A huge amount of paper money circulating around the country, uncontrolled emission, chaotic management of the country's finances, the lack of a unified reporting scheme for allocated appropriations - all this resulted in a monstrous amount of various abuses on the part of government officials. The country needed not only a monetary reform capable of making the ruble a solid and reliable currency, but a complete reorganization of the entire state financial apparatus. An attempt at such a reform was made by V.A. Tatarinov, Minister of Finance under Alexander II.
Background of the Nikolaev reform. Reform Tatarinov
Historians attribute the so-called Witte reform or the reform of Nicholas II to the number of the most successful monetary transformations from a financial point of view. The main task that was set - and quite successfully solved - was not only to increase the value of paper money and bring the value of credit notes to the nominal value. The main success was the settlement of the general cash flow in the country and the elevation of the ruble to the level of the world currency.
However, before talking about the reform of Nicholas II, it is worth mentioning the previous reform, rarely mentioned by historians. It was undertaken by V.A. Tatarinov, Minister of Finance of Alexander I, in 1862-1866.
It would be wrong to call Tatarinov's transformations only a monetary reform, especially in light of the fact that they did not bring any significant, global changes in monetary terms. The main thing that the Minister of Finance's efforts were aimed at was putting things in order in the principles and schemes of conducting financial turnover. Tatarinov began the greatest deed in the history of the empire - a radical redesign of the entire monetary administration, subordination of cash flows to a single body - the Ministry of Finance, and the development of a unified reporting system on spent and allocated funds. In a word, the state decided to take on a very difficult task - the destruction of financial arbitrariness, abuse and fraud. The centralization of cash flows, initiated by Tatarinov, formed the basis of the financial scheme that the state uses to this day.
However, one of the main goals of the reform was still to strengthen the exchange rate of the paper ruble. To solve this problem, a grandiose loan of 16 million pounds was made, since the country's internal resources were clearly not enough. The ruble exchange rate was supposed to be strengthened by exchanging paper money for metal equivalents, and with an increasing coefficient. The state exchanged credit notes for semi-imperials and silver rubles at an inflated rate, which was announced in advance.
As conceived by the financiers, the population, seeing that the state has been buying paper rubles for several years above the nominal value indicated on them, should have preferred to keep their savings not in metal money, but in paper money. However, Tatarinov did not take into account that most of the huge mass of paper money that was in circulation at that time would be presented for exchange. As a result, not only the loan fund was spent on the metallized exchange, but also a part of the metallized reserve formed by Tatarinov's predecessor.
Then the needs of the state, which entered the Russian-Turkish war, forced them to resort again to a tried and tested means - the issuance of paper money. This brought to naught all the positive aspects of the reform and further depreciated banknotes.
Reform of Nicholas II
The reform of Nicholas II was one of the most thoughtful and carefully prepared financial transactions. The result was a strengthened position of Russia.
Reform S.Yu. Witte or the reform of Nicholas II, carried out in 1895-1897, not only increased confidence in paper money, but also made the Russian ruble one of the most reliable and stable currencies in the European financial market.
The last pre-Soviet large-scale monetary reform, and, according to most historians, the most successful of all, was the reform of 1895-1897. Prepared and conducted by S.Yu. Witte, an outstanding financier and analyst of his time, it was carried out in stages and put into effect over several years. And the success of the reform had an effect on the country's economy until the outbreak of the First World War, when the financial system of the state again shook.
The attitude towards the personality of the last Russian emperor is so ambiguous that there simply cannot be a consensus on the results of his reign.
When they talk about Nicholas II, two polar points of view are immediately identified: Orthodox-patriotic and liberal-democratic. For the first, Nicholas II and his family are the ideal of morality, the image of martyrdom; his reign is the highest point of Russia's economic development in its entire history. For others, Nicholas II is a weak personality, a weak-willed person who failed to save the country from revolutionary madness, who was completely under the influence of his wife and Rasputin; Russia during his reign is seen as economically backward.
The purpose of this article is not to convince or convince anyone, but let's consider both points of view and draw our own conclusions.
Orthodox-patriotic point of view
In the 1950s, a report by the Russian writer Brazol Boris Lvovich (1885-1963) appeared in the Russian diaspora. During the First World War, he worked in Russian military intelligence.
Brazol's report is titled "The reign of Emperor Nicholas II in figures and facts. Answer to slanderers, dismemberers and Russophobes.
At the beginning of this report, Edmond Teri, a well-known economist of the time, quotes: “If the affairs of the European nations continue from 1912 to 1950 as they did from 1900 to 1912, Russia by the middle of this century will dominate Europe both politically and politically. both economically and financially. (The Economist Europeen, 1913).
Here are some data from this report.
On the eve of the First World War, the population of the Russian Empire was 182 million people, and during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II it increased by 60 million.
Imperial Russia built its budgetary and financial policy not only on deficit-free budgets, but also on the principle of a significant accumulation of gold reserves.
In the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, by law of 1896, a gold currency was introduced in Russia. The stability of monetary circulation was such that even during the Russo-Japanese War, which was accompanied by widespread revolutionary unrest within the country, the exchange of credit notes for gold was not suspended.
Before the First World War, taxes in Russia were the lowest in the whole world. The burden of direct taxes in Russia was almost 4 times less than in France, more than 4 times less than in Germany and 8.5 times less than in England. The burden of indirect taxes in Russia was on average half that in Austria, France, Germany and England.
I. Repin "Emperor Nicholas II"
Between 1890 and 1913 Russian industry quadrupled its productivity. Moreover, it should be noted that the growth in the number of new enterprises was achieved not due to the emergence of one-day firms, as in modern Russia, but due to actually working factories and factories that produced products and created jobs.
In 1914, the State Savings Bank had deposits worth 2,236,000,000 rubles, i.e. 1.9 times more than in 1908.
These indicators are extremely important for understanding that the population of Russia was by no means poor and saved a significant part of its income.
On the eve of the revolution, Russian agriculture was in full bloom. In 1913, in Russia, the harvest of the main cereals was 1/3 higher than that of Argentina, Canada, and the United States of America combined. In particular, the harvest of rye in 1894 yielded 2 billion poods, and in 1913 - 4 billion poods.
During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, Russia was the main breadwinner of Western Europe. At the same time, the phenomenal growth in the export of agricultural products from Russia to England (grain and flour) attracts special attention. In 1908, 858.3 million pounds were exported, and in 1910, 2.8 million pounds, i.e. 3.3 times.
Russia supplied 50% of world egg imports. In 1908, 2.6 billion pieces worth 54.9 million rubles were exported from Russia, and in 1909 - 2.8 million pieces. worth 62.2 million rubles. The export of rye in 1894 amounted to 2 billion poods, in 1913: 4 billion poods. Sugar consumption in the same period of time increased from 4 to 9 kg per year per person (then sugar was a very expensive product).
On the eve of the First World War, Russia produced 80% of the world's flax production.
Modern Russia is practically dependent on the West for food.
In 1916, i.e., at the very height of the war, more than 2,000 versts of railways were built, which connected the Arctic Ocean (the port of Romanovsk) with the center of Russia. The Great Siberian Way (8.536 km) was the longest in the world.
It should be added that the Russian railways, in comparison with others, were the cheapest and most comfortable in the world for passengers.
During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, public education reached an extraordinary development. Primary education was free by law, and from 1908 it became compulsory. Since this year, about 10,000 schools have been opened annually. In 1913 their number exceeded 130,000. In terms of the number of women studying in higher educational institutions, Russia at the beginning of the 20th century ranked first in Europe, if not in the whole world.
During the reign of Sovereign Nicholas II, the government of Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin carried out one of the most significant and most brilliant reforms in Russia - the agrarian reform. This reform is connected with the transition of the form of ownership of land and land production from communal to private land. On November 9, 1906, the so-called "Stolypin Law" was issued, which allowed the peasant to leave the Community and become the individual and hereditary owner of the land he cultivated. This law was a huge success. Immediately, 2.5 million petitions were filed for access to cuts from family peasants. Thus, on the eve of the revolution, Russia was already ready to turn into a country of owners.
For the period 1886-1913. Russia's exports amounted to 23.5 billion rubles, imports - 17.7 billion rubles.
Foreign investments in the period from 1887 to 1913 increased from 177 million rubles. up to 1.9 billion rubles, i.e. increased by 10.7 times. Moreover, these investments were directed to capital-intensive production and created new jobs. However, what is very important, Russian industry was not dependent on foreigners. Enterprises with foreign investment accounted for only 14% of the total capital of Russian enterprises.
The abdication of Nicholas II from the throne was the greatest tragedy in the thousand-year history of Russia. With the fall of the autocracy, the history of Russia rolled along the path of an unprecedented atrocity of regicide, the enslavement of a multi-million people and the death of the world's greatest Russian Empire, the very existence of which was the key to world political balance.
By the decision of the Council of Bishops of March 31 - April 4, 1992, the Synodal Commission for the canonization of saints was instructed "when studying the exploits of the new martyrs of Russia, to begin researching materials related to the martyrdom of the Royal Family."
Excerpts from " GROUNDS FOR THE CANONIZATION OF THE ROYAL FAMILY
FROM THE REPORT OF METROPOLITAN KRUTITSKY AND KOLOMENSKOY YUVENALY,
CHAIRMAN OF THE SYNODAL COMMISSION FOR THE CANONIZATION OF SAINTS.
“As a politician and statesman, the Sovereign acted on the basis of his religious and moral principles. One of the most common arguments against the canonization of Emperor Nicholas II is the events of January 9, 1905 in St. Petersburg. In the historical information of the Commission on this issue, we indicate: having become acquainted on the evening of January 8 with the contents of the Gapon petition, which had the character of a revolutionary ultimatum, which did not allow to enter into constructive negotiations with representatives of the workers, the Sovereign ignored this document, illegal in form and undermining the prestige of the already fluctuating conditions government wars. Throughout January 9, 1905, the Sovereign did not take a single decision that determined the actions of the authorities in St. Petersburg to suppress mass demonstrations of workers. The order to the troops to open fire was given not by the Emperor, but by the Commander of the St. Petersburg Military District. Historical data do not allow us to detect in the actions of the Sovereign in the January days of 1905 a conscious evil will directed against the people and embodied in specific sinful decisions and actions.
With the outbreak of the First World War, the Sovereign regularly travels to Headquarters, visits military units of the army in the field, dressing stations, military hospitals, rear factories, in a word, everything that played a role in the conduct of this war.
From the very beginning of the war, the Empress devoted herself to the wounded. Having completed the courses of sisters of mercy, together with her eldest daughters, the Grand Duchesses Olga and Tatyana, she nursed the wounded in the Tsarskoye Selo infirmary for several hours a day.
The emperor considered his tenure as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief as the fulfillment of a moral and state duty to God and the people, however, always presenting the leading military specialists with a broad initiative in resolving the entire set of military-strategic and operational-tactical issues.
The Commission expresses the opinion that the very fact of the abdication of the Throne of Emperor Nicholas II, which is directly related to his personal qualities, is on the whole an expression of the then historical situation in Russia.
He made this decision only in the hope that those who wanted him removed would still be able to continue the war with honor and not ruin the cause of saving Russia. He was then afraid that his refusal to sign the renunciation would lead to civil war in the sight of the enemy. The tsar did not want even a drop of Russian blood to be shed because of him.
The spiritual motives for which the last Russian Sovereign, who did not want to shed the blood of his subjects, decided to abdicate the Throne in the name of inner peace in Russia, gives his act a truly moral character. It is no coincidence that during the discussion in July 1918 at the Council of the Local Council of the issue of the funeral commemoration of the murdered Sovereign, His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon decided on the universal service of memorial services with the commemoration of Nicholas II as Emperor.
Behind the many sufferings endured by the Royal Family over the last 17 months of their lives, which ended with execution in the basement of the Yekaterinburg Ipatiev House on the night of July 17, 1918, we see people who sincerely sought to embody the commandments of the Gospel in their lives. In the suffering endured by the Royal Family in captivity with meekness, patience and humility, in their martyrdom, the light of Christ's faith conquering evil was revealed, just as it shone in the life and death of millions of Orthodox Christians who suffered persecution for Christ in the 20th century.
It is in understanding this feat of the Royal Family that the Commission, in complete unanimity and with the approval of the Holy Synod, finds it possible to glorify in the Cathedral of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia in the face of the Passion-Bearers Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatyana, Maria and Anastasia.
Liberal democratic point of view
When Nicholas II came to power, he had no program, except for the firm intention not to cede his autocratic power, which his father had passed on to him. He always made decisions alone: “How can I do this if it is against my conscience?” - it was the basis on which he made his political decisions or rejected the options offered to him. He continued to pursue the controversial policies of his father: on the one hand, he tried to achieve social and political stabilization from above by preserving the old estate-state structures, on the other hand, the industrialization policy pursued by the Minister of Finance led to enormous social dynamics. The Russian nobility launched a massive offensive against the economic policy of industrialization pursued by the state. Having removed Witte, the tsar did not know where to go. Despite some reformist steps (for example, the abolition of corporal punishment of peasants), the tsar, under the influence of the new Minister of the Interior Plehve, decided in favor of a policy of preserving the social structure of the peasantry in every possible way (preserving the community), although it was easier for the kulak elements, that is, the richer peasants, to leave peasant community. The tsar and the ministers did not consider reforms necessary in other areas either: only a few minor concessions were made on the labor issue; instead of guaranteeing the right to strike, the government continued its repression. With a policy of stagnation and repression, which at the same time continued the economic policy he had begun in a cautious manner, the tsar could not satisfy anyone.
At a meeting of zemstvo representatives on November 20, 1904, the majority demanded a constitutional regime. The forces of the progressive local nobility, rural intelligentsia, urban self-government and wide circles of the urban intelligentsia, united in opposition, began to demand the introduction of a parliament in the state. They were joined by the St. Petersburg workers, who were allowed to form an independent association, headed by the priest Gapon, they wanted to submit a petition to the tsar. The lack of general leadership under the already effectively dismissed Minister of the Interior and the Tsar, who, like most ministers, did not understand the seriousness of the situation, led to the disaster of Bloody Sunday on January 9, 1905. Army officers who were supposed to hold back the crowd, in a panic ordered to shoot at peaceful people. 100 people were killed and more than 1,000 are believed to have been injured. The workers and intelligentsia reacted with strikes and protest demonstrations. Although the workers for the most part made purely economic demands and the revolutionary parties could not play an important role either in the movement led by Gapon or in the strikes that followed Bloody Sunday, a revolution broke out in Russia.
When the revolutionary and opposition movement reached its climax in October 1905 - a general strike that practically paralyzed the country, the tsar was forced to turn again to his former minister of the interior, who, thanks to the very favorable for Russia peace treaty he concluded with the Japanese in Portsmouth ( United States), gained universal respect. Witte explained to the tsar that he must either appoint a dictator who would fight the revolution fiercely, or must guarantee bourgeois freedoms and an elected legislature. Nicholas did not want to drown the revolution in blood. Thus, the fundamental problem of constitutional monarchies - the creation of a balance of power - has become aggravated as a result of the actions of the prime minister. The October Manifesto (October 17, 1905) promised bourgeois freedoms, an elected assembly with legislative powers, an expansion of the electoral right and, indirectly, equality of religions and nationalities, but did not bring the country the appeasement that the tsar expected. Rather, it caused serious riots that broke out as a result of clashes between loyal to the tsar and revolutionary forces, and led to pogroms in many regions of the country, directed not only against the Jewish population, but also against members of the intelligentsia. The development of events since 1905 has become irreversible.
However, in other areas there were positive changes that were not blocked at the political macro level. The pace of economic growth has again almost reached the level of the 1990s. In the countryside, Stolypin's agrarian reforms, which were aimed at creating private property, began to develop independently, despite resistance from the peasants. The state, through a whole package of measures, sought large-scale modernization in agriculture. Science, literature and art have reached a new flowering.
But the scandalous figure of Rasputin decisively contributed to the loss of the prestige of the monarch. The First World War ruthlessly exposed the shortcomings of the system of late tsarism. These were primarily political weaknesses. In the military field, by the summer of 1915, they even managed to seize the situation at the front and arrange supplies. In 1916, thanks to the offensive of Brusilov, the Russian army even owned most of the territorial gains of the allies before the collapse of Germany. Nevertheless, in February 1917 tsarism was approaching its doom. The tsar himself was fully to blame for this development of events. Since he increasingly wanted to be his own prime minister, but did not fit this role, during the war no one could coordinate the actions of the various institutions of the state, primarily civilian with the military.
The provisional government, which replaced the monarchy, immediately placed Nicholas and his family under house arrest, but wanted to allow him to leave for England. However, the British government was in no hurry to respond, and the Provisional Government was no longer strong enough to resist the will of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. In August 1917 the family was moved to Tobolsk. In April 1918, the local Bolsheviks secured their transfer to Yekaterinburg. The king endured this time of humiliation with great calmness and hope in God, which, in the face of death, gave him undeniable dignity, but which, even in the best of times, sometimes prevented him from acting rationally and decisively. On the night of July 16-17, 1918, the imperial family was shot. The liberal historian Yuri Gautier spoke with cold precision upon learning of the assassination of the tsar: "This is the denouement of another of the innumerable secondary knots of our troubled times, and the monarchical principle can only benefit from it."
The paradoxes of the personality and reign of Nicholas II can be explained by the objectively existing contradictions of Russian reality at the beginning of the 20th century, when the world was entering a new phase of its development, and the tsar did not have the will and determination to master the situation. Trying to defend the "autocratic principle", he maneuvered: either he made small concessions, or he refused them. As a result, the regime rotted, pushing the country to the abyss. Rejecting and hindering the reforms, the last king contributed to the beginning of the social revolution. This should be recognized both with absolute sympathy for the fate of the king, and with his categorical rejection. At the critical moment of the February coup, the generals changed their oath and forced the tsar to abdicate.
Nicholas II himself knocked the ground out from under his feet. He stubbornly defended his positions, did not make serious compromises, and thus created the conditions for a revolutionary explosion. He did not support the liberals, who sought to prevent the revolution in the hope of concessions from the tsar. And the revolution happened. 1917 became a fatal milestone in the history of Russia.
By the end of the 19th century, it became clear that the positive transformative potential of the reforms of 1861 was partially exhausted, and partially emasculated by the counter-reformist course of the conservatives after the tragic death of Alexander II in 1881. A new cycle of reforms was needed.
At the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the need to accelerate capitalist development began to manifest itself especially clearly. After the 60s. bourgeois relations developed to the necessary level for things to come to an open confrontation between the feudal and capitalist systems. This conflict could not be resolved. Another attempt to get away from reforms through a "small victorious war" with Japan not only failed, but also led to the fact that the country fell into the revolutionary abyss. And the royal dynasty did not die in it only because such prominent people as S.Yu. Witte and P.A. Stolypin were near the tsar, N Eidelman believes (“Revolution from above” in Russia). A. Ya Avrekh (“P. Ya. Stolypin and the fate of reforms in Russia”), A. P. Korelin (“Russia at the turn of the century: historical portraits”), B. N. Mironov (“Social history of Russia in the period of the empire (XVIII - early XX century). Genesis of personality, democratic family, civil society and the rule of law"), etc.
According to A. P. Korelin, S. Yu. Witte is an outstanding figure among the reformers of the turn of the century. To some extent, he was guided by the ideas of the German economist of the first half of the 19th century F. List, as well as the legacy of his predecessors N.Kh. Bunge and I.A. Vyshnegradsky - world-famous scientists. Critical reflection on the ideological and theoretical postulates of the systemic model of economic development, which was based on the principle of patronage of domestic industry, analysis from this point of view of the practice of the post-reform decades served as the starting point for the development of Witte's own concept of economic policy. Its main task was the creation of an independent national industry, protected at first from foreign competition by a customs barrier, with a strong regulatory role of the state, which was ultimately to strengthen Russia's economic and political positions in the international arena.
Witte had to repeatedly defend his course towards the industrialization of the country, developing and supplementing it with new elements. In 1899 and 1900, he prepared two most subservient reports in which he persistently urged the tsar to strictly adhere to the program of creating his own national industry. To expand it, it was proposed, firstly, to continue the policy of protectionism and, secondly, to attract more foreign capital into industry. Both of these methods required certain sacrifices, especially on the part of landowners and rural owners. But the ultimate goal, according to Witte's deep conviction, justified these means. By this time, the final folding of his concept of the industrialization of the country, the policy of the Ministry of Finance is becoming purposeful - within about ten years to catch up with more industrialized countries, to take a strong position in the markets of the countries of the Middle, Middle and Far East. Witte expected to ensure the accelerated industrial development of the country by attracting foreign capital in the form of loans and investments, through domestic savings, with the help of a wine monopoly, increased taxation, by increasing the profitability of the national economy and customs protection of industry from foreign competitors, by activating Russian export.
Witte managed to some extent to achieve the implementation of their plans. Significant shifts have taken place in the Russian economy. During the industrial boom of the 1990s, which coincided with its activities, industrial production actually doubled, about 40 percent of all enterprises operating by the beginning of the 20th century were put into operation and the same number of railways were built, including the great Trans-Siberian Railway, in construction to which Witte made a considerable personal contribution. As a result, Russia, in terms of the most important economic indicators, approached the leading capitalist countries, taking fifth place in world industrial production, almost equaling France. But still, the lag behind the West in absolute terms, and especially in terms of per capita consumption, remained quite significant (A.P. Korelin).
Less successful was Witte's activities in the agricultural sector of the economy.
In the peasant question, Witte for a long time remained an ardent supporter of the conservatives of the Slavophil sourdough, fully sharing the legislative measures of Alexander III to preserve the patriarchal-trustee principles in the Russian countryside.
However, Witte soon realized that the difficult economic situation in the countryside led to a decline in the solvency of the peasants and that this, in turn, undermined the state budget and the domestic market of industry. He saw the way out of the aggravated crisis in the elimination of the legal isolation of the peasants, their property and civil inferiority.
In a fierce struggle against the reactionary-conservative landlord and bureaucratic circles, Witte lost and was forced to leave the post of Minister of Finance. But the program he developed on the peasant question played an important role in the process of developing a new course of agrarian policy by the government, anticipating in its main features subsequent Stolypin legislation.
Witte was not appreciated by his contemporaries. And only after his death, the greatness of this difficult person and his huge role in the history of the Russian Empire became obvious to posterity.
P. A. Stolypin put changes in the sphere of the economy at the forefront of his transformations. The prime minister emphasized the main task of the reform - to create a wealthy peasantry, imbued with the idea of property and therefore not in need of a revolution, acting as a support for the government.
The agrarian reform included a number of interrelated problems, and all their solutions were pierced by a red thread - emphasis on the community, and on the sole proprietor. Undoubtedly, this was a complete break with the ideology of the reform of 1861, when the emphasis was placed precisely on the peasant community as the main support, the basis of autocracy and, accordingly, statehood as a whole. The destruction of the peasant community was facilitated not only by the decree of November 9, 1906, but also by other laws of 1909-1911, providing for the dissolution of the community and the possibility of it being carried out by a decision of a simple majority, and not 2/3, as it was before. After the adoption of the decree on November 9 by the State Duma, it was submitted for discussion by the State Council and was also adopted, after which it became known as the law on June 14, 1910. In terms of their economic content, these were, of course, liberal bourgeois laws that promoted the development of capitalism in the countryside and, therefore, were progressive. Different researchers give different essential characteristics of these laws.
Thus, according to the concept of A. Ya. Avrekh, the law “provided the process according to the worst, Prussian model, while the revolutionary path opened the green light to the “American”, farmer's path, as efficiently and quickly as possible, within the framework of bourgeois society.”
BN Mironov considers the essence of the Stolypin agrarian reform and, consequently, the essence of its main regulations, in a different way. He considered the Prussian version the most acceptable for stabilizing the socio-political situation in Russia.
The specific measures of Stolypin's agrarian reform are fairly well known. According to Article 1 of the law on June 14, 1910, “every householder who owns allotment land on a communal basis may at any time demand that the part of the land assigned to him be consolidated into his personal property.” Moreover, the law decided that he would keep the surplus if he paid the community for it at the lower redemption price of 1861. At the request of those who separated, the community was obliged to allocate to them, in exchange, through strip land, a separate compact area - a cut. An addition to the law on June 14, 1910, was the land management law passed by both chambers on May 29, 1911. In accordance with it, land management did not require preliminary strengthening of the land for the householders. Villages where land management work was carried out were automatically declared to have passed to hereditary household ownership. Land management commissions were endowed with broad powers, which they used to plant as many farms and cuts as possible.
An important tool for the destruction of the community and the planting of small private property was the credit bank. Through it, the state helped many peasant families in acquiring land. The bank sold on credit the lands bought earlier from the landowners, or owned by the state. At the same time, a loan for an individual household was twice as low as for loans to a community. It should be noted, however, that the terms of the sale were quite strict - for late payments, the land was taken away from the buyer and returned to the bank fund for a new sale. According to B. N. Mironov, this policy was very reasonable in relation to the most efficient part of the peasants, it helped them, but could not solve the agrarian issue as a whole. Moreover, the allocation to a separate farm usually did not provide plots sufficient for efficient work, and even loans did not significantly change things, and Stolypin set a course for the resettlement of peasants on free state lands. According to N. Eidelman, mass resettlement was organized in order to enrich some peasants at the expense of others, without endowing the peasants with landowners' land, dissolving the community and facilitating the transfer of what belonged to the poor to the property of wealthy peasants. Those left without land had to be, firstly, accepted by the city, and secondly, the outskirts, where resettlement was organized. From this point of view, Stolypin tried to reach a compromise of social forces, so that, on the one hand, not to infringe on the legal rights of the landowners to land, and on the other, to provide land for the most conscious part of the peasantry, as it was supposed, the support of the autocracy.
Historians generally believe that the results of Stolypin's reforms were very far from what was expected. According to B. N. Mironov, the reform of agrarian relations, giving the peasants the right to private ownership of land was only partially successful, while the antagonistic contradiction between peasants and landowners remained; carrying out land management work, the separation of the peasants from the community succeeded to a small extent - about 10% of the peasants separated from the farm; the resettlement of peasants to Siberia, Central Asia, and the Far East succeeded to some extent.
The land management policy did not give cardinal results. The Stolypin land management, having reshuffled the allotment lands, did not change the land system, it remained the same - adapted to bondage and working off, and not to the latest agriculture of the decree of November 9th.
The activities of the peasant bank also did not give the desired results. High prices and large payments imposed by the bank on borrowers led to the ruin of a mass of farmers and otrubniks. All this undermined the confidence of the peasants in the bank, and the number of new borrowers went down.
The resettlement policy clearly demonstrated the methods and results of the Stolypin agrarian policy. Settlers preferred to settle in already inhabited places, such as the Urals, Western Siberia, rather than engage in the development of deserted forest areas. Between 1907 and 1914 3.5 million people left for Siberia, about 1 million of them returned to the European part of Russia, but already without money and hopes, because the former farm was sold.
According to A. Ya. Avkrkh, the main task - to make Russia a country of farmers - could not be solved. Most of the peasants continued to live in the community, and this, in particular, predetermined the development of events in 17
Here the main reason for the failure of bourgeois reforms is clearly manifested - an attempt to carry them out within the framework of the feudal system. One can come across the assertion that Stolypin's reforms simply did not have enough time for positive results. Most scholars believe that these reforms, by their very nature, could not have been implemented effectively in that situation. A number of external circumstances (the death of Stolypin, the beginning of the war) interrupted the Stolypin reform.
Witte and Stolypin entered the political arena of the country in different ways. And each in his own way solved the problem of getting out of the impasse. The activities of Witte and Stolypin were not unambiguous, there were many miscalculations and mistakes. In general, they were undoubtedly great statesmen, people with great temperament and courage, they saw much further and deeper than other members of the elite.
An explanation of the reasons and a corresponding discussion can be found on the page Wikipedia:To be deleted/September 11, 2018 . |
Military reforms 1905-1912- transformations in the Army and Navy of the Russian Empire, caused by the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War.
Army
In 1905, the General Staff of Russia was separated from the General Staff with the establishment of the post of Chief of the General Staff, directly subordinate to the Sovereign. This was followed by the creation of the main department of the General Staff. But the situation of 1905 lasted only until 1908, when the chief of the General Staff, following the views established over the course of a century, was again subordinate to the Minister of War, and in 1909 was deprived of the right to report directly to the emperor. However, the establishment of the post of assistant minister of war with broad economic rights and powers led to the fact that the minister of war was essentially responsible for the duties outlined for the chief of the General Staff according to the situation in 1906, and for his concerns about the combat preparation of the state and troops for war, the minister of war became much freer, while maintaining a personal report to the emperor and influence on all other affairs.
With the centralization in 1905 and in 1911 in the General Headquarters of the Higher Administrative Administration of the Army, a significant part of the affairs from the main administrations was transferred to the General Staff and the main administration for the housing allowance of the troops was re-formed, and the main administration of the Cossack troops was completely abolished.
The Main Engineering Directorate was renamed the Main Military Technical Directorate, which combined the technical side of the modern equipment of troops and theaters of military operations with all the necessary means. This was followed by the development of corps management in the army, and at the same time the expansion of the range of actions of the division headquarters. The corps acquired a completely independent significance not only in administrative and command relations, but also in economic ones. The corps reorganization was also associated with the transformation of the management of artillery and engineering troops, which became part of the corps and divisions in the order of management, and for the purpose of special technical supervision of the training of engineering troops, the position of engineer-inspectors (later - inspectors of the engineering unit) was established in military districts, whose duties were also assigned to the inspectorate in engineering and over the fortresses.
A project for the reorganization of artillery was developed.
During the transformation of the military administration of the army, attention was also paid to the ratio of reserve and field troops between their various branches and to the development of special military units. The new deployment of troops across the territory of the state achieved the benefits of uniformity, ease of deployment of troops, improvement of their life and conditions for their concentration to the borders in case of war. The development of the railway and general road network, the reconstruction of the fleet and the reconstruction of fortresses went on a level with this.
The shortcomings of weapons, modern technical means and various kinds of stocks were replenished. Increased the productivity of state-owned factories of the land and sea departments in order to boost the domestic industry and, if possible, avoid orders from abroad. All combat units were equipped with machine guns; all field artillery was rearmed with new rapid-fire guns; reserves of telephone, demolition, railway and aeronautical property were created; a special automobile company was formed, etc. Particular attention was also paid to the development of aeronautics.
The charters of all military branches and the Field Manual were revised and published again. A number of instructions were published defining the terms of reference of various institutions in the most important military matters, as well as a number of military scientific works.
The new charter on military service, which entered into force in 1913, made a significant change in the procedure for recruiting, accepting and examining recruits, as well as determining conscription benefits, and radically changed the procedure for entering and serving volunteers. To rejuvenate the composition of the lower ranks of the reserve, the term of active military service was reduced (up to 4 years, and in the infantry and light artillery up to 3 years). The reserve is divided into 2 categories, and in the first place, during mobilization, the youngest and small families should come from the reserve to the troops. The sovereign was instructed to take extensive measures to supply the units with extra urgent lower ranks - with the facilitation of their access to the officer rank, especially in wartime.
The replenishment of troops with the specialists they required was expanded. To prepare for the military affairs of the youth, who were to serve military service, sports societies were involved.
More than 30 million rubles were allocated from the treasury to improve the life of the lower ranks of the army; the allowance of the lower ranks with salaries was tripled, tea, soap and bed allowances were introduced; special attention was paid to teaching the lower ranks to read and write and to organizing libraries for them; the order of clothing allowance for troops was radically changed; measures (administrative) were taken to streamline the relationship between the command and subordinate staff of the army and navy.
Measures were taken to free the troops from worries about the economy, from non-combat duties and free work, in order to give the troops the value of purely combat and combat units, which He wants them to be. Special uniform workshops, garrison bakeries, and other economic establishments were set up in which soldier labor was replaced by civilian labor; many economic affairs that burdened the troops were handed over to private entrepreneurs; the number of non-combatant posts was brought to the smallest size. Paying attention to the presence of combatant lower ranks, the number of officer ranks who had the right to state servants was reduced, for which monetary allowances were introduced for hiring servants. Extensive measures were taken for the religious and moral enlightenment of the lower ranks, which resulted in the construction of many regimental churches and in paying the greatest attention to questions of the spiritual life of a soldier. The improvement of the soldier's life ended with the publication in 1910 of a new charter on internal service in the troops.
With regard to the command staff of the army, the concerns concerned the improvement of his life, the rejuvenation of the composition and, above all, the proper training of officers, re-established. Improved all aspects of the life of the cadets and cadets, the organization of training sessions. All cadet schools were converted into military ones, which significantly increased and, most importantly, brought to uniformity the educational level of the officer corps. The Mikhailovsky and Konstantinovsky artillery schools were expanded to 2 batteries, and the Nikolaev engineering school to a 2-company staff, and they again made it mandatory to complete a 3-year course. The new curricula in the cadet corps and the general plan of training sessions in military educational institutions were transferred to applied soil, thanks to which young officers graduating from the school arrive in combat units already sufficiently prepared to train lower ranks and perform official duties. For all military schools, a particularly careful selection of educators and teachers was established, ensuring their preliminary training. Great attention was paid to the adaptation to the needs of the troops of the higher education of officers. The Nikolaev Academy of the General Staff, which trained officers primarily for the service of this headquarters, was transformed into a military academy with the right to be called the Imperial Academy and now have the goal of giving the highest possible number of officers a higher military education. The Quartermaster Academy was established to streamline the military economy in the troops and the commissary business in general.
Further measures to raise the educational qualifications in the troops were: the establishment of a rule that every artillery captain, before being appointed to the post of battery commander, must take a course of an officer artillery school; the establishment in some districts of special courses for infantry staff captains intended to occupy the posts of company commanders; an institution for raising the level of special military education in the troops and their technical training of officer schools: aeronautical, railway, gymnastic-fencing and officer classes of an automobile company. Along the way, the programs in the officer schools that existed earlier were significantly expanded: the activities of the officer rifle school were expanded and the "Regulations on the officer cavalry school" were changed. The "Instruction for officer studies" was revised; in addition to the military game, tactical tasks on the plans and in the field, special attention is paid to the presentation of reports in officer meetings on various branches of military knowledge in order to become more familiar with military equipment and the characteristics of all types of troops. A higher attestation commission was established and new rules for attestation of all military personnel in general (except for the lower ranks) were developed, and the right of attestation was granted to boards, the composition of which depends on the official position of the person being certified; with the same goal of raising the moral level in the troops, the effect of the court of honor was significantly expanded, extended to staff officers and employees in military departments.
Recognizing the need to rejuvenate the command staff and accelerate its renewal, a new order of promotion in ranks, new norms for candidates for the post of regiment commander and the age limit for commanding officers, from the battalion commander to the commander of troops in the district, inclusive, were established. This age limit was important not only for the retention in the service, but also for enrollment in candidates for the highest positions and appointment to them. Recognizing that these measures should reflect on the property. condition of military personnel, it was indicated in addition to the new salaries and housing money introduced gradually, from 1889, to increase the content of all combat officers from January 1909. At the same time, per diem, camp and marching money were increased, and with the introduction of a new certification system and age limit, special enhanced pensions were established for line officers, as well as benefits for other ranks leaving military service. The approved new pension charter retained 80% of the maintenance they received in their last position for the retiring combatant ranks, and the provision of a better pension was subsequently extended to other military personnel.
A special institute of ensigns was established and the position of non-commissioned non-commissioned officers was improved, measures were taken to prepare them as best as possible in special courses, and with the best provision for them and the arrangement of their life, more solid training of the troops was achieved. For the same purpose, admission to training teams in units was approved 2 times a year, with the admission of young soldiers here. In general, in the training of troops, combat training is of the utmost importance, while maintaining the inspection skills of the troops.
In 1910, the Officers' Course in Oriental Languages was abolished, and the training of officers with knowledge of Oriental languages was entrusted to district special schools.
The transformation of the military prison unit was begun, transferred to the jurisdiction of the main military-judicial department, for which a special military prison department was established under it.
The military medical unit was transformed into a military sanitary unit, which was based on the creation of a corps of medical orderlies and the organization of military medical care on the basis that best meets the needs of the army, especially in wartime; the position of military doctors has been improved and measures have been taken to form an officer military sanitary corps from them; the Imperial Military Medical Academy was reorganized with the aim of accustoming doctors to the requirements of military service in peacetime and wartime; measures were taken to train the necessary number of orderlies in the troops, etc.
Fleet
The life of sailors was improved and access to the naval service was opened to the most energetic public elements by turning the naval school into an all-class marine corps, measures were taken to rejuvenate the command staff of the fleet, combat requirements were increased, attention was paid to supplying ships with all technical improvements and, in general, everything that was required by the current state maritime business. The management of the maritime department was reorganized and the Naval General Staff was created; the ship economy was streamlined; for each branch of the maritime service, schools were created, both lower (Jung School in Kronstadt) and higher; measures were taken to train the ranks of the Naval General Staff and the Nikolaev Naval Academy was reorganized; the pilot part was expanded; great development has received scuba diving; the air fleet was introduced in connection with the sea fleet; a closer connection was established between the work of the maritime and military departments for the preparation of joint actions of maritime and land forces; the experience of subordinating the seaside fortress to the maritime department was gained.
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 it. 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 festivities, thousands of people began to gather there, hoping to be among the first to receive in the morning in the “buffet” (of which hundreds were prepared) a royal gift - 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 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. The elected representatives of the population, instead of the work of building a legislative one, shied away into an area that did not belong to them and turned to investigating the actions of 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 disorders, 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 hostility 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 Fedorovna 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.” […]
Things went so far 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 source of income for the budget.
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 conservative right flank to criticism from the liberals and denigration 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 in one thing: having entered the war and linking the fate of Russia with the fate of the countries allied with her, he did not go to the very end, until his martyrdom, to any tempting compromises with Germany […]. 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 broke his 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 Ananich 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.
