. This was seen as a sign of the tsar's deep understanding of the country's problems, a sign of his intention to embark on reforms.

The public did not limit themselves to laudatory reviews, designed, as it were, to delicately push the new tsar onto the path of reforms. Zemstvo assemblies literally overwhelmed the emperor with greetings - addresses that, along with expressions of love and devotion, contained very cautious wishes of a political nature.

The question of a constitution, of a real limitation of autocratic power, was not raised in the appeals of the zemstvos to the emperor. The modesty and moderation of the wishes of the public was explained by the confidence that the new king would not be slow to meet the dictates of the times.

Everyone was looking forward to what the new emperor would say to society. The reason for the first public speech presented itself to the king soon. On January 17, 1895, on the occasion of the sovereign's marriage, a solemn reception was announced for deputations from the nobility, zemstvos, cities and Cossack troops. The great hall was full. A nondescript colonel of the Guards passed through the respectfully parted deputies, sat down on the throne, put his cap on his knees and, lowering his eyes into it, began to say something indistinctly.

“I know,” the tsar muttered quickly, “that lately in some zemstvo meetings the voices of people carried away by senseless dreams about the participation of representatives of the zemstvo in matters of internal administration have been heard; let everyone know, - and then Nikolai tried to add metal in his voice, - that I will protect the beginnings of autocracy as firmly and unswervingly as my unforgettable late parent guarded him.

Projects for solving the peasant question

In January 1902, the sovereign made an important decision in principle to get the agrarian question off the ground. 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.

Witte pointed out that the conference would also have to touch upon issues of a national nature, for the resolution of which then it was 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 produce 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 district 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 as early as 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.

Tsar's foreign policy initiatives

The Russian government in December 1898 drew up a note based on the experience of recent months and reducing the general proposals of the note of August 12 to a few specific points.

“Despite the apparent desire of public opinion in favor of general appeasement,” the note said, “the political situation has changed significantly in recent times. Many states have embarked on new armaments, trying to further develop their military forces.

Naturally, in such an indeterminate state of affairs, one could not help but wonder whether the Powers considered the present political moment convenient for international discussion of the principles set forth in the circular of August 12th.

It goes without saying that all questions relating to the political relations of states and the order of things existing on the basis of treaties, as well as in general all questions that will not be included in the program adopted by the cabinets, will be subject to unconditional exclusion from the subjects of discussion of the conference.

Having thus calmed the fears of France and Germany about the possibility of posing political questions, the Russian government put forward the following program:

1. Agreement on the preservation for a certain period of time of the present composition of the land and naval armed forces and budgets for military needs.

3. Limitation of the use of destructive explosive compositions and the prohibition of the use of projectiles from balloons.

4. The prohibition to use destroyer submarines in naval wars (then the first experiments were still being made with them).

5. application of the Geneva Convention of 1864 to naval warfare.

6. Recognition of the neutrality of ships and boats engaged in rescuing drowning people during naval battles.

7. Revision of the declarations of 1874 on the laws and customs of war.

8. Acceptance of the beginning of the application of good offices of mediation and voluntary arbitration; an agreement on the use of these funds; establishing a uniform practice in this regard.

On this note, the original basic idea of ​​arms reduction and limitation remained only the "first point" along with other proposals.

The Russian program for the peace conference was thus reduced to a few, quite specific, propositions. The Hague, the capital of Holland, one of the most “neutral” countries (and at the same time not officially “neutralized” like Switzerland and Belgium) was chosen as the place of its convocation.

In order to ensure the participation of all the great powers, it was necessary to agree not to invite the African states, as well as the Roman curia. The states of Central and South America were also not invited. The conference was attended by all twenty European states, four Asian and two American.

The Hague Peace Conference met from May 18 (6) to July 29 (17), 1899, under the chairmanship of the Russian ambassador in London, Baron Staal.

The struggle was waged on it around two points - arms limitation and compulsory arbitration. On the first issue, the debate took place in the plenary session of the first commission (June 23, 26 and 30).

“Restrictions on the military budget and armaments are the main goal of the conference,” said the Russian delegate, Baron Staal. - We are not talking about utopias, we are not proposing disarmament. We want restrictions, stopping the growth of armaments.”

The military representative of Russia, Colonel Zhilinsky, suggested:

1) undertake not to increase the previous number of peacetime troops within five years,

2) set this number exactly,

3) undertake not to increase military budgets within the same period.

Captain Shein proposed limiting maritime budgets for a three-year period, as well as publishing all data on fleets.

Several states (including Japan) immediately stated that they had not yet received instructions on these matters. The unpopular role of official opponent was assumed by the German delegate, Colonel Gross von Schwarzhof. He ironically objected to those who spoke of the unbearable hardships of weapons.

The matter was referred to a subcommittee of eight military men, which, with the exception of the Russian delegate Zhilinsky, unanimously admitted that:

1) it is difficult even for five years to fix the number of troops without simultaneously regulating other elements of national defense,

2) it is no less difficult to regulate other elements, which are different in different countries, by international agreement.

Therefore, unfortunately, the Russian proposal cannot be accepted. With regard to naval armaments, delegations referred to the lack of instructions.

Passionate disputes were raised only by the question of the arbitration court.

The German delegation took an uncompromising position on this issue.

A compromise was found by waiving the obligation of arbitration.

The German delegation agreed, in turn, to the establishment of a permanent court. Wilhelm II, however, considered this a big concession made by him to the sovereign. The same was expressed by statesmen of other countries.

Russian public opinion, until the end of the Hague Conference, showed a rather weak interest in this issue. In general, a sympathetic attitude prevailed, with an admixture of skepticism and some irony.

The Hague Conference of 1899, however, played its part in world history. It showed how far at that moment it was from general pacification, how fragile the international calm was. At the same time, it raised the question of the possibility and desirability of international agreements to ensure peace.

Nicholas II and the first Russian revolution

"Bloody" Sunday

The ninth of January was a "political earthquake" - the beginning of the Russian revolution.

About 140,000 people took to the streets on January 9. The workers walked with their wives and children, festively dressed. People carried icons, banners, crosses, royal portraits, white-blue-red national flags. Armed soldiers warmed themselves by the fires. But no one wanted to believe that the workers would be shot at. The king was not in the city that day, but they hoped that the sovereign would come to personally accept the petition from their hands.

People in processions sang prayers, mounted and foot policemen moved ahead, clearing the way for those walking. The procession was like a procession.

Here one of the columns came across a chain of soldiers blocking its path to the Winter Palace. Everyone heard the horn of a bugler, and after that shots rang out. The wounded and dead fell to the ground ... One of the police officers who accompanied the procession exclaimed: “What are you doing? Why are you shooting at a religious procession? How dare you shoot at the portrait of the sovereign!? Another volley fired, and this officer also fell to the ground ... Only people holding images and portraits proudly stood under the shots. G. Gapon said: “Old man Lavrentiev, who was carrying the royal portrait, was killed, and the other, taking the portrait that had fallen from his hands, was also killed by the next volley.”

Such scenes played out in many parts of the city. Some workers still penetrated through the barriers to the Winter Palace. Whereas in other districts of the city the soldiers simply silently carried out commands, at Zimny ​​the crowd managed to enter into disputes with them. However, shots soon rang out here too. Thus ended the day that was called "Bloody (or" Red ") Sunday".

According to official figures, 130 people died and about 300 were injured.

According to other sources, the death toll reached 200, wounded - 800 people.

“The police gave the order not to give the corpses to relatives,” wrote gendarmerie general A. Gerasimov. - Public funerals were not allowed. In complete secrecy, at night, the dead were buried.

G. Gapon exclaimed in despair immediately after the execution: "There is no more God, there is no more tsar."

A few hours later, the priest composed a new appeal to the people.

He now called Nicholas II "the beast-king." “Brothers, comrade-workers,” wrote G. Gapon. - Innocent blood still spilled ... The bullets of the tsar's soldiers ... shot through the tsar's portrait and killed our faith in the tsar. So let us take revenge, brothers, on the tsar cursed by the people and all his snake offspring, ministers, all the robbers of the unfortunate Russian land. Death to them all! January 9, 1905 is considered the birthday of the first Russian revolution.

Maneuvers of power

Years of revolutionary propaganda could not have done so much to undermine the authority of the existing power in Russia as did the execution on January 9th.

What happened on that day shattered the traditional ideas of the people about the king as a protector and patron. Returning from the blood-drenched streets of the capital to the departments of the "Assembly", gloomy people trampled on the portraits of the king and icons, spitting on them. "Bloody Sunday" finally pushed the country into revolution.

The first desperate, albeit scattered, outbursts of workers' fury occurred already in the afternoon of January 9 and resulted in the destruction of weapons shops and attempts to build barricades. Even Nevsky was blocked off by benches dragged from everywhere. On January 10, all 625 enterprises of the capital stopped. But for the next few days, the city was dominated by Cossack reprisals and police brutality. Cossacks rampaged in the streets, beat passers-by without any reason. There were searches in private apartments, newspaper offices, premises of public organizations, arrests of suspects. They were looking for evidence of a broad revolutionary conspiracy. Gapon's "Assembly" was closed.

On January 11, a new post of Governor-General of St. Petersburg was established with extraordinary, in fact, dictatorial powers. Nicholas II appointed D. F. Trepov to him. In early January, he defiantly resigned from the post of chief police chief of Moscow, defiantly declaring that he did not share the liberal views of the Minister of the Interior.

In reality, Trepov did not have any definite views, simply because he did not understand politics at all. Therefore, in the future, faced with the raging ocean of revolution and making sure that the only team he knew well, “Hands at the seams!” does not work here, he rushed to the most opposite extremes and at times expressed very leftist proposals. He began, however, with a ban on restaurants renting rooms for political banquets.

The strike subsided. The workers of the capital were for some time in a state of depression and stupor. But this state quickly passed, which was again facilitated by the tsarist government. On January 19, Nicholas II, on the advice of Trepov, received a "workers' delegation" hastily organized by the former police chief. According to pre-compiled lists, the police and gendarmes grabbed the most "trustworthy" workers indicated by the employers, searched them, changed their clothes and took them to Tsarskoye Selo. It was to this carefully selected buffoonish “delegation” that the Russian emperor read his harsh assessment of what had happened from a piece of paper:

The events of January 9 resounded throughout the country. Already in January, more than 440,000 people were on strike in 66 Russian cities, more than in the previous 10 years combined. Basically, these were political strikes in support of the St. Petersburg comrades. The Russian workers were supported by the proletariat of Poland and the Baltic states. There were bloody clashes between the strikers and the police in Tallinn and Riga.

Trying, nevertheless, to make up for the impression of what happened, the tsar instructed Senator N.V. Shadlovsky to convene a commission "to immediately clarify the reasons for the discontent of the workers in the city of St. Petersburg and find measures to eliminate them in the future." The commission was to include representatives of the owners and elected workers.

But the commission was never able to get to work. Among the electors nominated by the workers, the majority turned out to be Social Democrats, who initially characterized Shidlovsky's commission as a "commission of state tricks" intended to swindle the workers.

At the same time, the government tried to persuade St. Petersburg entrepreneurs to fulfill a number of social and economic demands of the workers and put forward a program for the creation of sickness funds, conciliatory chambers, as well as further reduction of the working day.

"Bulyginskaya Duma"

On August 6, 1905, on the day of the Transfiguration of the Lord, the tsar's manifesto on the establishment of the State Duma and the "Regulations" on elections to it were finally published. From the first lines of these documents, born in the throes of political passions, it became clear that the principles underlying them were hopelessly outdated. Russia was granted an elected body - the Duma - for "preliminary development and discussion of legislative proposals and consideration of the list of state revenues and expenditures."

The Duma also had the right to ask questions to the government and point out the illegality of the actions of the authorities by directly reporting its chairman to the emperor. But no decisions of the Duma were binding either on the tsar or on the government.

Determining the system of elections, the developers were guided by a 40-year-old model - the zemstvo regulations of 1864. The deputies were to be elected by "electoral meetings" of the prescribed number of electors from each province. Voters were divided into 3 curia: landowners, peasants and city dwellers.

Large proprietors, who owned more than 150 acres of land, directly participated in district congresses of landowners who voted for electors from the province. The elections for them, therefore, were two-stage. The small landowners elected delegates to district congresses. For them, the elections were three-stage. The landowners, who made up only a few percent of the voters, were to be represented at provincial assemblies by 34% of the electors.

Elections were also three-staged for the townspeople, who were given 23% of the votes of the provincial electors. In addition, for them there was a very high property qualification. Only homeowners and the largest apartment tax payers could vote. Most of the townspeople were not allowed to vote at all. These are, first of all, the workers and the bulk of the intelligentsia. The government considered them the most susceptible to the corrupting influence of Western civilization, and therefore the least loyal.

On the other hand, the government still saw in the peasantry a completely loyal, patriarchal-conservative mass, to which the very idea of ​​limiting tsarist power was alien. Therefore, the peasantry was allowed to participate in the elections in its entirety and even received a fairly significant share of the vote at provincial assemblies - 43%.

But at the same time, the elections for them were made in four stages. The peasants voted for representatives in the volost assembly, the volost assemblies elected the uyezd congress of delegates from the volosts, and the uyezd congresses elected the peasant electors to the provincial electoral assembly.

So, the elections were not universal, not equal and not direct.

The future Duma was immediately nicknamed "Bulyginskaya". Lenin called it the most impudent mockery of the representation of the people. And he was not alone in this opinion. All the revolutionary parties and most of the liberals immediately announced their intention to boycott the Bulygin Duma. Those who agreed to participate in the elections stated that they were only using all legal opportunities to expose the false nature of the pseudo-popular pseudo-representation. The confrontation between the authorities and society continued.

According to Witte, the court was dominated in those days by "an interweaving of cowardice, blindness, deceit and stupidity." On October 11, Nicholas II, who was living at that time in Peterhof, made a curious entry in his diary: “We visited the boat (submarine) Ruff, which has been sticking out against our windows for the fifth month, that is, since the uprising on the Potemkin” . A few days later, the tsar received the commanders of two German destroyers. Apparently, everything was ready in case of an urgent departure of the king and his family abroad.

In Peterhof, the tsar constantly held meetings. At the same time, Nicholas II continued to persist in trying to deceive history and evade what had already become inevitable. Either he instructed the former Minister of the Interior, conservative Goremykin, to draw up a draft alternative to Witte's, or he suggested to his uncle, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich, that he accept the appointment as dictator in order to forcefully pacify the country. But Goremykin's project turned out to be almost identical to Witte's, and the uncle refused the tsar's offer and, brandishing a revolver, threatened to shoot himself right there, in front of him, if he did not accept Witte's program.

Finally, the tsar gave in and at five o'clock in the afternoon on October 17 signed the manifesto prepared by Count Witte:

1) To grant the population the unshakable foundations of civil freedom on the basis of real inviolability of the person, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and associations.

2) Without stopping the planned elections to the State Duma, now to enlist in participation in the Duma, to the extent possible, corresponding to the shortness of the period remaining until the convocation of the Duma, those classes of the population who are now completely deprived of voting rights, thereby providing further development of the beginning of general suffrage again established legal order.

3) Establish as an unshakable rule that no law can take effect without the approval of the State Duma, and that the elected representatives of the people are provided with the opportunity to really participate in monitoring the regularity of the actions of the authorities appointed by Us.

Nicholas II and the State Duma

"The first Russian constitution"

The events that unfolded at the end of 1905 and the beginning of 1906 did nothing to improve relations between the government and the democratic community.

It cannot be said that the government did not try to do anything in the spirit of the promises of the October 17 Manifesto. On November 27, "provisional rules" on the press were issued, abolishing preliminary censorship and the authorities' right to impose administrative penalties on periodicals. On March 4, 1906, "provisional rules" on societies and unions appeared. The rules themselves were quite liberal. On the same day, "provisional rules" on public meetings came out.

The main goal of the government in issuing all these rules was to introduce at least some framework into the enjoyment of political freedoms, which since the beginning of the revolution was carried out by Russian society "on a whim", spontaneously and without any restrictions.

Along the way, new restrictions were introduced that directly contradicted the newly adopted rules. On February 13, 1906, a very vague law was passed, according to which any person guilty of "anti-government propaganda" could be prosecuted. A decree on March 18 introduced new "temporary rules" on the press. The publication of these rules, as stated in the decree, was due to the fact that the former rules "are insufficient to deal with violators of the prescribed requirements." The new rules effectively restored prior censorship. The “Temporary Regulations” of 1881 on enhanced and emergency protection continued to operate in full, making the use of all the rights and freedoms proclaimed in the Manifesto on October 17, completely dependent on the discretion of the authorities.

The new electoral law, issued on December 11, 1905, could not satisfy the public either. Although it allowed a significant number of citizens excluded from them under the first electoral law to take part in the elections, and made the elections almost universal, they remained multi-stage and very disproportionate for various segments of the population .

The question of who would draw up the constitution and for whose benefit was decided during the armed confrontation between the government and the revolutionaries in December 1905-January 1906. The government won and considered it possible to dictate the terms of the swap. Therefore, everything was done to minimize the influence of the future Duma on decision-making, to save as much as possible from autocracy.

The new "Basic State Laws" of the Russian Empire were promulgated on April 23, 1906. The emperor retained all executive power. He appointed and dismissed ministers at his discretion.

The exclusive right to conduct international affairs, declare war and conclude peace, impose martial law and declare amnesty also belonged to the king.

As for legislative power, it was now distributed between the monarch, the Duma and the reformed State Council. This formerly purely deliberative assembly of elderly dignitaries appointed by the tsar for life was made semi-elected by decree on February 20 and turned into the second chamber of the Russian parliament, endowed with rights equal to those of the Duma. For the law to come into force, it now needed the approval of both chambers and, in the last resort, the monarch. Each of the three could completely block any bill.

Thus, the king could no longer legislate as he saw fit, but his veto was absolute.

Legislative chambers were to be convened annually by decrees of the emperor. The duration of their classes and the timing of the break were determined by the king. The tsar could generally dissolve the Duma at any time before the expiration of the five-year term of its powers.

Article 87 of the Fundamental Laws subsequently assumed particular importance. According to it, in the intervals between sessions of the Duma, in case of emergency, urgent circumstances, the tsar could issue decrees having the force of law.

I State Duma

The Duma met on April 27, 1906. At the request of the tsar, a new era in the state life of Russia was to open in a solemn manner.

On this occasion, a reception was held at the Winter Palace for members of both legislative chambers.

At the entrance to the hall of the royal couple, a loud “hurray” was heard from the ranks of the members of the State Council. From the crowd of Duma deputies, only a few people shouted “Hurrah” and immediately stopped short, not meeting support.

In his throne speech, Nicholas II greeted in the person of the deputies the "best people" elected by the people at his command. He promised to unwaveringly protect the new institutions granted to him, said that the era of renewal and revival of the Russian Land was beginning, expressed confidence that the deputies would give this cause all their strength in unity with the authorities. The conciliatory speech of the tsar was, however, met by the deputies rather coldly.

The first question, the answer to which the deputies so wanted to hear but did not hear, concerned a political amnesty. The second question, which worried everyone, can be called a constitutional question. And although no political decisions were made at the first - organizational - meeting of the Duma, the challenge was thrown. The fight has begun. A clash with the government became inevitable.

By the beginning of 1906, in the higher spheres, they had already come to terms with the inevitability of the rejection of the community so dear to their hearts. Work was underway on draft relevant regulations. But the authorities, as always, did not keep pace with events. The country was swept by a series of peasant riots and pogroms. The movement unfolded under the slogan of the destruction of private ownership of land. The All-Russian Peasant Union based its program on these requirements. And it was with his support that most of the peasant deputies were elected to the First State Duma, who then united in the Trudoviks faction.

The point, however, was not only in the centuries-old resentment. The last time the peasants were "offended" was relatively recently - during the reform of 1861. The conditions for the abolition of serfdom were considered by the peasants to be flagrant injustice.

The terms of the 1861 reform were indeed defiantly hothouse for the landlords and unjustifiably harsh for the peasants. Resentment at this injustice gave rise to dull hostility in the village.

With any agrarian reform, the nobles had to sacrifice something, give up their interests, so much so that everyone could see it. The peasantry would not have accepted any other solution to the problem.

The Cadets understood this and tried to take it into account in their Party program.

The alienated land formed the state land fund, from which plots were to be allocated to the peasants, but not for ownership, but again for use.

On May 8, the Cadets submitted to the Duma their bill on agrarian reform (the "draft of the 42s"). On May 19, the Trudoviks also submitted their draft (“project of the 104th”).

Whereas under the Kadet project highly productive estates, recognized as having general utility, were retained by the owners, under the Trudovik project all privately owned lands exceeding the so-called “labor norm,” i.e., the area that a family can cultivate on its own, were transferred to the public fund. According to the Cadet project, agrarian reform was to be carried out by land committees composed on an equal footing of representatives of the peasants, landowners and the state, according to the Trudovik project, by bodies elected by the local population by general and equal elections. The question of whether to pay the ransom to the landowners at all, the Trudoviks wanted to turn over to the people for a final decision.

The "government message" was perceived by the Duma as another challenge and humiliation of the people's representation. The Duma decided to answer the challenge with a challenge. At a meeting on July 4, it was decided to appeal to the people with an "explanation" that it - the Duma - would not deviate from the principle of forced expropriation and would block any bill that did not include this principle. The tone of the final version of the text, adopted on July 6, was somewhat softened, but the essence remained the same.

As a result of the exchange of "explanations" on the agrarian question, the conflict between the government and the Duma took on a threatening character. The government unambiguously took the Duma's appeal to the population as a direct call to seize the landlords' lands.

Nicholas II had long wanted to disperse the rebellious Duma, but he could not decide on this in any way - he was afraid of an explosion of mass indignation. In response to the suggestion of Nicholas II, Stolypin, after a sluggish attempt to refuse under the pretext of ignorance of the secret currents and influences of St. Petersburg, raised the question of the immediate dissolution of the Duma.

During the two-day meetings of the tsar, Goremykin and Stolypin in Peterhof, the question of the new appointment and the fate of the Duma was finally decided. On July 9, a large castle flaunted on the doors of the Tauride Palace, and on the walls - the tsar's Manifesto on the dissolution of the Duma.

Calm and reform

Stolypin's program also had another side. Speaking as Minister of the Interior in the First Duma, he said: in order to carry out reforms, it is necessary to restore order in the country. Order is created in the state only when the government shows its will, when it knows how to act and dispose.

Stolypin was completely convinced of the need to preserve and strengthen tsarist power as the main instrument of change. That is why, when he failed to persuade the liberal opposition to a compromise, he came to the idea of ​​dissolving the Duma.

But even after the suppression of open rebellions in the army and navy, the situation in the country was far from calm. On August 2, in Warsaw, Lodz, Plock, bloody clashes of crowds with troops and police took place, with a large number of victims on both sides. In the rural areas of the Urals, the Baltic States, Poland, the Caucasus, there was a real guerrilla war.

Armed revolutionaries seized printing houses, printed calls for a general uprising and reprisals against government officials, and proclaimed local regional republics headed by Soviets. Revolutionary terror reached its maximum level - political assassinations and expropriations, that is, robberies for political purposes.

Gradually terror and exes degenerated. People were killed "for the position", they killed those who were easier to reach. Often they sought to kill the most worthy officials who had authority among the population and thus could raise the authority of the authorities. The objects of attacks were small shops, workers after their salaries. Increasingly, the participants in the attacks themselves began to leave part of the money for themselves “for the economy”. Robbery was too much of a temptation. The "expropriators" were also mixed with purely criminal elements who sought to "fish in troubled waters."

Stolypin acted decisively. Peasant riots were suppressed with the help of special punitive detachments. Weapons were seized. The places of the strikers were occupied by volunteers from monarchist organizations under the protection of troops.

Dozens of opposition publications were suspended. However, the new prime minister understood that this was not enough for a lasting calm and that it was impossible to postpone the start of reforms until future stabilization. On the contrary, for the final victory over the revolution, it is necessary to show everyone as soon as possible that the reforms have begun.

Stolypin continued his attempts to attract public figures from the liberal camp to the government. Already on July 15, he again met with Shipov.

Together with Shipov, his comrade in the leadership of the All-Zemska Organization, Prince G.E. Lvov, was invited.

Stolypin briefed Shipov and Lvov on his reform program.

But the agreement again did not take place. Public figures again set certain conditions for the liberal opposition: immediate amnesty, termination of the exceptional laws, suspension of executions. In addition, they strongly objected to Stolypin's intention to start a series of reforms on an emergency basis, without waiting for the convocation of a new Duma, seeing in this a desire to belittle the importance of parliament and gain additional political points for themselves, and at the same time for the tsarist government in general. Stolypin, on the other hand, argued that the situation required urgent action, that in the end it did not matter who started.

Nicholas II and World War I

In the summer of 1914, the approach of a great war was felt in Europe.

The lady-in-waiting and close friend of the Empress Anna Vyrubova recalled that in those days she often "caught the sovereign pale and upset." When the war became a fait accompli, the mood of Nicholas II changed dramatically for the better. He felt cheerful and enthusiastic and said: “While this question hung in the air, it was worse!”

On July 20, the day the session declared war, the sovereign, together with his wife, visited St. Petersburg. Here he was the main participant in the exciting scenes of national upsurge. Vast crowds of people under tricolor banners, with his portraits in their hands, met on the streets of Nicholas II. In the hall of the Winter Palace, the sovereign was surrounded by an enthusiastic crowd of deputies.

Nicholas II delivered a speech, which he ended with a solemn promise that he would not make peace until he had driven the last enemy from Russian soil. His answer was a powerful "Hurrah!". He went out onto the balcony to greet the popular demonstration. A. Vyrubova wrote: “The whole sea of ​​people on Palace Square, seeing him, how one person knelt before him. Thousands of banners bowed, hymns were sung, prayers... everyone was crying.

In the midst of a feeling of boundless love and devotion to the Throne, a war began.

In the first year of the war, the Russian army suffered a series of heavy defeats. At the news of the fall of Warsaw, Nicholas left his usual equanimity, and he exclaimed ardently: “This cannot go on, I cannot sit here all the time and watch how the army is crushed; I see mistakes - and I must be silent! The situation inside the country also worsened. Influenced by defeats at the front, the Duma began a struggle for a government responsible to it. In court circles and the Headquarters, some plans were ripening against the empress.

Alexandra Fedorovna. She aroused general hostility as a "German", there was talk of forcing the Tsar to send her to a convent.

All this prompted Nicholas II to stand at the head of the army, replacing Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. He explained his decision by the fact that at a difficult moment the supreme leader of the nation should lead the troops. August 23, 1915

Nicholas arrived at Headquarters in Mogilev and took over the supreme command.

In the meantime, tension in the society was growing. Chairman of the Duma Mikhail Rodzianko, at each meeting with the tsar, persuaded him to make concessions to the Duma.

During one of their conversations already in January 1917, Nicholas II clenched his head with both hands and bitterly exclaimed: “Is it really that I tried for twenty-two years to make everything better, and for twenty-two years I was wrong!?” During another meeting, the emperor unexpectedly spoke about his experiences: “I was in the forest today ... I went to the capercaillie. Quiet there, and you forget everything, all these squabbles, the vanity of people ... It was so good in my soul. There is closer to nature, closer to God…”.

February Revolution and the abdication of Nicholas

In mid-February 1917, there were interruptions in the supply of grain in Petrograd. "Tails" lined up near the bakeries. Strikes broke out in the city; on February 18, the Putilov plant stopped.

February 23 (March 8) was International Women's Day. Thousands of workers took to the streets of the city. They shouted: "Bread!" and "Down with hunger!".

On that day, about 90,000 workers took part in the strike, and the strike movement grew like a snowball. The next day, more than 200 thousand people were on strike, and the next day - more than 300 thousand people (80% of all metropolitan workers).

Rallies began on Nevsky Prospekt and other main streets of the city.

Their slogans became stronger and stronger. Red flags were already flashing in the crowd, it was heard: “Down with the war!” and "Down with autocracy!" The demonstrators sang revolutionary songs.

On February 25, 1917, Nicholas II from the Headquarters telegraphed the commander of the capital's military district, General Sergei Khabalov: "I order tomorrow to stop the unrest in the capital, which is unacceptable during the difficult time of the war."

The general tried to carry out the order. On February 26, about a hundred "instigators of the riots" were arrested. Troops and police began to disperse the demonstrators with gunshots. In total, 169 people died these days, about a thousand were injured (later, several dozen more people died from among the wounded).

However, the shootings in the streets only led to a new outburst of indignation, but already among the military themselves. The soldiers of the reserve teams of the Volynsky, Preobrazhensky and Lithuanian regiments refused to "shoot at the people." A riot broke out among them, and they went over to the side of the demonstrators.

On February 27, 1917, Nicholas II wrote in his diary: “Unrest broke out in Petrograd a few days ago; unfortunately, the troops began to take part in them. A disgusting feeling to be so far away and receive fragmentary bad news!”18. The sovereign sent General Nikolai Ivanov to the rebellious capital, ordering him "to restore order with the troops." But in the end nothing came of this attempt.

On February 28, the last defenders of the government, led by General Khabalov, surrendered in Petrograd. “The troops gradually dispersed like that ... - said the general. “They just dispersed gradually, leaving the guns behind.”

The ministers fled, and then they were arrested one by one. Some themselves came into custody to avoid reprisals.

On the last day of February, the sovereign left Mogilev for Tsarskoye Selo.

However, along the way, information was received that the path was occupied by the rebels. Then the royal train turned to Pskov, where the headquarters of the Northern Front was located. Nicholas II arrived here on the evening of March 1.

On the night of March 2, Nicholas II summoned the commander-in-chief of the front, General Nikolai Ruzsky, and informed him: "I decided to make concessions and give them a responsible ministry."

Nikolai Ruzsky immediately informed Mikhail Rodzianko of the tsar's decision by direct wire. He replied: “Obviously, His Majesty and you are not aware of what is happening here; one of the most terrible revolutions has come, which will not be so easy to overcome ... Time has been lost and there is no return. M. Rodzianko said that now it was necessary to abdicate Nicholas in favor of the heir.

Having learned about such an answer from M. Rodzianko, N. Ruzsky, through the Headquarters, asked for the opinion of all the commanders-in-chief of the fronts. In the morning, their answers began to arrive in Pskov. All of them begged the sovereign to sign a renunciation to save Russia and successfully continue the war. Probably the most eloquent message came from General Vladimir Sakharov from the Romanian front.

The general called the proposal to abdicate "vile".

At about 2:30 p.m. on March 2, these telegrams were reported to the sovereign. Nikolai Ruzsky also spoke in favor of abdication. “Now you have to surrender to the mercy of the winner” - this is how he expressed his opinion to the king’s close associates. Such unanimity between the leaders of the army and the Duma made a strong impression on Emperor Nicholas II. He was especially struck by a telegram sent by Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich.

In the evening of the same day, Duma deputies A. Guchkov and V. Shulgin arrived in Pskov. The sovereign received them in his carriage. In the book “Days”, V. Shulgin conveyed the words of Nicholas II in this way: “His voice sounded calm, simple and accurate.

I have decided to abdicate the throne... Until three o'clock today I thought that I could abdicate in favor of my son Alexei... But by this time I have changed my mind in favor of brother Michael... I hope you understand the feelings of the father... He said the last phrase more quietly ... ".

Nikolai handed over to the deputies a renunciation manifesto printed on a typewriter. The document was dated and timed: "March 2, 15:55."



Domestic policy and reforms of Nicholas II

The initial period of the reign of Nicholas II. In 1894, the eldest son of Alexander III, Nikolai II Alexandrovich, ascended the Russian throne. He was destined to become the last Russian emperor. He was excommunicated from power in 1917, martyred along with his family in 1918 at the hands of his subjects, and in 2000 was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church along with his family. However, disputes about the significance of his personality and activities for Russian history have not subsided far.
Nikolai Alexandrovich received an excellent military and legal education, was fluent in four foreign languages, knew Russian history well, and was a man of high spiritual qualities. He was a deeply religious man and, as an Orthodox Sovereign, firmly believed that autocracy was the only form of government acceptable to Russia. (See textbook material) The tragedy of his fate lay in the fact that these ideas of his were no longer shared by the elite of Russian society. In the minds of the Russian elite, the image of monarchical Russia has already been destroyed. In addition, the "great reforms" of his grandfather Alexander II accelerated the revolutionary process in society, raised the dark forces of the people from the very bottom of Russian existence. During the reign of Nicholas II, Russia was hit by unprecedented social cataclysms: the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905, the first Russian revolution of 1905-1907, the first world war of 1914-1918. and etc.
A ruler of a demonic type, like Ivan the Terrible or Peter the Great, could cope with these cataclysms. Nicholas II, as a deeply religious person, relied in everything on the will of the Lord God in his life and work. Perhaps his greatest guilt before Russian history is that he humbly walked to his martyr's end with his family.
In the first years of his reign, Nicholas II did not undertake any innovations, intending to adhere to those principles of power, those foundations and foundations that his father Alexander III adhered to. At the very beginning of his reign, at the reception of a deputation from the zemstvos on January 17, 1895, Nicholas II warned the representatives of the Tver zemstvos, who had hinted in the address submitted to him earlier about the possibility of expanding the rights of the zemstvos, so that they would leave "meaningless dreams about the participation of representatives of the zemstvos in matters of internal administration." The Russian intelligentsia, after the harsh reign of Alexander III, hoped for the liberalization of public life. After the new king's perhaps incautious statement about "meaningless dreams," she immediately stood in opposition to all his undertakings. Later, using powerful levers of influence on the mass consciousness of society, the intelligentsia will form the image of the last Russian tsar as "Bloody Nicholas", nicknamed by the people for the tragedy on Khodynka field in Moscow during the coronation - a weak, weak-willed man, incapable of managing a huge empire, and this stereotype firmly entrenched in the minds of the people.

Forcing industrialization "from above". In the economic field, the government contributed in every possible way to the further development of capitalism. A whole range of measures was taken to encourage the development of industry and banking, to accelerate the industrialization of the country. The development of capitalism in Russia in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. is closely connected with the name of S.Yu. Witte, who became the first Prime Minister of Russia. This famous politician played a decisive role in the domestic and foreign policy of Russia during the initial period of the reign of Nicholas II.

Reforms S.Yu. Witte. S.Yu. Witte was the head of the Ministry of Railways, Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, member of the State Council. From 1892 to 1903 he was finance minister. During this period, S.Yu. Witte undertook a series of reforms that brought Russia into a number of major economic powers. S.Yu. Witte was a supporter of the development of state capitalism. In his opinion, state capitalism, given the Russian specifics - the vast expanses and poverty of the main part of the population - makes it possible to concentrate efforts on solving the priority tasks of society.
In 1891, on the initiative of S.Yu. Witte began construction of the Great Siberian Railway (Trans-Siberian Railway). In 1905, this highway, with a length of 7 thousand miles, was put into operation. The Trans-Siberian Railway played a huge role in the resettlement movement and the activation of Russian foreign policy in the Far East.
S.Yu. Witte took a number of measures aimed at increasing the profitability of the state treasury and stabilizing the ruble. From January 1, 1895, he gradually began to introduce throughout the empire wine monopoly . A state monopoly was introduced on the purification of alcohol and the production of vodka from it. Distilling could be done by private individuals, but by order of the treasury and under the supervision of excise supervision. The state monopoly did not extend to the manufacture and sale of beer, mash and grape wine. The time and place of the sale of alcoholic beverages were regulated. The drinking tax served as an important source of revenue for the treasury. In the mid 90s. the treasury received 55 million rubles from the drinking collection. income, and in 1913 - 750 million rubles.
In 1897 S.Yu. Witte began to carry out a financial reform aimed at stabilizing the ruble: gold coins were issued in denominations of 1 ruble, then - 15 (imperial) and 7.5 (semi-imperial) rubles. From now on, all paper bank notes in unlimited quantities were exchanged for gold. Right emissions credit notes were provided only to the State Bank. Thus, the ruble was strengthened.
S.Yu. Witte pursued a policy of protectionism for domestic industry. Particularly favorable conditions were established for domestic industry. In 1891, a protective customs tariff was established: the import of foreign goods was subject to a 33% duty. At the same time, exports were subject to low customs duties. This made it possible to achieve an active trade balance. The system of protectionism contributed, on the one hand, to the development of domestic industry (high duties protected it from foreign competition), but, on the other hand, it did not contribute to raising the technical level and quality of Russian industry products.
The convertibility of the ruble contributed to the inflow of foreign investment. In 1899, all obstacles to foreign investment in Russian industry and banking were removed. The free influx of foreign capital aroused the discontent of some dignitaries. On his side S.Yu. Witte attracted the famous scientist D.I. Mendeleev, who wrote two letters to the tsar in defense of foreign capital. During the years of the ministry S.Yu. Witte, the amount of foreign capital increased from 200 million rubles. up to 900 million rubles The main investors were joint-stock companies of Belgium, Germany, France, Great Britain. Foreign capital was invested in the metallurgical enterprises of the South, the oil fields of Baku, the machine-building and chemical industries. If in 1888 there were 16 foreign firms in Russia, then in 1909 - 269. For the development of industry, the government took large foreign loans.
As a result of S.Yu. Witte as Minister of Finance for 11 years, the state budget has grown by 114.5%. Moreover, the reforms of S.Yu. Witte were carried out without national casualties and economic disasters.
But S.Yu. Witte as Minister of Finance was strongly opposed in government circles. Reforms S.Yu. Witte contributed to the rapid growth of capitalism in the country, but on the other hand, Russia's dependence on foreign capital really grew. During the ministry of S.Yu. Witte, Russia's debt to foreign countries increased by more than 1 billion rubles. The Russian bourgeoisie began to lose control over banks, industry and trade. Russia was rapidly turning into the periphery of Western capitalism.
S.Yu. Witte accepted accusations of destroying economic foundations, of being overly enthusiastic about industry, of selling out Russia to foreign bankers. In 1903 he was dismissed.

Peasant question. As Minister of Finance S.Yu. Witte focused on the development of industry and banking. But a new approach to solving the peasant question is also associated with his name.
The disproportions between the level of development of capitalism in industry and agriculture were constantly increasing. The main part of the Russian peasantry was traditionally isolated in the communal environment, was deprived of the right to own land, which was collectively owned. The community guaranteed the peasant social security, but it did not contribute to the manifestation of economic initiative, it prevented the most capable, hardworking people from growing into strong masters.
The development of capitalism in the countryside required the destruction of the community, the provision of each peasant with freedom of economic activity on his own land. But at the same time, the government understood that this would lead to increased social tension in the countryside. S.Yu. Witte saw disproportions in the development of capitalism in industry and agriculture. But for a long time he was of the opinion that fundamental changes in agriculture should be carried out only after the industry was firmly on its feet. In the early years of his ministry, he was a supporter of the preservation of the community and supported the law of 1893, which prohibited leaving the community without the consent of two-thirds of the householders and limited the pledge and sale of allotments of land allocated for ownership.
Over time, S.Yu. Witte came to the need for reforms in this area of ​​the economy. In 1902, under the leadership of the Minister of Finance, a special interdepartmental "Special Conference on the Needs of the Agricultural Industry" was convened. The "Special Meeting" operated for about 3 years (1902 - 1905). It formed more than 600 local committees and attracted more than 12,000 members. The "Special Meeting" studied the results of the peasant reform of 1861, collected and systematized a large amount of statistical material on the situation in the Russian countryside over 40 years. The collected materials allowed S.Yu Witte to argue the need to change the policy towards the peasant community. In 1904, he wrote a special work, Note on the Peasant Case, in which he outlined new approaches to solving the peasant question: free exit of peasants from the community, securing land in private ownership, allowing the free sale of land. But S.Yu. Witte proposed not a violent break in the communal order, but giving the community the form of a free association of producers, while the administrative functions of the community were to be transferred to new bodies - volost zemstvos. On the initiative of S.Yu. Witte made such important decisions as the abolition of mutual responsibility (the law of 1903), the facilitation of the passport regime and the resettlement of peasants (1904). But this point of view had serious opponents in the ruling circles, in particular in the person of the Minister of the Interior VC. Plehve , who believed that it was necessary to solve the peasant question by traditional methods: to preserve the class isolation of the peasantry, to artificially support the community. With the departure of S.Yu. Witte resigned, this approach to solving the peasant question was abandoned.

Working question. One of the results of the land reform of 1861 was the dispossession of the peasantry. The ruined peasants went to the cities. The city was not ready to receive such a large number of unskilled labor: there were not enough jobs, the city experienced an acute shortage of housing. Hence the difficult social and economic situation of the Russian workers. (See textbook material) A new phenomenon in the public life of Russia in the 80s. nineteenth century became a labor movement. In the late XIX - early XX centuries. stood before the government work question .
At the very beginning of the reign of Nicholas II, the labor issue was in the center of attention. Basically, the actions of the government in the labor issue were reduced to counteracting the growing labor movement. In 1894, a reorganization law was issued factory inspection . This law significantly increased its membership and expanded its prerogatives. Factory inspectors were charged with the duty to delve deeper into the needs of the workers. Measures were taken to streamline the working day. In 1897, a law was passed, according to which the working day should not exceed 11.5 hours, and night shifts - no more than 10 hours. Control over the implementation of this law was entrusted to the factory inspectorate. In 1903, laws were issued on insurance of workers at the expense of entrepreneurs and on the introduction of positions of worker elders at enterprises.
The solution of the working issue was to a certain extent connected with the name of the head of the Moscow security department S.V. Zubatova . He believed that the labor movement had become a dangerous force, and the government should keep it under control. At the same time, the head of the Moscow Okhrana believed that the workers quite reasonably demanded the satisfaction of their socio-economic requirements. He suggested giving workers the opportunity to legally defend their rights. The main thing, he believed, was to keep the working-class movement within the framework of the economic struggle, to drive a wedge between the Social Democracy and the working-class movement, to prevent the influence of revolutionaries-intellectuals on it from spreading. The main defender of the workers, in his opinion, was to be the government. Having enlisted the support of the government, S.V. Zubatov began educational work among the workers. (See textbook material)
He organized Sunday meetings of workers, nicknamed "Zubatov's parliament". In the auditoriums of the Historical Museum, the workers were given lectures by professors from Moscow University on the struggle of the Western European proletariat for their socio-economic rights, and debates were held on topics related to the life of workers. In 1901, under the control of S.V. Zubatov, the "Society for Mutual Assistance of Workers in Mechanical Production" was created. Similar societies were formed among weavers, bakers, tobacco workers, and workers in other trades. They were united in the "Council of Workers of Moscow". Similar societies of workers were created in St. Petersburg, Nikolaev, Kyiv. Soon the Zubatovites began to take part in the conflicts between the workers and the administration. The Zubatovites managed to achieve certain concessions to the workers from the manufacturers. This angered the manufacturers. So, in 1902, the Moscow industrialist Yu.P. Goujon filed a complaint against S.V. Zubatov to the Ministry of Finance. Zubatovites were forbidden to interfere in conflicts between entrepreneurs and workers. The participation of the Zubatovites in the general strike in the south of the country aroused the wrath of the Minister of Internal Affairs V.K. Plehve. S.V. Zubatov was accused of "flirting" with the workers, of provoking the growth of the labor movement. As a result of intrigues in the highest echelons of power in 1903, S.V. Zubatov was dismissed. He was a staunch supporter of the monarchy in Russia, and in 1917, having learned about the abdication of Nicholas II from the throne, he shot himself. Later, his policy will be called "Zubatovism", "police socialism".

Nature did not give Nikolai the properties important for the sovereign, which his late father possessed. Most importantly, Nikolai did not have a "mind of the heart" - political instinct, foresight and that inner strength that those around him feel and obey. However, Nikolai himself felt his weakness, helplessness in the face of fate. He even foresaw his own bitter fate: "I will undergo severe trials, but I will not see a reward on earth." Nikolai considered himself an eternal loser: “I can’t do anything in my endeavors. I have no luck "... In addition, he not only turned out to be unprepared for rule, but also did not like state affairs, which were torment for him, a heavy burden: "A day of rest for me - no reports, no receptions ... I read a lot - again they sent heaps of papers ... ”(from the diary). There was no paternal passion in him, no dedication to business. He said: "I ... try not to think about anything and find that this is the only way to rule Russia." At the same time, it was extremely difficult to deal with him. Nicholas was secretive, vindictive. Witte called him a "Byzantine", who knew how to attract a person with his confidence, and then deceive him. One wit wrote about the king: “He doesn’t lie, but he doesn’t tell the truth either.”

KHODYNKA

And three days later [after the coronation of Nicholas on May 14, 1896 in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin] a terrible tragedy occurred on the out-of-town Khodynka field, where the festivities were to take place. Already in the evening, on the eve of the day of the festivities, thousands of people began to gather there, hoping in the morning to be among the first to receive a royal gift in the “buffet” (of which a hundred were prepared) - one of 400 thousand gifts wrapped in a colored scarf, consisting of a “grocery set” ( half a pound of sausage, bacon, sweets, nuts, gingerbread), and most importantly - an outlandish, "eternal" enameled mug with a royal monogram and gilding. The Khodynka field was a training ground and was all pitted with ditches, trenches and pits. The night turned out to be moonless, dark, crowds of "guests" arrived and arrived, heading towards the "buffets". People, not seeing the road in front of them, fell into pits and ditches, and from behind they were crowded and crowded by those who approached from Moscow. […]

In total, by morning, about half a million Muscovites had gathered on Khodynka, compressed into huge crowds. As V. A. Gilyarovsky recalled,

“Steam began to rise above the million-strong crowd, like a swamp fog ... The crush was terrible. Many were treated badly, some lost consciousness, unable to get out or even fall: senseless, with their eyes closed, compressed, as if in a vise, they swayed along with the mass.

The crush intensified when bartenders, in fear of the onslaught of the crowd, without waiting for the announced deadline, began to distribute gifts ...

According to official figures, 1389 people died, although in reality there were many more victims. The blood froze even among the worldly-wise military and firefighters: scalped heads, crushed chests, premature babies lying in the dust ... The Tsar learned about this catastrophe in the morning, but did not cancel any of the planned festivities and in the evening opened a ball with the charming wife of the French ambassador Montebello ... And although later the king visited hospitals and donated money to the families of the dead, it was already too late. The indifference shown by the sovereign to his people in the first hours of the catastrophe cost him dearly. He was nicknamed "Nicholas the Bloody".

NICHOLAS II AND THE ARMY

When he was the heir to the throne, the young Sovereign received thorough drill training, not only in the guards, but also in the army infantry. At the request of his sovereign father, he served as a junior officer in the 65th Moscow Infantry Regiment (the first case of placing a member of the Royal House in the army infantry). The observant and sensitive Tsarevich got acquainted in every detail with the life of the troops and, having become the All-Russian Emperor, turned all his attention to improving this life. His first orders streamlined production in the chief officer ranks, increased salaries and pensions, and improved the allowance of soldiers. He canceled the passage with a ceremonial march, running, knowing from experience how hard it is given to the troops.

Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich preserved this love and affection for the troops until his martyr's death. Characteristic of the love of Emperor Nicholas II for the troops is his avoidance of the official term "lower rank". The sovereign considered him too dry, official and always used the words: “Cossack”, “hussar”, “shooter”, etc. One cannot read the lines of the Tobolsk diary of the dark days of the accursed year without deep emotion:

December 6. My name day... At 12 o'clock a prayer service was served. The arrows of the 4th regiment, who were in the garden, who were on guard, all congratulated me, and I congratulated them on the regimental holiday.

FROM THE DIARY OF NICHOLAS II IN 1905

June 15th. Wednesday. Hot quiet day. Alix and I hosted at the Farm for a very long time and were an hour late for breakfast. Uncle Alexei was waiting for him with the children in the garden. Did a great kayak ride. Aunt Olga came to tea. Bathed in the sea. Ride after lunch.

I received stunning news from Odessa that the crew of the battleship Prince Potemkin-Tavrichesky, who had arrived there, rebelled, killed the officers and took possession of the ship, threatening unrest in the city. I just can't believe it!

Today the war with Turkey began. Early in the morning, the Turkish squadron approached Sevastopol in the fog and opened fire on the batteries, and left half an hour later. At the same time, "Breslau" bombarded Feodosia, and "Goeben" appeared in front of Novorossiysk.

The German scoundrels continue to retreat hastily into western Poland.

MANIFESTO ON THE DISSOLUTION OF THE FIRST STATE DUMA JULY 9, 1906

By Our will, people chosen from the population were called to legislative construction […] Firmly trusting in the mercy of God, believing in the bright and great future of Our people, We expected from their labors the good and benefit for the country. […] In all branches of people's life We have planned major transformations, and in the first place has always been Our main concern to dispel the darkness of the people with the light of enlightenment and the hardships of the people by easing land labor. A severe test has been sent down to Our expectations. Elected from the population, instead of working on the construction of a legislative one, shied away into an area that did not belong to them and turned to investigating the actions of the local authorities appointed by Us, to pointing out to Us the imperfection of the Fundamental Laws, changes to which can only be undertaken by Our Monarch's will, and to actions that are clearly illegal, as appeal on behalf of the Duma to the population. […]

Embarrassed by such disturbances, the peasantry, not expecting a legitimate improvement in their situation, went over in a number of provinces to open robbery, theft of other people's property, disobedience to the law and legitimate authorities. […]

But let Our subjects remember that only with complete order and tranquility is it possible to achieve a lasting improvement in the way of life of the people. Let it be known that We will not allow any self-will or lawlessness and with all the power of state power we will bring those who disobey the law to submission to Our Royal will. We call on all well-meaning Russian people to unite to maintain legitimate power and restore peace in our dear Fatherland.

May calmness be restored in the Russian land, and may the Almighty help Us to carry out the most important of Our Royal works - raising the welfare of the peasantry. an honest way to expand your landholding. Persons of other estates will, at Our call, make every effort to carry out this great task, the final decision of which in the legislative order will belong to the future composition of the Duma.

We, dissolving the current composition of the State Duma, at the same time confirm Our unchanging intention to keep in force the very law on the establishment of this institution and, in accordance with this Decree to Our Governing Senate on this July 8th, set the time for its new convocation on February 20, 1907 of the year.

MANIFESTO ON THE DISSOLUTION OF THE 2nd STATE DUMA JUNE 3, 1907

To our regret, a significant part of the composition of the Second State Duma did not live up to our expectations. Not with a pure heart, not with a desire to strengthen Russia and improve its system, many of the people sent from the population set to work, but with a clear desire to increase confusion and contribute to the decay of the state. The activities of these persons in the State Duma served as an insurmountable obstacle to fruitful work. A spirit of enmity was introduced into the midst of the Duma itself, which prevented a sufficient number of its members from uniting who wanted to work for the benefit of their native land.

For this reason, the State Duma either did not consider the extensive measures worked out by our government at all, or slowed down the discussion or rejected it, not even stopping at the rejection of laws that punished the open praise of crimes and strictly punished the sowers of unrest in the troops. Avoiding condemnation of murder and violence. The State Duma did not render moral assistance to the government in the matter of establishing order, and Russia continues to experience the shame of criminal hard times. The slow consideration by the State Duma of the state painting caused difficulty in timely satisfaction of many urgent needs of the people.

The right to make inquiries to the government has been turned by a significant portion of the Duma into a means of fighting the government and inciting distrust in it among the broad sections of the population. Finally, an act unheard of in the annals of history was accomplished. The judiciary uncovered a conspiracy of an entire section of the State Duma against the state and the tsarist government. When our government demanded the temporary removal of the fifty-five members of the Duma accused of this crime, and the imprisonment of the most exposed of them, until the end of the trial, the State Duma did not comply with the immediate legal demand of the authorities, which did not allow for any delay. […]

Created to strengthen the Russian state, the State Duma must be Russian in spirit. Other nationalities that were part of our state should have representatives of their needs in the State Duma, but they should not and will not be among the number that gives them the opportunity to be the arbiters of purely Russian issues. In the same outskirts of the state, where the population has not achieved sufficient development of citizenship, the elections to the State Duma should be temporarily suspended.

Holy fools and Rasputin

The king, and especially the queen, were subject to mysticism. The closest maid of honor of Alexandra Feodorovna and Nicholas II, Anna Alexandrovna Vyrubova (Taneeva), wrote in her memoirs: “The sovereign, like his ancestor Alexander I, was always mystical; the Empress was equally mystical… Their Majesties said that they believe that there are people, as in the time of the Apostles… who possess the grace of God and whose prayer the Lord hears.”

Because of this, in the Winter Palace one could often see various holy fools, "blessed", fortune tellers, people who were supposedly able to influence the fate of people. This is Pasha the perspicacious, and Matryona the sandal, and Mitya Kozelsky, and Anastasia Nikolaevna Leuchtenbergskaya (Stana) - the wife of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich Jr. The doors of the royal palace were wide open for all sorts of rogues and adventurers, such as, for example, the Frenchman Philippe (real name - Nizier Vachol), who presented the Empress with an icon with a bell, which was supposed to ring when approaching Alexandra Feodorovna people "with bad intentions" .

But the crown of royal mysticism was Grigory Efimovich Rasputin, who managed to completely subjugate the queen, and through her the king. “Now it is not the tsar who rules, but the rogue Rasputin,” Bogdanovich noted in February 1912, “All respect for the tsar is gone.” The same idea was expressed on August 3, 1916 by former Minister of Foreign Affairs S.D. Sazonov in a conversation with M. Paleolog: "The Emperor reigns, but the Empress, inspired by Rasputin, rules."

Rasputin […] quickly recognized all the weaknesses of the royal couple and skillfully used this. Alexandra Feodorovna wrote to her husband in September 1916: “I fully believe in the wisdom of our Friend, sent down to Him by God, to advise what you and our country need.” “Listen to Him,” she instructed Nicholas II, “... God sent Him to you as assistants and leaders.” […]

It came to the point that individual governor-generals, chief prosecutors of the Holy Synod and ministers were appointed and removed by the tsar on the recommendation of Rasputin, transmitted through the tsarina. On January 20, 1916, on his advice, he was appointed Chairman of the Council of Ministers V.V. Stürmer is "an absolutely unprincipled person and a complete nonentity", as Shulgin described him.

Radtsig E.S. Nicholas II in the memoirs of those close to him. New and recent history. No. 2, 1999

REFORM AND COUNTER-REFORMS

The most promising path of development for the country through consistent democratic reforms turned out to be impossible. Although it was marked, as if by a dotted line, even under Alexander I, in the future it was either subjected to distortions or even interrupted. Under the autocratic form of government, which throughout the XIX century. remained unshakable in Russia, the decisive word on any question of the fate of the country belonged to the monarchs. They, by the whim of history, alternated: the reformer Alexander I - the reactionary Nicholas I, the reformer Alexander II - the counter-reformer Alexander III (Nicholas II, who ascended the throne in 1894, also had to reform after his father's counter-reforms at the beginning of the next century) .

DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIA DURING THE BOARD OF NICHOLAS II

The main executor of all the transformations in the first decade of the reign of Nicholas II (1894-1904) was S.Yu. Witte. A talented financier and statesman, S. Witte, heading the Ministry of Finance in 1892, promised Alexander III, without carrying out political reforms, to make Russia one of the leading industrialized countries in 20 years.

The industrialization policy developed by Witte required significant capital investments from the budget. One of the sources of capital was the introduction of the state monopoly on wine and vodka products in 1894, which became the main budget revenue item.

In 1897, a monetary reform was carried out. Measures to raise taxes, increase gold mining, and conclude foreign loans made it possible to put into circulation gold coins instead of paper notes, which helped to attract foreign capital to Russia and strengthen the country's monetary system, thanks to which the state's income doubled. The reform of commercial and industrial taxation, carried out in 1898, introduced a trade tax.

The real result of Witte's economic policy was the accelerated development of industrial and railway construction. In the period from 1895 to 1899, an average of 3,000 kilometers of tracks per year were built in the country.

By 1900, Russia came out on top in the world in oil production.

By the end of 1903, there were 23,000 factory enterprises operating in Russia, with approximately 2,200,000 workers. Politics S.Yu. Witte gave impetus to the development of Russian industry, commercial and industrial entrepreneurship, and the economy.

According to the project of P.A. Stolypin, an agrarian reform was launched: the peasants were allowed to freely dispose of their land, leave the community and run a farm. The attempt to abolish the rural community was of great importance for the development of capitalist relations in the countryside.

Chapter 19. The reign of Nicholas II (1894-1917). Russian history

THE BEGINNING OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR

On the same day, July 29, at the insistence of the chief of the general staff, Yanushkevich, Nicholas II signed a decree on general mobilization. In the evening, the head of the mobilization department of the general staff, General Dobrorolsky, arrived at the building of the St. Petersburg main telegraph office and personally brought there the text of the decree on mobilization for communication to all parts of the empire. There were literally a few minutes left before the devices were supposed to start transmitting the telegram. And suddenly Dobrorolsky was given the order of the king to suspend the transmission of the decree. It turned out that the tsar received a new telegram from Wilhelm. In his telegram, the Kaiser again assured that he would try to reach an agreement between Russia and Austria, and asked the Tsar not to hinder this with military preparations. After reviewing the telegram, Nikolai informed Sukhomlinov that he was canceling the decree on general mobilization. The tsar decided to confine himself to a partial mobilization directed only against Austria.

Sazonov, Yanushkevich and Sukhomlinov were extremely concerned that Nicholas had succumbed to the influence of Wilhelm. They were afraid that Germany would overtake Russia in the concentration and deployment of the army. They met on July 30 in the morning and decided to try to convince the king. Yanushkevich and Sukhomlinov tried to do it over the phone. However, Nikolai dryly announced to Yanushkevich that he was ending the conversation. The general nevertheless managed to inform the tsar that Sazonov was present in the room, who would also like to say a few words to him. After a pause, the king agreed to listen to the minister. Sazonov asked for an audience for an urgent report. Nikolai was silent again, and then offered to come to him at 3 o'clock. Sazonov agreed with his interlocutors that if he convinced the tsar, he would immediately call Yanushkevich from the Peterhof Palace, and he would give an order to the main telegraph to the officer on duty to communicate the decree to all military districts. “After that,” Yanushkevich said, “I will leave home, break the phone, and generally make sure that I can no longer be found for a new cancellation of the general mobilization.”

For almost a whole hour, Sazonov proved to Nikolai that war was inevitable anyway, since Germany was striving for it, and that under these conditions it was extremely dangerous to delay general mobilization. In the end, Nikolai agreed. […] From the vestibule, Sazonov called Yanushkevich and informed him of the tsar's approval. "Now you can break your phone," he added. At 5 o'clock in the evening on July 30, all the apparatuses of the main St. Petersburg telegraph began to pound. They sent the tsar's decree on general mobilization to all military districts. July 31, in the morning, he became public.

Beginning of the First World War. History of Diplomacy. Volume 2. Edited by V.P. Potemkin. Moscow-Leningrad, 1945

THE BOARD OF NICHOLAS II IN THE ESTIMATIONS OF HISTORIANS

In emigration, there was a split among researchers in assessing the personality of the last king. Disputes often took on a sharp character, and the participants in the discussions took opposite positions from praising on the right conservative flank to criticism from the liberals and vilification on the left, socialist flank.

S. Oldenburg, N. Markov, I. Solonevich belonged to the monarchists who worked in exile. According to I. Solonevich: “Nicholas II is a man of “average abilities”, faithfully and honestly did everything for Russia that He knew how, that He could. No one else could and could not do more ... "Left historians speak of Emperor Nicholas II as mediocrity, right - as an idol, whose talent or mediocrity is not subject to discussion." […].

An even more right-wing monarchist N. Markov noted: “The sovereign himself was slandered and discredited in the eyes of his people, he could not withstand the vicious pressure of all those who, it would seem, were obliged to strengthen and defend the monarchy in every possible way” […].

The largest researcher of the reign of the last Russian Tsar is S. Oldenburg, whose work remains of paramount importance in the 21st century. For any researcher of the Nikolaev period of Russian history, it is necessary, in the process of studying this era, to get acquainted with the work of S. Oldenburg "The Reign of Emperor Nicholas II". […].

The left-liberal direction was represented by P. N. Milyukov, who stated in the book “The Second Russian Revolution”: “Concessions to power (Manifesto of October 17, 1905) could not satisfy society and the people not only because they were insufficient and incomplete. They were insincere and deceitful, and the power that gave them herself did not for a minute look at them as having been ceded forever and completely.

The socialist A.F. Kerensky wrote in the History of Russia: “The reign of Nicholas II was fatal for Russia due to his personal qualities. But he was clear on one thing: having entered the war and linking the fate of Russia with the fate of the countries allied with her, he did not make any tempting compromises with Germany until the very end, until his martyr's death […]. The king carried the burden of power. She internally burdened him ... He did not have the will to power. He kept it by oath and tradition” […].

Modern Russian historians assess the reign of the last Russian tsar in different ways. The same split was observed among researchers of the reign of Nicholas II in exile. Some of them were monarchists, others adhered to liberal views, and others considered themselves supporters of socialism. In our time, the historiography of the reign of Nicholas II can be divided into three areas, such as in emigre literature. But in relation to the post-Soviet period, clarifications are also needed: modern researchers who praise the tsar are not necessarily monarchists, although there is certainly a certain trend: A. Bokhanov, O. Platonov, V. Multatuli, M. Nazarov.

A. Bokhanov, the largest modern historian of the study of pre-revolutionary Russia, positively assesses the reign of Emperor Nicholas II: “In 1913, peace, order, and prosperity reigned all around. Russia confidently went forward, no unrest happened. Industry worked at full capacity, agriculture developed dynamically, and each year brought more and more harvests. Prosperity grew, and the purchasing power of the population increased year by year. The rearmament of the army has begun, a few more years - and Russian military power will become the first force in the world ” […].

The conservative historian V. Shambarov speaks positively about the last tsar, noting that the tsar was too soft in dealing with his political enemies, who were also enemies of Russia: “Russia was not destroyed by autocratic “despotism”, but rather by the weakness and toothlessness of power.” The tsar too often tried to find a compromise, to negotiate with the liberals, so that there would be no bloodshed between the government and part of the people deceived by the liberals and socialists. To do this, Nicholas II dismissed decent, competent ministers loyal to the monarchy, and instead of them appointed either non-professionals or secret enemies of the autocratic monarchy, or swindlers. […].

M. Nazarov in his book "To the Leader of the Third Rome" drew attention to the aspect of the global conspiracy of the financial elite to overthrow the Russian monarchy ... […] According to the description of Admiral A. Bubnov, an atmosphere of conspiracy reigned in the Stavka. At the decisive moment, in response to Alekseev's cleverly formulated request for abdication, only two generals publicly expressed their loyalty to the Sovereign and their readiness to lead their troops to quell the rebellion (General Khan Nakhichevan and General Count F.A. Keller). The rest greeted the renunciation with red bows. Including the future founders of the White Army, Generals Alekseev and Kornilov (it then fell to the latter to announce to the royal family the order of the Provisional Government on her arrest). Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich also violated the oath on March 1, 1917 - even before the abdication of the Tsar and as a means of putting pressure on him! - withdrew his military unit (Guards crew) from the protection of the royal family, appeared in the State Duma under a red flag, provided this headquarters of the Masonic revolution with his guardsmen to protect the arrested tsarist ministers and issued an appeal to other troops "to join the new government." “There is cowardice and betrayal and deceit all around,” these were the last words in the royal diary on the night of the renunciation […].

Representatives of the old socialist ideology, for example, A.M. Anfimov and E.S. Radzig, on the contrary, negatively assess the reign of the last Russian tsar, calling the years of his reign a chain of crimes against the people.

Between the two directions - praise and excessively harsh, unfair criticism, there are the works of Ananyich B.V., N.V. Kuznetsov and P. Cherkasov. […]

P. Cherkasov sticks to the middle in assessing the reign of Nicholas: “From the pages of all the works mentioned in the review, the tragic personality of the last Russian tsar appears - a deeply decent and delicate man to the point of shyness, an exemplary Christian, a loving husband and father, faithful to his duty and at the same time an unremarkable statesman a figure, a prisoner of once and for all learned convictions in the inviolability of the order of things bequeathed to him by his ancestors. He was neither a despot, nor even an executioner of his people, as our official historiography claimed, but he was not even a saint during his lifetime, as is sometimes claimed now, although by martyrdom he undoubtedly atoned for all the sins and mistakes of his reign. The drama of Nicholas II as a politician is in his mediocrity, in the discrepancy between the scale of his personality and the challenge of the times” […].

And finally, there are historians of liberal views, such as K. Shatsillo, A. Utkin. According to the first: “Nicholas II, unlike his grandfather Alexander II, not only did not give overdue reforms, but even if the revolutionary movement pulled them out by force, he stubbornly strove to take back what was given “in a moment of hesitation”. All this "driven" the country into a new revolution, made it completely inevitable ... A. Utkin went even further, agreeing that the Russian government was one of the culprits of the First World War, wanting a clash with Germany. At the same time, the tsarist administration simply did not calculate the strength of Russia: “Criminal pride has ruined Russia. Under no circumstances should she go to war with the industrial champion of the continent. Russia had the opportunity to avoid a fatal conflict with Germany.