Oldenburg S.S. Reign of Emperor Nicholas II

Book one
Autocratic rule
1894–1904

Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. 1896 g.

Chapter 1

Manifesto on the accession of the sovereign to the throne. - Assessment of the reign of Emperor Alexander III (V.O. Klyuchevsky, K.P. Pobedonostsev). - General situation in 1894 - Russian Empire. - Tsarist power. - Officialdom. - The tendencies of the ruling circles: "demophilic" and "aristocratic". - Foreign policy and the Franco-Russian union. - Army. - The fleet. - Local government. - Finland. - Printing and censorship. - Softness of laws and courts. - The cultural level. - Literature by the beginning of the 90s. - Art. - Situation of agriculture. - Industry growth. - Construction of railways; The Great Siberian Way. - The budget. - International trade. - Discord between the government and an educated society. - Review of K. N. Leontiev

“It was pleasing to God Almighty in his inscrutable ways to interrupt the precious life of our beloved parent, Emperor Alexander Alexandrovich. A serious illness did not yield to either the treatment or the fertile climate of the Crimea, and on October 20, He died in Livadia, surrounded by his august family, in the arms of Her Imperial Majesty the Empress Empress and ours.

Our grief cannot be expressed in words, but every Russian heart will understand it, and we believe that there will be no place in our vast state where hot tears would not be shed for the sovereign, who prematurely departed into eternity and left his native land, which he loved with all his strength. Russian soul and on whose welfare he relied all his thoughts, sparing neither his health nor his life. And not only in Russia, but far beyond its borders, they will never cease to honor the memory of the tsar, who personified unshakable truth and peace, never violated during his entire reign ”.

These words begin the manifesto announcing to Russia the ascension of Emperor Nicholas II to the ancestral throne.

The reign of Emperor Alexander III, who received the name of the Tsar-Peacemaker, was not replete with external events, but it left a deep imprint on Russian and world life. During these thirteen years, many knots were tied - both in foreign and domestic politics - to untie or cut which his son and successor, Emperor Nicholas II Alexandrovich, had a chance.

Both friends and enemies of imperial Russia equally admit that Emperor Alexander III significantly increased the international weight of the Russian Empire, and within its borders he approved and exalted the importance of autocratic tsarist power. He took the Russian state ship on a different course than his father. He did not believe that the reforms of the 60s and 70s. - an unconditional benefit, and tried to make them those amendments that, in his opinion, were necessary for the internal balance of Russia.

After the era of the Great Reforms, after the war of 1877-1878, this enormous exertion of Russian forces in the interests of the Balkan Slavs, Russia in any case needed a respite. It was necessary to master, "digest" the changes that had taken place.

In the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University, the famous Russian historian, Professor V.O. Klyuchevsky, in his speech in memory of Emperor Alexander III a week after his death, said:

“During the reign of Emperor Alexander III, before the eyes of one generation, we peacefully made in our state system a series of deep reforms in the spirit of Christian rules, therefore, in the spirit of European principles - such reforms that cost Western Europe centuries and often violent efforts, - and this Europe continued to see in us representatives of Mongolian inertia, some kind of imposed adopters of the cultural world ...

Thirteen years of the reign of Emperor Alexander III have passed, and the more hastily the hand of death hastened to close His eyes, the wider and more amazed Europe's eyes opened to the world significance of this short reign. Finally, the stones cried out, the organs of public opinion in Europe began to speak the truth about Russia, and they spoke the more sincerely, the more unusual it was for them to say it. It turned out, according to these admissions, that European civilization had insufficiently and inadvertently ensured its peaceful development, for its own safety it was placed in a powder magazine, that the burning fuse more than once approached this dangerous defensive warehouse from different sides, and each time the caring and patient hand of the Russian tsar quietly and cautiously removed him ... Europe recognized that the tsar of the Russian people was the sovereign of the international world, and with this recognition confirmed the historical vocation of Russia, for in Russia, according to its political organization, the will of the tsar expresses the thought of his people, and the will of the people becomes the thought of his tsar. Europe recognized that the country, which it considered a threat to its civilization, stood and stands on its guard, understands, appreciates and protects its foundations no worse than its creators; she recognized Russia as an organically necessary part of her cultural composition, a blood, natural member of the family of her peoples ...

Science will give Emperor Alexander III a proper place not only in the history of Russia and all of Europe, but also in Russian historiography, will say that He won a victory in the area where these victories are most difficult to get, defeated the prejudice of peoples and thereby contributed to their rapprochement, conquered the public conscience in the name of peace and truth, increased the amount of goodness in the moral circulation of mankind, encouraged and raised Russian historical thought, Russian national consciousness, and did all this so quietly and silently that only now, when He is no longer there, Europe understood what He was for her. "

If Professor Klyuchevsky, a Russian intellectual and rather a Westerner, dwells more on the foreign policy of Emperor Alexander III and, apparently, hints at a rapprochement with France, the closest collaborator of the late monarch, K.P. Pobedonostsev, spoke about the other side of this reign in a concise and expressive form. : “Everyone knew that he would not give in to the Russian, history bequeathed interest neither on the Polish, nor on other outskirts of a foreign element, that he deeply keeps in his soul the same faith and love for the Orthodox Church with the people; finally, that he, along with the people, believes in the unshakable significance of autocratic power in Russia and will not allow for it, in the specter of freedom, a disastrous confusion of languages and opinions. "

At a meeting of the French Senate, its chairman, Challmel-Lacourt, said in his speech (November 5, 1894) that the Russian people are experiencing “the grief of the loss of a ruler who is immensely devoted to his future, his greatness, his security; the Russian nation, under the just and peaceful rule of its emperor, enjoyed security, this supreme good of society and an instrument of true greatness. "

Most of the French press spoke of the late Russian tsar in the same tones: “He leaves Russia greater than he received it,” wrote the Journal des Debats; a Revue des deux Mondes echoed the words of V.O. Klyuchevsky: “This grief was also our grief; for us it has acquired a national character; but other nations experienced almost the same feelings ... Europe felt that it was losing an arbiter who was always guided by the idea of justice. "

*** * ***

1894 - like the 80s and 90s in general. - refers to that long period of "calm before the storm", the longest period without major wars in modern and medieval history. This time left an imprint on everyone who grew up during these quiet years. By the end of the XIX century. the growth of material well-being and external education proceeded with increasing acceleration. Technology went from invention to invention, science - from discovery to discovery. Railways, steamers have already made possible "travel around the world in 80 days"; Following the telegraph wires, there were already strands of telephone wires stretching all over the world. Electric lighting quickly replaced gas lighting. But in 1894, the clumsy early automobiles could not yet compete with the sleek sidecars and carriages; "Live photography" was still at the stage of preliminary experiments; controlled balloons were just a dream; devices heavier than air have not yet been heard. Radio was not invented, and radium was not discovered yet ...

In almost all states, the same political process was observed: the growth of the influence of parliament, the expansion of suffrage, the transfer of power to more left circles. In fact, no one in the West waged a real struggle against this trend, which seemed at that time to be a spontaneous course of "historical progress". The conservatives, themselves gradually fading to the left, were content with the fact that from time to time they slowed down the pace of this development - in 1894, in most countries, it was just such a slowdown.

In France, after the assassination of President Carnot and a series of senseless anarchist attempts, up to the bomb in the Chamber of Deputies and the notorious Panama scandal, which marked the beginning of the 90s. in this country, there was just a slight shift to the right. The president was Casimir Perier, a right-wing Republican inclined to expand presidential power; ruled by the ministry of Dupuis, based on a moderate majority. But "moderate" already at that time were considered those who in the 70s. were on the extreme left of the National Assembly; just shortly before - about 1890 - under the influence of the advice of Pope Leo XIII, a significant part of French Catholics joined the ranks of the republicans.

In Germany, after the resignation of Bismarck, the influence of the Reichstag increased significantly; Social Democracy, gradually conquering all the big cities, became the largest German party. The Conservatives, for their part, relying on the Prussian Landtag, waged a stubborn struggle against the economic policy of Wilhelm II. For lack of energy in the struggle against the socialists, Chancellor Caprivi was replaced in October 1894 by the aged Prince Hohenlohe; but there was no noticeable change in course.

In England in 1894 the liberals were defeated on the Irish question, and Lord Rosebury's "interim" ministry was in power, which soon gave way to the cabinet of Lord Salisbury, which relied on conservatives and unionist liberals (opponents of Irish self-government). These unionists, led by Chamberlain, played such a prominent role in the government majority that soon the name of the unionists supplanted the name of the Conservatives for about twenty years. Unlike Germany, the British labor movement was not yet political in nature, and powerful trade unions, already staging very impressive strikes, were content with economic and professional achievements for the time being - meeting in this more support from conservatives than from liberals. These correlations explain the phrase of a prominent English figure of that time: "We are all now socialists" ...

In Austria and Hungary, parliamentary rule was more pronounced than in Germany: cabinets that did not have a majority had to resign. On the other hand, the parliament itself opposed the expansion of suffrage: the ruling parties were afraid of losing power. By the time of the death of Emperor Alexander III, the short-lived ministry of Prince Windischgrez ruled in Vienna, based on very heterogeneous elements: on German liberals, on Poles and on clerics.

In Italy, after a period of domination of the left with Giolitti at the head, after the scandal with the appointment of the thief bank director Tanlongo to the Senate, at the beginning of 1894 the old politician Crispi came to power again, one of the authors of the Triple Alliance, who in special Italian parliamentary conditions played the role conservative.

Although the Second International was already founded in 1889 and socialist ideas were becoming more widespread in Europe, by 1894 the socialists were not yet a serious political force in any country except Germany (where in 1893 they already held 44 deputies). But the parliamentary system in many small states - Belgium, Scandinavian, Balkan countries - has received an even more straightforward application than that of the great powers. Apart from Russia, only Turkey and Montenegro from the European countries did not have parliaments at all at that time.

The era of calm was at the same time the era of the armed peace. All the great powers, and after them the small ones, increased and improved their weapons. Europe, as V. O. Klyuchevsky put it, “for its own safety, was placed in a powder magazine.” Compulsory military service was carried out in all the main states of Europe, except for island England. The technology of war did not lag behind the technology of peace in its development.

Mutual mistrust between states was great. The triple alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy seemed to be the most powerful combination of powers. But its members did not fully rely on each other. Germany until 1890 still considered it necessary to "play it safe" by a secret treaty with Russia - and Bismarck saw a fatal mistake in the fact that Emperor Wilhelm II did not renew this treaty - and France entered into negotiations with Italy more than once, trying to tear it away from the Triple union. England was in "splendid isolation." France harbored the unhealed wound of its defeat in 1870-1871. and was ready to join any enemy of Germany. The thirst for revenge was clearly manifested in the late 80s. successes of boulangism.

The partition of Africa was roughly completed by 1890, at least along the coast. Inside the mainland, where there were still unexplored areas, enterprising colonizers from everywhere strove to be the first to raise the flag of their country and secure "no-man's land" to it. Only on the middle reaches of the Nile, the British were still blocked by the state of the Mahdists, fanatical Muslims, who in 1885 defeated and killed the English General Gordon during the capture of Khartoum. And the mountainous Abyssinia, on which the Italians began their campaign, prepared for them an unexpectedly powerful rebuff.

All these were just islands - Africa, like Australia and America before, was becoming the property of the white race. Until the end of the XIX century. the prevailing belief was that Asia would suffer the same fate. England and Russia have already watched each other through the thin barrier of still weak independent states, Persia, Afghanistan, semi-independent Tibet. The closest came to the war for the entire reign of Emperor Alexander III, when in 1885 General Komarov defeated the Afghans near Kushka: the British were vigilantly watching the "gate to India"! However, the acute conflict was resolved by the agreement of 1887.

But in the Far East, where back in the 1850s. The Russians occupied the Ussuri region, which belonged to China, without a struggle, the dormant peoples just began to stir. When Emperor Alexander III was dying, cannons rattled on the shores of the Yellow Sea: little Japan, having mastered European technology, won its first victories over the huge, but still motionless China.

*** * ***

In this world, the Russian Empire, with its area of 20 million square miles, with a population of 125 million people, occupied a prominent position. Since the Seven Years' War, and especially since 1812, Russia's military power has been highly valued in Western Europe. The Crimean War showed the limits of this power, but at the same time confirmed its strength. Since then, the era of reforms, including in the military sphere, has created new conditions for the development of Russian power.

At this time, they began to seriously study Russia. A. Leroy-Beaulieu in French, Sir D. Mackenzie-Wallace in English published large studies about Russia in the 1870s – 1880s. The structure of the Russian Empire was very significantly different from Western European conditions, but foreigners then began to understand that they were talking about dissimilar, and not about "backward" state forms.

“The Russian Empire is governed on the exact basis of laws, from the highest authority emanating. The emperor is an autocratic and unlimited monarch, ”said the Russian basic laws. The tsar belonged to all the fullness of the legislative and executive powers. This did not mean arbitrariness: there were precise answers to all essential questions in the laws, which were subject to execution until they were repealed. In the field of civil rights, the Russian tsarist government generally avoided a sharp breakdown, took into account the legal skills of the population and acquired rights, and left in action on the territory of the empire both the Napoleon code (in the Kingdom of Poland), the Lithuanian Statute (in the Poltava and Chernigov provinces), and Magdeburg law (in the Baltic region), and customary law among the peasants, and all kinds of local laws and customs in the Caucasus, Siberia, and Central Asia.

But the right to legislate was inseparably owned by the tsar. There was a Council of State of the highest dignitaries appointed there by the sovereign; he discussed draft laws; but the king could agree, at his discretion, with the opinion of the majority and with the opinion of the minority - or reject both. Usually, special commissions and meetings were formed to carry out important events; but they had, of course, only a preparatory meaning.

In the area of executive power, the fullness of the royal power was also unlimited. Louis XIV, after the death of Cardinal Mazarin, announced that from now on he wanted to be his first minister himself. But all Russian monarchs were in the same position. Russia did not know the position of the first minister. The title of chancellor, sometimes conferred on the Minister of Foreign Affairs (the last chancellor was the Most High Prince A.M. Gorchakov, who died in 1883), gave him the rank of I class according to the Table of Ranks, but did not mean any superiority over the other ministers. There was a Committee of Ministers, it had a permanent chairman (in 1894, the former Minister of Finance NH Bunge was still in it). But this Committee was, in essence, only a kind of interdepartmental meeting.

All ministers and chief managers of individual units had their own independent report from the sovereign. The sovereign was also directly subordinate to the governors-general, as well as the mayors of both capitals.

This did not mean that the sovereign was included in all the details of the management of individual departments (although, for example, Emperor Alexander III was "his own minister of foreign affairs", to whom all "incoming" and "outgoing" were reported; N. K. Girs was, as it were, his " assistant minister "). Individual ministers sometimes had great power and the opportunity for broad initiative. But they had them, insofar as and while they were trusted by the sovereign.

To carry out the plans coming from above, Russia also had a large staff of officials. Emperor Nicholas I dropped the once ironic phrase that Russia is governed by 30,000 clerks. Complaints about "bureaucracy" and "mediastinum" were quite common in Russian society. It was customary to scold officials and grumble at them. Abroad, there was an idea of almost universal bribery of Russian officials. He was often judged by the satyrs of Gogol or Shchedrin; but a caricature, even a successful one, cannot be considered a portrait. In some departments, such as the police, low salaries have indeed contributed to a fairly widespread use of bribes. Others, such as the Treasury Department or the judiciary after the 1864 reform, had a reputation for high integrity. It must be admitted, however, that one of the features that made Russia akin to the Eastern countries was the everyday condescending attitude towards many acts of dubious honesty; the fight against this phenomenon was not easy psychologically. Certain groups of the population, such as engineers, enjoyed an even worse reputation than officials - quite often, of course, undeserved.

But the government leaders were free from this ailment. Cases where ministers or other government officials were involved in abuses were the rarest sensational exceptions.

Be that as it may, the Russian administration, even in its most imperfect units, carried out, despite difficult conditions, the task assigned to it. The tsarist government had at its disposal an obedient and well-organized state apparatus, adapted to the diverse needs of the Russian Empire. This apparatus was created over the centuries - from the Moscow orders - and in many respects has reached high perfection.

But the Russian Tsar was not only the head of state: he was at the same time the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, which held a leading position in the country. This, of course, did not mean that the tsar had the right to touch upon church dogmas; the conciliar structure of the Orthodox Church excluded such an understanding of the rights of the tsar. But at the suggestion of the Holy Synod, the highest church collegium, the appointment of bishops was carried out by the tsar; and the replenishment of the Synod itself depended on him (in the same order). The link between church and state was the chief prosecutor of the Synod. For more than a quarter of a century, this position was held by K.P. Pobedonostsev, a man of outstanding intelligence and strong will, the teacher of two emperors - Alexander III and Nicholas II.

During the reign of Emperor Alexander III, the following main tendencies of power appeared: not indiscriminately negative, but in any case critical attitude to what was called "progress" and the desire to give Russia more internal unity by affirming the primacy of the Russian elements in the country. In addition, two currents appeared at the same time, far from similar, but, as it were, complementing each other. One that sets itself the goal of protecting the weak from the strong, preferring the broad masses of the people to the upper classes that have separated from them, with some egalitarian inclinations, in the terms of our time could be called "demophilic" or Christian-social. This is a trend, representatives of which were, along with others, the Minister of Justice Manasein (who resigned in 1894) and K.P. Another trend, which found its expression in the Minister of Internal Affairs, Count DA Tolstoy, strove to strengthen the ruling classes, to establish a certain hierarchy in the state. The first trend, by the way, ardently defended the peasant community as a kind of Russian form of solving the social question.

The Russification policy met with more sympathy from the "demophilic" trend. On the contrary, a prominent representative of the second trend, the famous writer K.N. political nationalism is nothing else than the spread of cosmopolitan democratization, modified only in methods ”.

Of the prominent right-wing publicists of that time, M. N. Katkov joined the first trend, and Prince V. P. Meshchersky to the second.

Emperor Alexander III himself, with his deeply Russian mentality, did not sympathize with Russification extremes and wrote expressively to K.P. Pobedonostsev (in 1886): “There are gentlemen who think that they are only Russians, and no one else. Do they no longer imagine that I am German or Chukhonets? It is easy for them with their fancy patriotism when they are not responsible for anything. I will not give offense to Russia. "

*** * ***

In foreign policy, the reign of Emperor Alexander III brought great changes. That closeness with Germany, or rather, with Prussia, which remained a common feature of Russian politics with Catherine the Great and runs like a red thread through the reigns of Alexander I, Nicholas I and especially Alexander II, has been replaced by a noticeable cooling. It would hardly be correct, as is sometimes done, to attribute this development of events to the anti-German sentiments of Empress Maria Feodorovna, a Danish princess who married the Russian heir shortly after the Danish-Prussian war of 1864! It is possible to say that the political complications this time were not mitigated, as in the previous reigns, by personal good relations and family ties of the dynasties. The reasons were, of course, predominantly political.

Although Bismarck considered it possible to combine the Triple Alliance with friendly relations with Russia, the Austro-German-Italian alliance was, of course, at the heart of the chill between old friends. The Berlin Congress left bitterness in Russian public opinion. Anti-German notes began to sound at the top. General Skobelev's sharp speech against the Germans is known; Katkov waged a campaign against them in Moskovskie vedomosti. By the mid-80s. the tension began to be felt stronger; Germany's seven-year military budget (septtenate) was caused by the deterioration of relations with Russia. The German government closed the Berlin market for Russian securities.

Emperor Alexander III, like Bismarck, was seriously worried about this aggravation, and in 1887 a so-called reinsurance agreement was concluded - for a three-year term. It was a secret Russian-German agreement, according to which both countries promised each other benevolent neutrality in the event of an attack by any third country on one of them. This agreement constituted an essential reservation to the Act of the Triple Alliance. It meant that Germany would not support any anti-Russian action by Austria. Legally, these treaties were compatible, since the Triple Alliance provided only support if any of its participants will be attacked(which gave Italy the opportunity to declare neutrality in 1914 without violating the union treaty).

But this reinsurance treaty was not renewed in 1890. Negotiations on it coincided with the moment of Bismarck's resignation. His successor, General Caprivi, pointed out to William II with military bluntness that the treaty seemed disloyal to Austria. For his part, Emperor Alexander III, who had sympathy for Bismarck, did not seek to contact the new rulers of Germany.

After that, in the 90s, it came to the Russian-German customs war, which ended with a trade agreement on March 20, 1894, concluded with the close participation of the Minister of Finance S. Yu. Witte. This treaty gave Russia - for a ten-year term - significant advantages.

Relations with Austria-Hungary had nothing to do with spoiling: since the time when Austria, saved from the Hungarian revolution by Emperor Nicholas I, “surprised the world with ingratitude” during the Crimean War, Russia and Austria collided along the entire Balkan front as Russia and England on the entire front of Asia.

England at that time still continued to see in the Russian Empire its main enemy and rival, "a huge glacier hanging over India," as Lord Beaconsfield (Disraeli) put it in the English parliament.

In the Balkans, Russia experienced in the 80s. grave disappointments. The liberation war of 1877-1878, which cost Russia so much blood and such financial turmoil, did not bring it immediate results. Austria actually took possession of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Russia was forced to admit this in order to avoid a new war. In Serbia, the Obrenovic dynasty, represented by the King of Milan, was in power, clearly gravitating towards Austria. About Bulgaria, even Bismarck said caustically in his memoirs: "The liberated peoples are not grateful, but pretentious." There it came down to the persecution of Russophile elements. The replacement of Prince Alexander of Battenberg, who became the head of the anti-Russian movements, by Ferdinand of Coburg did not improve Russian-Bulgarian relations. Only in 1894 was Stambulov, the main inspirer of Russophobic politics, supposed to resign. The only country with which Russia did not even have diplomatic relations for many years was Bulgaria, so recently resurrected by Russian weapons from a long state of oblivion!

Romania was in an alliance with Austria and Germany, offended by the fact that in 1878 Russia regained a small segment of Bessarabia, taken from her in the Crimean War. Although Romania received in the form of compensation all of Dobrudja with the port of Constanta, she chose to get closer to opponents of Russian policy in the Balkans.

When Emperor Alexander III proclaimed his famous toast to “the only faithful friend of Russia, Prince Nicholas of Chernogorsk,” this, in essence, was true. The power of Russia was so great that it did not feel threatened in this loneliness. But after the termination of the reinsurance treaty, during a sharp deterioration in Russian-German economic relations, Emperor Alexander III took certain steps to get closer to France.

The republican system, state unbelief and such recent phenomena as the Panama scandal could not dispose the Russian tsar, the keeper of conservative and religious principles, to France. Therefore, many considered the Franco-Russian agreement excluded. The ceremonial reception of the sailors of the French squadron in Kronstadt, when the Russian tsar listened to the Marseillaise bareheaded, showed that sympathies or antipathies for the internal structure of France were not decisive for Emperor Alexander III. Few, however, thought that already in 1892 a secret defensive alliance had been concluded between Russia and France, supplemented by a military convention indicating how many troops both sides pledged to deploy in case of war with Germany. This treaty was at that time so secret that neither the ministers (of course, except for two or three senior officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the military department) knew about it, nor even the heir to the throne himself.

French society has long longed for the formalization of this union, but the tsar made it a condition of the strictest preservation of secrecy, fearing that confidence in Russian support could generate militant sentiments in France, revive the thirst for revenge and the government, due to the peculiarities of the democratic system, would not be able to resist the pressure of public opinion.

*** * ***

The Russian Empire at that time possessed the largest peacetime army in the world. Its 22 corps, not counting the Cossacks and irregular units, reached the number of 900,000 people. With a four-year term of military service, the annual conscription of recruits was given in the early 90s. three times more people than the army needed. This not only made it possible to make a strict selection for physical fitness, but also made it possible to provide broad benefits for marital status. The only sons, elder brothers, in whose care the younger ones, teachers, doctors, etc., were exempted from active military service and were directly enlisted in the warriors of the militia of the second category, to whom mobilization could only reach the very last turn. In Russia, only 31 percent of conscripts were enlisted each year, while in France 76 percent.

Reign
Of the Emperor
Nicholas II
Publication of the Society for the Dissemination of the Russian National
and Patriotic Literature

Belgrade 1939

From the Reign History Publishing Committee
Emperor Nicholas II.

Issuing a real historical work of S. S. Oldenburg, the Committee for the Publication of the History of the Reign of Emperor Nicholas II sees in it a worthy monument to the last Russian Tsar. Let, according to this book, new Russian generations get acquainted with the past of their Motherland and treat with complete impartiality the One who stood head and shoulders above their contemporaries and Whom, alas, the Russian people did not manage to assess in time and, rallying around the Throne, to defend their Motherland from those terrible and disastrous upheavals, of which the Lord judged us to be witnesses.

Let this book become a reference book for every Russian person who cleanses himself as a Russian and worries about his Motherland.

To all High Patrons, Governments, organizations, military units and individual donors who contributed to the release of the History, deep gratitude, as well as the author who invested so much soul, labor and talent in it.

Chairman of the Committee Prince Nikita Alexandrovich.

Vice-chairman P. Skarzhinsky.

Committee members:

D. Abramovich. A. N. Krupensky.

G.-l. I. Barbovich. A. von Lampe.

M. Bodisko. Gene. Drag. Milutinovich.

Gene. Art. Boskovich. A. Myasoedov.

E. Brant. Nestor Arch. Kamchatka. and Seoul.

Bar. S. Buxgewden. S. Novakov.

V. Butskoy. Al. Pilz.

Prof. F. Verbitsky. A.P. Polovtsev.

Vikenty Bp. Banatsky. Prof. G. Rhine.

Victor Apxiep. Whale. and Peking. Book. M. Svyatopolk-Mirskaya.

G.-l. Vitkovsky. Vl. Stefanovich.

G.-l. Vygornitsky. N. Talberg.

Book. M. Gorchakov. Gr. D.S.Sheremetev.

Bar. G. Grevenitz. Bar. R. Stackelberg.

Peter Gilliard. A. von Stubendorf.

Prof. M. Zyzykin. Book. 3. Yusupov.

I. Kotlyarevsky.
Business Manager M. Pavlovich.

Treasurer S. Kondratyev.

Secretary G. Lyubarsky.

During the work of the Committee, the following members died: A.K.Bayov, P.L.Bark, V.I.Gurko, D.V.Den, M.K.Diterichs, A.A.Katenin, H.P. Christie , St. Kn. A.P. Lieven, V.V. Muravyev-Apostol-Korobin and M.M. Nenadich.

PART ONE

Autocratic rule

1894-1904.

CHAPTER ONE.

Manifesto on the accession of the Sovereign to the throne. - Assessment of the reign of Emperor Alexander III (V.O. Klyuchevsky, K.P. Pobedonostsev). - General situation in 1894

Russian empire. - Tsarist power. - Officialdom. - The tendencies of the ruling circles: "demophilic" and "aristocratic". - Foreign policy and the Franco-Russian union.

Army. - The fleet. - Local government. - Finland. - Printing and censorship. - Softness of laws and courts. - The cultural level. - Literature by the beginning of the 90s. - Art.

Situation of agriculture. - Industry growth. - Construction of railway roads; The Great Siberian Way. - The budget. - International trade.

Discord between the government and an educated society. - Review of K. N. Leontiev.

“God Almighty was pleased to interrupt in his inscrutable ways the precious life of our dearly beloved Parent, Sovereign Emperor Alexander Alexandrovich. A serious illness did not yield to either the treatment or the fertile climate of the Crimea, and on October 20, He died in Livadia, surrounded by His August Family, in the arms of Her Imperial Majesty, the Empress and Ours.

“Our sorrow cannot be expressed in words, but every Russian heart will understand it, and We believe that there will be no place in our vast States where hot tears would not be shed for the Tsar, who untimely departed into eternity and left his native land, which He loved with all his might His Russian soul and on whose prosperity He placed all His thoughts, sparing neither His health nor His life. And not only in Russia, but far beyond its borders, they will never cease to honor the memory of the Tsar, who personified the unshakable truth, and the world, which has never been violated in all of His reign ”.

These words begin the manifesto announcing to Russia the ascension of Emperor Nicholas II to the ancestral throne.

The reign of Emperor Alexander III, who learned the name of the Tsar-Peacemaker, was not replete with external events, but it left a deep imprint on Russian and plague life. During these thirteen years, many knots were tied - both in foreign and domestic politics - to untie or cut which His son and successor, Emperor Nicholas II Alexandrovich, had a chance.

Both friends and enemies of Imperial Russia equally recognize that Emperor Alexander III significantly increased the international weight of the Russian Empire and, within its limits, approved and exalted the importance of the autocratic Tsarist power. He steered the Russian state ship on a different course than His father. He did not believe that the reforms of the 60s and 70s were an absolute blessing, but tried to introduce those amendments into them that, in his opinion, were necessary for the internal balance of Russia.

After the era of great reforms, after the war of 1877-78, this enormous exertion of Russian forces in the interests of the Balkan Slavs, Russia in any case needed a respite. It was necessary to master, "digest" the changes that had taken place.

In the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University, the famous Russian historian, prof. V.O. Klyuchevsky, in his speech in memory of Emperor Alexander III, a week after His death, said:

“During the reign of Emperor Alexander II, before the eyes of one generation, we peacefully carried out in our state system a number of deep reforms in the spirit of Christian rules, hence in the spirit of European principles - such reforms that cost Western Europe centuries and often violent efforts, and this Europe continued to see we are representatives of Mongolian inertia, some kind of imposed adopters of the cultural world ...

“Thirteen years of the reign of Emperor Alexander III have passed, and the more hastily the hand of death hastened to close His eyes, the wider and amazed Europe's eyes opened to the world significance of this short reign. Finally, the stones cried out, the organs of public opinion in Europe began to speak the truth about Russia, and they spoke the more sincerely, the more unusual it was for them to say it. It turned out from these admissions that European civilization had insufficiently and inadvertently ensured its peaceful development, for its own safety it was placed in a powder magazine, that the burning fuse more than once approached this dangerous defensive warehouse from different sides and each time the caring and patient hand of the Russian Tsar quietly and carefully rejected him ... Europe recognized that the Tsar of the Russian people was also the sovereign of the international world, and with this recognition confirmed the historical vocation of Russia, for in Russia, according to its political organization, the Tsar's will expresses the thought of His people, and the will of the people becomes the thought of his Tsar ... Europe recognized that the country, which it considered a threat to its civilization, stood and stands on its guard, understands, appreciates and protects its foundations no worse than its creators; she recognized Russia as an organically necessary part of its cultural composition, a blood, natural member of the family of its peoples ...

“Science will give Emperor Alexander III a proper place not only in the history of Russia and all of Europe, but also in Russian historiography, will say that He won a victory in the area where these victories are most difficult to gain, conquered the prejudice of peoples and thereby contributed to their rapprochement, conquered the public conscience in the name of peace and truth, increased the amount of good in the moral turn of mankind, encouraged and raised Russian historical thought, Russian national consciousness, and did all this so quietly and silently that only now, when He is no longer there, Europe understood what He was for her".

If Professor Klyuchevsky, a Russian intellectual and rather a "Westerner", dwells more on the foreign policy of Emperor Alexander III and apparently hints at a rapprochement with France, the closest collaborator of the late Monarch, K.P. Pobedonostsev, spoke about the other side of this reign in a concise and expressive form. :

“Everyone knew that he would not yield to the Russian, bequeathed interest by hysteria, either on the Polish or on other outskirts of the alien element, that he deeply kept in his soul the same faith and love for the Orthodox Church with the people; finally, that he, along with the people, believes in the unshakable significance of autocratic power in Russia, and will not allow for it, in the specter of freedom, a disastrous confusion of languages and opinions. "

Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. 1896 g.

These words begin the manifesto announcing to Russia the ascension of Emperor Nicholas II to the ancestral throne.

S. Oldenburg

Reign of Emperor Nicholas II

Autocratic rule

CHAPTER ONE

Manifesto on the accession of the sovereign to the throne. - Assessment of the reign of Emperor Alexander III (V.O. Klyuchevsky, K.P. Pobedonostsev). - General situation in 1894

Russian empire. - Tsarist power. - Officialdom. - The tendencies of the ruling circles: "demophilic" and "aristocratic". - Foreign policy and the Franco-Russian union.

Army. - The fleet. - Local government. - Finland. - Printing and censorship. - Softness of laws and courts. - The cultural level. - Literature by the beginning of the 90s. - Art.

Situation of agriculture. - Industry growth. - Construction of railway roads; The Great Siberian Way. - The budget. - International trade.

Discord between the government and an educated society. - Review of K. N. Leontiev.

Our sorrow cannot be expressed in words, but every Russian heart will understand it, and We believe that there will be no place in our vast State where hot tears would not be shed for the Tsar, who untimely departed into eternity and left his native land, which He loved with all His power. Russian soul and on whose welfare He placed all His thoughts, sparing neither His health nor His life. And not only in Russia, but far beyond its borders, they will never cease to honor the memory of the Tsar, who personified unshakable truth and peace, never violated during all of His reign ”.

These words begin the manifesto announcing to Russia the ascension of Emperor Nicholas II to the ancestral throne.

Both friends and enemies of imperial Russia equally admit that Emperor Alexander III significantly increased the international weight of the Russian Empire, and within its borders he approved and exalted the importance of autocratic tsarist power. He took the Russian state ship on a different course than his father. He did not believe that the reforms of the 60s and 70s were an absolute blessing, but tried to introduce into them those amendments that, in his opinion, were necessary for the internal equilibrium of Russia.

After the era of great reforms, after the war of 1877-1878, this enormous exertion of Russian forces in the interests of the Balkan Slavs, Russia in any case needed a respite. It was necessary to master, "digest" the changes that had taken place.

“During the reign of Emperor Alexander III, before the eyes of one generation, we peacefully carried out in our state system a number of deep reforms in the spirit of Christian rules, therefore, in the spirit of European principles - such reforms that cost Western Europe centuries and often violent efforts, - and this Europe continued to see in us representatives of Mongolian inertia, some kind of imposed adopters of the cultural world ...

Thirteen years of the reign of Emperor Alexander III have passed, and the more hastily the hand of death hastened to close His eyes, the wider and more amazed Europe's eyes opened to the world significance of this short reign. Finally, the stones cried out, the organs of public opinion in Europe began to speak the truth about Russia, and they spoke the more sincerely, the more unusual it was for them to say it. It turned out, according to these confessions, that European civilization had insufficiently and inadvertently ensured its peaceful development, for its own safety it was placed in a powder magazine, that the burning fuse more than once approached this dangerous defensive warehouse from different sides, and each time the caring and patient hand of the Russian Tsar quietly and cautiously removed him ... Europe recognized that the Tsar of the Russian people were the sovereign of the international world, and with this recognition confirmed the historical vocation of Russia, for in Russia, according to its political organization, the Tsar's will expresses the thought of His people, and the will of the people becomes the thought of his Tsar. Europe recognized that the country, which it considered a threat to its civilization, stood and stands on its guard, understands, appreciates and protects its foundations no worse than its creators; she recognized Russia as an organically necessary part of her cultural composition, a blood, natural member of the family of her peoples ...

Science will give Emperor Alexander III a proper place not only in the history of Russia and all of Europe, but also in Russian historiography, will say that He won a victory in the area where these victories are most difficult to gain, defeated the prejudice of peoples and thereby contributed to their rapprochement, conquered the public conscience in the name of peace and truth, increased the amount of goodness in the moral circulation of mankind, encouraged and raised Russian historical thought, Russian national consciousness, and did all this so quietly and silently that only now, when He is no longer there, Europe understood what He was for her. "

If Professor Klyuchevsky, a Russian intellectual and rather a "Westerner", dwells more on the foreign policy of Emperor Alexander III and, apparently, hints at a rapprochement with France, the closest collaborator of the late monarch, K. P . Pobedonostsev:

“Everyone knew that he would not yield to the Russian, by the history of the bequeathed interest either in Poland or in other outskirts of a foreign element, that he deeply kept in his soul the same faith and love for the Orthodox Church with the people; finally, that he, along with the people, believes in the unshakable significance of autocratic power in Russia and will not allow for it, in the specter of freedom, a disastrous confusion of languages and opinions. "

Most of the French press spoke of the late Russian tsar in the same tones: “He leaves Russia greater than he received it,” wrote the Journal des Debats; a "Revue des deux Mondes" echoed the words of V.O. Klyuchevsky: “This grief was our grief as well; for us it has acquired a national character; but other nations experienced almost the same feelings ... Europe felt that it was losing an arbiter who was always guided by the idea of justice. "

1894 - like the 80s and 90s in general. - refers to that long period of "calm before the storm", the longest period without major wars in modern and medieval history. This time left an imprint on everyone who grew up during these quiet years. By the end of the 19th century, the growth of material well-being and external education proceeded with an increasing acceleration. Technology went from invention to invention, science - from discovery to discovery. Railways, steamers have already made possible "travel around the world in 80 days"; Following the telegraph wires, there were already strands of telephone wires stretching all over the world. Electric lighting quickly replaced gas lighting. But in 1894, the clumsy early automobiles could not yet compete with the sleek sidecars and carriages; "Live photography" was still at the stage of preliminary experiments; controlled balloons were just a dream; devices heavier than air have not yet been heard. Radio was not invented, and radium was not discovered yet ...

In almost all states, the same political process was observed: the growth of the influence of parliament, the expansion of suffrage, the transfer of power to more left circles. In fact, no one in the West waged a real struggle against this trend, which seemed at that time to be a spontaneous course of "historical progress". The conservatives, themselves gradually fading and "left", were content with the fact that from time to time they slowed down the pace of this development - in 1894, in most countries, it was just such a slowdown.

Sergey Oldenburg

Reign of Emperor Nicholas II

Book one

Autocratic rule

Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. 1896 g.

These words begin the manifesto announcing to Russia the ascension of Emperor Nicholas II to the ancestral throne.

* * *

Oldenburg S.S. Reign of Emperor Nicholas II

Book one Autocratic rule 1894–1904

Chapter 1

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

Book one
Autocratic rule
1894–1904

*** * ***

*** * ***

*** * ***

*** * ***