There were many empires in the world, which were famous for their wealth, luxurious palaces and temples, conquests and culture. Among the greatest of them are such powerful states as the Roman, Byzantine, Persian, Holy Roman, Ottoman, British empires.
Russia on the historical map of the world
Empires of the world collapsed, disintegrated, and separate independent states were formed in their place. A similar fate did not bypass the Russian Empire, which lasted 196 years, starting from 1721 and ending in 1917.
It all started with the Moscow principality, which, thanks to the conquests of princes and tsars, grew at the expense of new lands in the west and east. Victorious wars allowed Russia to seize important territories that opened the way for the country to the Baltic and Black Seas.
Russia became an empire in 1721, when Tsar Peter the Great assumed the imperial title by decision of the Senate.
Territory and composition of the Russian Empire
In terms of the size and extent of its possessions, Russia ranked second in the world, second only to the British Empire, which owned numerous colonies. At the beginning of the 20th century, the territory of the Russian Empire included:
- 78 provinces + 8 Finnish;
- 21 regions;
- 2 districts.
The provinces consisted of districts, the latter were divided into camps and sections. The empire had the following administrative-territorial administration:
Many lands joined the Russian Empire voluntarily, and some as a result of aggressive campaigns. The territories that became part of it at their own request were:
- Georgia;
- Armenia;
- Abkhazia;
- Tyva Republic;
- Ossetia;
- Ingushetia;
- Ukraine.
In the course of the foreign colonial policy of Catherine II, the Kuril Islands, Chukotka, Crimea, Kabarda (Kabardino-Balkaria), Belarus and the Baltic states became part of the Russian Empire. Part of Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic States went to Russia after the division of the Commonwealth (modern Poland).
Russian Empire Square
From the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea and from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific Ocean, the territory of the state extended, occupying two continents - Europe and Asia. In 1914, before the First World War, the area of the Russian Empire was 69,245 sq. kilometers, and the length of its borders was as follows:
Let's stop and talk about individual territories of the Russian Empire.
Grand Duchy of Finland
Finland became part of the Russian Empire in 1809, after a peace treaty was signed with Sweden, according to which it ceded this territory. The capital of the Russian Empire was now covered by new lands that protected St. Petersburg from the north.
When Finland became part of the Russian Empire, it retained great autonomy, despite Russian absolutism and autocracy. It had its own constitution, according to which power in the principality was divided into executive and legislative. The legislature was the Sejm. Executive power belonged to the Imperial Finnish Senate, it consisted of eleven people elected by the Sejm. Finland had its own currency - Finnish marks, and in 1878 received the right to have a small army.
Finland, as part of the Russian Empire, was famous for the coastal city of Helsingfors, where not only the Russian intelligentsia, but also the reigning house of the Romanovs, loved to relax. This city, which is now called Helsinki, was chosen by many Russian people who enjoyed relaxing in resorts and renting dachas from local residents.
After the strikes of 1917 and thanks to the February Revolution, the independence of Finland was proclaimed, and it withdrew from Russia.
Accession of Ukraine to Russia
Right-bank Ukraine became part of the Russian Empire during the reign of Catherine II. The Russian Empress first destroyed the Hetmanate, and then the Zaporozhian Sich. In 1795, the Commonwealth was finally divided, and its lands were ceded to Germany, Austria and Russia. So, Belarus and Right-Bank Ukraine became part of the Russian Empire.
After the Russian-Turkish war of 1768-1774. Catherine the Great annexed the territory of modern Dnepropetrovsk, Kherson, Odessa, Nikolaev, Lugansk and Zaporozhye regions. As for the Left-bank Ukraine, it voluntarily became part of Russia in 1654. Ukrainians fled from the social and religious repressions of the Poles and asked for help from the Russian Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. He, together with Bohdan Khmelnitsky, concluded the Treaty of Pereyaslav, according to which the Left-Bank Ukraine became part of the Muscovite kingdom on the rights of autonomy. Not only Cossacks participated in the Rada, but also ordinary people who made this decision.
Crimea - the pearl of Russia
The Crimean peninsula was incorporated into the Russian Empire in 1783. On July 9, the famous Manifesto was read at the Ak-Kaya rock, and the Crimean Tatars agreed to become subjects of Russia. First, the noble murzas, and then the ordinary inhabitants of the peninsula, took an oath of allegiance to the Russian Empire. After that, festivities, games and festivities began. Crimea became part of the Russian Empire after the successful military campaign of Prince Potemkin.
This was preceded by difficult times. The Crimean coast and the Kuban were the possessions of the Turks and Crimean Tatars from the end of the 15th century. During the wars with the Russian Empire, the latter gained some independence from Turkey. The rulers of the Crimea were replaced quickly, and some occupied the throne two or three times.
Russian soldiers more than once suppressed the rebellions that were organized by the Turks. The last Khan of Crimea, Shahin Giray, dreamed of making the peninsula a European power, he wanted to carry out a military reform, but no one wanted to support his undertakings. Taking advantage of the confusion, Prince Potemkin recommended to Catherine the Great that Crimea be incorporated into the Russian Empire through a military campaign. The empress agreed, but on one condition, that the people themselves express their consent to this. Russian troops peacefully treated the inhabitants of the Crimea, showed them kindness and care. Shahin Giray renounced power, and the Tatars were guaranteed freedom to practice religion and observe local traditions.
The easternmost edge of the empire
The development of Alaska by the Russians began in 1648. Semyon Dezhnev, a Cossack and traveler, led an expedition, reaching Anadyr in Chukotka. Upon learning of this, Peter I sent Bering to verify this information, but the famous navigator did not confirm Dezhnev's facts - fog hid the coast of Alaska from his team.
Only in 1732 the crew of the ship "Saint Gabriel" landed in Alaska for the first time, and in 1741 Bering studied in detail the coast of both her and the Aleutian Islands. Gradually, the exploration of a new area began, merchants sailed and formed settlements, built a capital and called it Sitka. Alaska, as part of the Russian Empire, was not yet famous for gold, but for fur-bearing animals. Furs of various animals were mined here, which were in demand both in Russia and in Europe.
Under Paul I, the Russian-American Company was organized, which had the following powers:
- she ruled Alaska;
- could organize an armed army and ships;
- have your own flag.
The Russian colonialists found a common language with the local people - the Aleuts. The priests learned their language and translated the Bible. The Aleuts were baptized, the girls willingly married Russian men and wore traditional Russian clothes. With another tribe - Koloshi, the Russians did not make friends. It was a warlike and very cruel tribe that practiced cannibalism.
Why was Alaska sold?
These vast territories were sold to the US for $7.2 million. The agreement was signed in the US capital - Washington. The reasons for the sale of Alaska have recently been called different.
Some say that the reason for the sale was the human factor and the reduction in the number of sable and other fur-bearing animals. There were very few Russians living in Alaska, their number was 1000 people. Others hypothesize that Alexander II was afraid of losing the eastern colonies, therefore, before it was too late, he decided to sell Alaska for the price that was offered.
Most researchers agree that the Russian Empire decided to get rid of Alaska because there were no human resources to cope with the development of such distant lands. Thoughts arose in the government as to whether to sell the Ussuri Territory, which was sparsely populated and poorly managed. However, hotheads cooled down, and Primorye remained a part of Russia.
A large number of myths, including historical ones, constantly live in the mass consciousness. In fact, the historical national myth plays a big role, because without it, society is doomed to collapse.
In almost all countries, the history of the state is embellished and presented better than it actually was - heroes are embellished, facts and events are clarified. The country rests largely on this foundation.
Russia, on the other hand, is a special country in this respect - a historical look at the past here most often denigrates the events that have taken place.
The year 1917 became a significant milestone for the country. The tsarist regime remained on one side, and a new, bright and happy life on the other. From the very beginning, the Bolsheviks began to form a negative image of old Russia, in order to form their own image of fighters for a better lot of the people. This point of view lived for decades, and only at the end of the 20th century did historians set out to find out whether the Russian people lived so badly under the tsar that they gladly threw off the old government? What do we know about Tsarist Russia? The bloodsucking landowners ruled the illiterate downtrodden peasants, the tsarist generals lost battles, the secret police stifled all kinds of sprouts of freedom ... However, despite this, for some reason, economic achievements were compared with the tsarist year of 1913 for a long time ... Let us recall history and debunk some pseudo-historical myths about that time .
All advanced Europe has never known the horrors of serfdom, only Russia has distinguished itself in this respect. In fact, almost all the states of Europe, except Sweden and Norway, went through serfdom. It's just that this process started earlier and ended, respectively, too. For example, in England this phenomenon appeared in the 7th century, and ended in the 14th century, although a small part of the peasants were dependent on their masters for another three centuries. In Russia, as in most countries of Eastern Europe, the peasants were free all this time, and serfdom itself began only later. Of course, this phenomenon is bad and shameful, but, arguing from the point of view of statehood, there was a need for it. At the end of the 16th century, such an order was established in order to support the nobility, which constituted the main military force of the country. Otherwise, Russia would simply be taken apart piece by piece by its militant neighbors. The well-known historian Solovyov wrote about serfdom in the following way: "the cry of despair of the state, which is in a hopeless economic situation." And this situation continued until 1861, when serfdom was abolished by decree of Alexander II. But even in the states of the center of Europe closest to Russia, it disappeared not much earlier - in Austria for 12 years, and in Prussia - for 50. The era of serfdom in Russia has two and a half centuries, although the entire history of the state until 1917 was estimated at a millennium. So only ¼ of the entire history of the country was occupied by serfdom. In general, it is wrong to determine the level of a country through the presence of any one feature. For example, in the United States, slavery was abolished a century and a half after the abolition of servitude in our country and 4 years after the abolition of serfdom. The remnants of slavery, the restriction of the rights of blacks generally existed in America until the 60s of the 20th century. But after all, no one evaluates the United States as a country of slaves, although most of the history of this country was accompanied by this shameful phenomenon. As regards Russia, our compatriots allow us to stigmatize serfdom, demonstrating in fact their "love" for the Motherland.
The Russian people are imbued with the spirit of slavery, which is not surprising, because until 1861 all peasants were serfs. In addition to peasants and nobles, there were other classes, quite numerous - free Cossacks, service people, merchants, monks and others. And, as it turned out, not all peasants were serfs. According to the historian Gauthier, according to the revisions of 1743, 1763 and 1783, about 53% of all peasants were directly serfs, and the rest belonged to the state. In Russia, there were entire provinces in which there was no serfdom at all, and in area they exceeded entire European countries that were free from the oppression of the peasants. For example, Siberia or Pomorie. It is curious that in the European territories, which gradually became part of Russia, the percentage of serfs was noticeably higher. The example of the Baltic states is indicative, where 85% of the total number of serfs belonged to the master. Throughout the 19th century, the number of serfs declined rapidly as they moved to other classes. For example, from 1816 to 1856 there were one million men. The last revision before the abolition of serfdom in 1857 calculated that only 34% of the total population were serfs.
Of the European peasantry, it was the Russians who were the poorest. We have such an opinion, but the Europeans themselves, who lived on the territory of Russia, had a different idea. For example, the Croat Krizhanich, who lived in Russia for 15 years in the 17th century, noted that Russia is a country of great wealth and the standard of living of its population is better than that of its closest neighbors - Lithuania, Poland or Sweden. The states of Western Europe did live better, but this statement applies to the nobility and the rich. But the lower classes "live in Russia much better and more comfortably than in those rich countries." In Russia at that time, even serfs and peasants wore shirts decorated with pearls and gold. Krizhanich notes that in our country at that time, poor and rich people differed little in the variety of food, the basis of the diet was bread, fish and meat. The conclusion of the historian is unequivocal: "In no kingdom do ordinary people live so well, and nowhere do they have such rights as here." Under the reign of Peter I, the difference between classes increased significantly, but even in the 18th century, Europeans traveling around Russia noted that the standard of living of Russian peasants was better than in many European powers. The Russian officers themselves, who participated in the campaign of 1812-1814, noted with surprise the poverty of the Polish and French peasantry in comparison with the domestic one. Fonvizin, who traveled around France at the end of the 18th century, noted that the presence of a cow in a peasant is a sign of luxury, while in Russia the absence of a cow is a sign of poverty. And in conclusion, a quote from 1824 by the Englishman Cochrane: "The situation of the local peasantry is much better than the condition of this class in Ireland. Russia has an abundance of products, they are good and cheap." He also noted that Russian peasants live better than the same class in England and Scotland.
The serfs were absolutely powerless, the landowner could just torture and kill them. Indeed, the rights of the peasants were limited, but, for example, they could well participate in court, both as a plaintiff and as a witness. The serfs swore allegiance to the king and could easily move to other classes, with the consent of their master. Legally, the peasants could well complain about their landlords, which, by the way, they used with success. The laws of Russia protected the peasants, killing them was considered a serious criminal offense. Even in the Council Code of 1649, a nobleman was imprisoned for unintentional murder, but for a deliberate action against a peasant, a nobleman was executed, regardless of merits and origin. Under Elizabeth, the death penalty was actually abolished, so the guilty nobles were sent to hard labor. But in neighboring enlightened Poland, the murder of a serf was not a state crime at all, the punishment was only from the side of the church. The government closely followed the relations between landowners and peasants. Catherine II ordered the governors to punish the landlords for their harshness with the serfs, the punishment could be the confiscation of the estate. Only from 1834 to 1845, 2838 nobles were put on trial for cruelty, while 630 were convicted. Under Nicholas I, about 200 estates were annually taken under the tutelage of the state, taken from the landlords for their bad attitude towards their serfs. The government constantly regulated the balance of relations between these two estates. In the same period, 0.13% of the peasants were put on trial for disobedience to the master and the same percentage of landowners for exceeding power over their serfs.
The reform of serfdom was carried out in the interests of the landowners themselves. This myth owes its persistence largely to the works of Lenin, who wrote that "the reform was carried out by the feudal lords in the interests of the feudal lords." However, the leader was not a historian, his view was rather political, and not scientific or historical. In reality, the reform of 1861 led to the ruin of a large number of landowners, the sale of tens of thousands of estates, so it is not necessary to say that the abolition of serfdom was for the benefit of the former owners. Prince Meshchersky notes that the ideologists of the reform not only did not think about the landowners, but, on the contrary, sought to destroy the foundations of the landed nobility. True, even here there is a one-sided assessment, in fact, the state sought to find a compromise between the nobility and the peasants. During the reform, on average, a peasant received about 5 hectares per capita, which was quite enough for a living wage. The problems of the Russian village at the end of the 19th century were not the lack of land, but rapid demographic growth. So, from 1858 to 1914, the number of peasants doubled, naturally, the amount of land per capita decreased significantly. It is also worth noting the low culture of agriculture among free peasants - the landowners harvested several times more on the same lands. French historians note that, despite all the restrictions, the reform was still very generous to the peasants. For example, in Austria and Prussia, the peasants were given freedom, but no land was given away.
Until 1917, all land belonged to the landowners. It was this assertion that was an important factor for the development of the revolution in the country. For several decades before the revolution, agitators indoctrinated the peasants, suggesting that all their problems were caused by the dominance of landownership. The victory of the revolution transferred this myth to all history textbooks, existing there to this day. But scientists refute this myth. After the reform of 1861, it was the landlords who had 121 million acres of land at their disposal, and the rest of the territory belonged to the state. In the course of the reform, 34 million acres passed from the owners to the peasants. It must be said that the new conditions dealt a heavy blow to the landowners, who began to rapidly go bankrupt and sell off their land, mainly to the peasants. Almost a million acres changed hands every year. Not surprisingly, by 1905 the landlords had sold 42 million of their holdings. Taking into account the lands of all the peasants, as well as the Cossacks, they had a total of 165 million acres, against 53 that the landlords had. At the same time, a significant part of the landed estates was also rented by peasants. By 1916, peasants owned 90% of all arable land and over 94% of livestock. The historian Pushkarev notes that "in terms of the composition of land ownership, Russia already in 1905 was a completely peasant country (to a greater extent than any of the European countries)." The division of the landed estates in 1918 naturally did not play any important role in the peasant economy, since 1 tithe of the nobility accounted for 5.5 peasant tithes. In response to this, the Bolsheviks then frankly stated that under the slogan of seizing the land, the peasants were deliberately raised against the tsarist government. So, unlike the countries of Europe, Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was a classic example of a country of small peasant farms. The continuation of this policy would lead to farm-like farms, to which we are only returning today. Ironically, after 1917, through forced collectivization, the peasants were herded into collective farms, where their labor was exploited by the state, and those who resisted were sent into exile or killed. This is how the Soviet government took care of the peasants, taking away a lot, I must say, what they had, and destroying up to 10 million dissenters.
Tsarist Russia was an economically backward country. By the beginning of the 20th century, Russia, along with the United States, Germany, England and France, was among the five largest countries in the world in terms of economic development. 9% of the entire world industry is concentrated in Russia, which was the 4th indicator. At the same time, the country's growth rates were the highest among all leaders. During the reign of Nicholas II alone, the country quadrupled its industry! The growth of 10% annually continued into wartime. But the revolution immediately brought a decline of 20%. And in agriculture, Russia has traditionally fed Europe, being the largest agricultural power in the world. From 1894 to 1914, the wheat harvest doubled, 25% of the world's bread was made from Russian grain. The growth in the well-being of the people was expressed in a population explosion - over 20 years the population has grown by 40%. One of the greatest economists of that time, Edmond Terry, in 1913 made the following conclusion: "If the affairs of the European nations continue from 1912 to 1950 as they did from 1900 to 1912, Russia will dominate Europe by the middle of this century, both politically and economically and financially." Thus, the growth of the country's power was prevented by the war and the Bolshevik revolution, which threw the country back decades. That is why the achievements of the Soviet economy were compared with 1913 for a long time.
The workers of Russia lived in poverty. One of the significant factors in the accomplishment of the revolution was the participation of workers, who, according to Soviet historians, lived extremely poorly, and working conditions were unbearable. In the early stages of the development of capitalist enterprises, it was indeed characteristic to use cheap labor. However, contrary to Marx's teachings about the constant impoverishment of the workers, their wages rose steadily. Starting from the middle of the 19th century, capitalist enterprises began to appear in Russia on a massive scale, in some of them the owners really tried to exploit the workers in order to obtain super profits. However, the state has issued a number of laws prohibiting, for example, working more than 11.5 hours a day, and more than 10 hours on night shifts and Saturdays. In 1903, the law specified the liability of employers for accidents with workers at work. But in most European countries there were no such legislative acts at all. Due to the fact that the government of Russia was independent of the influence of the capitalists, in 1912 US President Taft declared: "such perfect labor legislation has been created, which no democratic state can boast of." Marxists included stories about how the workers were impoverished in textbooks, but in their memoirs the data is completely different. Plekhanov recalled that the workers were smart enough, made good money and ate well, lived in furnished rooms and dressed better than students, although those mostly came from bourgeois and noble families. Although the wages of workers were lower than in France or England, it was possible to buy more with it, due to the cheapness of products. Already in the 19th century, at the factories of the capitalist Maltsev, workers participated in the profits, had an 8-hour day for some types of work, stone houses of 3-4 rooms with a small plot of land were allocated to people. And in the provinces, workers had a high standard of living. So, N.S. Khrushchev, recalling his work as a mechanic in a Donetsk mine, mentions that he was better off than when he worked in Moscow in the 1930s as a party worker. And ordinary people, of course, lived even worse than a state functionary. At the same time, Khrushchev was then only 22 years old, and his earnings were the same as those of an ordinary worker. The revolution plunged the country into collapse, industry by 1921 decreased by 7 times, and the standard of living of workers - by 3 times. And only by 1970 did the standard of living of workers become comparable to what it was under the tsar. In 1913, a carpenter could buy 135 kg of meat with his salary, and in 1985 - only 75. Perestroika and economic turmoil again threw the country back. So it is still unknown whether today's workers live better than in the times of heavy tsarist serfdom and oppression.
Russia was a highly moral country. It would seem that a large number of believers, churches - all this testified to high morality in society. In 1917, when the Provisional Government by its decree abolished the obligatory attendance of prayer services, 70% of all soldiers stopped going to church altogether. In St. Petersburg in 1913 there were as many brothels as there were in universities. It is worth recalling the story of Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich, who embezzled funds for the construction of 5 battleships. There really were problems in the country, and in the field of education, and in medicine, and in industry. You should not underestimate them, but you should not exaggerate either - voluminous historical works are devoted to this issue, which should be trusted more than the above myths.
I have been interested in history for a long time. Therefore, I am forced to criticize some authors who broadcast about a prosperous and abundant Russia before 1917. Alas, the facts say the opposite.
Industry
First of all, Russia, even in terms of industrial production, lagged behind the USA, England, Germany and France. Its share in the total industrial production of the five above powers was only 4.2%. In global production in 1913, the share of Russia was 1.72%, the share of the USA - 20, England - 18, Germany - 9, France - 7.2% (these are all countries with a population 2-3 times less than Russia ).
And this despite the fact that in Russia in 1913 there was a record (80 million tons) grain harvest.
In terms of gross national product per capita, Russia was 9.5 times behind the United States, England - 4.5 times, Canada - 4 times, Germany - 3.5 times, France, Belgium, Holland, Australia, New Zealand, Spain - 3 times, Austria-Hungary - 2 times.
Russia not only “rushed”, but continued to lag behind - in 1913 its GNP correlated with the GNP of Germany as 3.3 to 10, while in 1850 the ratio was 4 to 10.
Volumes of industrial production in 1913:
| General, billion rubles | Per capita, rub. | |
| USA | 38,13 | 397,19 |
| Great Britain | 15,5 | 336,96 |
| Germany | 12,4 | 182,35 |
| France | 10,54 | 263,5 |
| Russia | 7,75 | 44,29 |
At 24,472 factories, there were only 24,140 electric, steam, diesel engines (with an average power of 60 hp). That is, not even every plant had at least one engine. That's "advanced technology" for you.
In terms of power and mechanical power, Russia was 10 times behind the United States, 5 times behind England, and 4 times behind Germany, Belgium, and New Zealand.
Let us add here another interesting fact: in 1913 there were 3.035 million telephone network subscribers in the USA, 797 thousand in Germany, 536.5 thousand in England, 185 thousand in France, and 110 thousand in Austria-Hungary. ., in Sweden - 102 thousand, in Denmark - 98 thousand, but in Russia - 97 thousand subscribers. And this is with Russian distances ...
In 1913, Russia imported from other countries more than 1 million tons of steel and 8.7 million tons of coal.
Let's take a look at some more numbers. In 1913, the USA smelted 25 million tons of steel, Russia - 4.2 million tons; over 5 years, steel smelting in the USA increased by 5 million tons, in Russia by 1.7 million tons (in an average of 1 million, and 0.34 million tons per year). 1% increase in steel production in the USA was 200 thousand tons, in Russia only 25 thousand tons - 8 times less.
The level of labor productivity in industry in Russia was less than: in the USA - 9 times; in England - 5 times; in Germany - 4 times.
In 1909-1914. the British riveted 64 large surface ships, the Germans - 47, the French - 24, the Italians - 16, Russia with attempts completed and re-created 10 surface ships of the battleship-cruiser class. And this despite the fact that in Russia military spending in 1908-1913. accounted for 32 - 33% of the total state budget.
Economic efficiency
Let's take the state budget. How many curses were brought down on the heads of the Bolsheviks and the CPSU for "drunk" budgets, starting from the mid-70s.
But what did we see in Tsarist Russia? Here are the "Statistical Yearbooks of Russia" (under the editorship of the director of the Central Statistical Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs N.N. Belyavsgogo) for 1908-1913, the yearbooks of world statistics S. Zap "Social and political tables of all countries of the world" publishing house "Cooperation" Moscow.
So, 1908-1913. the total amount of income received by the budget amounted to: 14987 million rubles, including income from the vodka monopoly: 3993 million rubles. (26.64%), direct taxes: 1115 million rubles. (7.44%), indirect taxes: 3111 million rubles. (20.76%), duties: 943 million rubles. (6.29%)
The West had nothing to be afraid of Russia "rushing" forward. The more efficiently the Russian economy worked, the more income the banks of Western countries received. In 1887-1913. The West has invested 1,783 million gold rubles in Russia. During the same period, net income was exported from Russia - 2326 million gold rubles (an excess of income over investments for 26 years - by 513 million gold rubles). Annually, up to 500 million gold rubles were transferred abroad on interest and loan repayments (in modern prices, this is 15 billion dollars).
Not cheap was life in Russia. So a worker's family of 4 people in St. Petersburg spent about 750 rubles. in year.
At the same time, food expenses amounted to 100% of the wages of the head of a family of 4 people, and, as a rule, everyone worked, including children.
Of the remaining amount, up to 45% went to pay for housing, up to 25% - for clothes and shoes.
For comparison: for a German worker, paying for family food took 20-25% of the salary (one adult), for an English worker - 40%.
Summing up the results of the industrial development of Russia in 1908-1914, we must also point out the following fact: in 1893-1900. the average annual increase in industrial output was 9%, and in 1908-1913. - 8.8%.
In parallel with the growth of industrial production, there was a process of rising prices.
In 1908-1913. prices for consumer goods increased by 24%, while wages in Russia increased by an average of 34 rubles. (by 14.52%), thus we see that the real incomes of workers did not increase, but fell.
Prices (wholesale) for wheat in 1901-1912. increased by 44%; for rye - by 63.63% for pork - by 55.86%. Naturally, the prices for bakery products and meat in retail trade have increased no less than wholesale prices.
As a result, in 1913 the real incomes of workers in Russia amounted to 90% of the 1900 level.
People's Health
Not all was well in education and health.
According to statistics, in 1913 more than 12 million people in Russia (7.26% of the population) were affected by epidemics of cholera, diphtheria, anthrax, and scabies. Another 9 million people suffered from malaria, trachoma, whooping cough, etc. In total, there were 21,877,869 people chronically ill with contagious diseases (13.2% of the country's population).
There were 1.6 doctors, 1.7 paramedics, 1.7 obstetricians and midwives per 10,000 people in Russia. In rural areas, there was 1 doctor for every 26,000 people.
In the USA, there were 4 times more doctors per 10,000 people, in Germany - 2.7, in England - 3.5, in Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Holland - 3.2 times more.
Of every 1,000 newborns under the age of 1 year, 263 children died in Russia.
For comparison: in Sweden, 70 children under 1 year old died for every 1000 births, in England - 108, in the USA and France - 112-115. in Italy - 138, in Germany - 151. That is. Russia surpassed the countries of Europe and the USA in terms of infant mortality by 1.74-3.76 times.
In Russia in 1913, the number of students in all types of educational institutions (including religious and military) was 9.7 million people (60.6 per 1,000 inhabitants). 70% of children and adolescents were deprived of the opportunity to study.
In Russia, according to the "Statistical Yearbook of Russia", among the population over 9 years old (the age of admission to study), 27% were literate (excluding Transcaucasia and Central Asia).
For comparison: in the United States, even among the Negro population, literacy reached 56%. In the USA in 1913 there were 18.3 million students (190.6 students per 1,000 inhabitants).
For comparison with Russia, which had 227-228 literate people per 1000 population (excluding preschool children), Belgium had 998 literates per 1000 population, Germany - 980, England - 816, France - 930, Australia - 816, Austria - 644, Hungary - 524, Argentina - 495, Italy - 440, Portugal - 214 people.
Even within Russia there was inequality: in Finland there were 988 literates per 1,000 people (without preschool children), in Poland - 305, in the Caucasus - 124, in Central Asia - 53 people. Great Russia, Little Russia, Belarus, Siberia - 268 people.
In 1913, 127,423 people studied in Russian universities, and 258,000 in the USA (twice as many as in Russia). In the USA there were several dozen university-level universities, in England - 18 universities, in Germany - 22, in France - 14, in Russia - 8 universities. There were about 20 million inhabitants per university in Russia, 2.5 million in England, 2.8 million in France, and 3 million in Germany.
In Russia there were 1.7 teachers per 1000 people, in the USA - 5.45 teachers - more than 3 times more. Thanks to the well-known circular of the Minister of Education Delyanov (during the reign of Alexander III) “0 cook's children”, access to education was blocked for persons from the estates of peasants and philistines.
And although in 1911-1914 the circular did not actually operate, nevertheless, out of 119,000 people studying in gymnasiums, 18,000 people (15.12%) came from peasant families.
In all educational institutions of the Ministry of Education (including vocational, commercial, etc.), peasants made up about 15% of students (and this is in a country where 80% of the population was peasant!!!).
In the cadet corps, military schools, people from peasant families were not allowed at all.
Agriculture
Now consider what many apologists for tsarist Russia are proud of - agriculture. “Russia was well-fed and abundant! they proclaim. Unfortunately, I have to admit that this is not the case.
In the nineteenth century Russia survived 40 hunger strikes.
In the twentieth century hungry were 1901/02, 1905; 1906; 1907; 1908; 1911/12
In 1901-1902, 49 provinces were starving; in 1905; 1906; 1907;1908 starved from 19 to 29 provinces, in 1911-1912. in 2 years, famine swept 60 provinces.
30 million people were on the verge of death.
According to various estimates in 1901-1912. about 8 million people died from the famine and its consequences.
The tsarist government was most concerned with how to hide the scale of the hunger strikes. In the press, censorship forbade the use of the word famine, replacing it with the word "crop".
If under Alexander II during the largest famine of 1871, zemstvos, the Red Cross and other organizations were actively involved in helping the starving, then Nicholas II sharply curtailed the rights of zemstvos to combat hunger, and in 1911 and 1912 completely banned the participation of zemstvos, Red Cross and charitable organizations in helping the hungry.
It was also difficult for the hungry to receive aid (the “hunger loan”). The “hungry loan” was 1 pood of flour per month for an adult and 1/2 pood of flour for a child.
At the same time, adults aged 18 to 55 had no right to receive a “starvation loan” (they say, there is nothing to feed the parasites, they will get out on their own).
Ownerless peasants (there were 3.5 million such families in Russia, as a rule, they were laborers)) widows and orphans, who were supposed to be fed by rural society "out of surplus aid", were excluded from the recipients of the "hunger loan". What! The most defenseless sections of society were doomed to starvation. Where does the starving village get "surpluses" from?
Moreover, the received “hungry loan” subsequently had to be returned. In 1911, more than 20 million rubles were collected from the starving Samara province. arrears for "starvation loans" of previous years. How many people in 1911-1912. killed the "starvation loans" received in 1901-1902. 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908….
And, despite the famine, grain flowed from Russia to Europe. The slogan of the tsarist Minister of Finance Vyshnegorodsky - "we are not enough to eat ourselves, but we will take it out" - was put into practice.
Nor was Russia a leader in world agricultural production. The vast expanse of Russia allowed her to produce a large amount of grain, but the level of agriculture, crop yields and productivity were low.
In 1913, having received a record grain harvest - 80 million tons - Russia had about 471 kg of grain per capita. England, France, Germany had about 430-440 kg, the USA - over 1000 kg, Canada - about 800 kg, Argentina 1200 kg.
Where do the assertions come from that Russia produced more grain than other countries combined? After all, the United States produced 96 million tons of grain - more than Russia. If we take the total production of agricultural products, then it had the following form (in rubles).
Agricultural production, billion rubles per capita, rub.
| USA | 15,162 | 157,83 |
| Germany | 7,727 | 113, 63 |
| Great Britain | 4,262 | 92,22 |
| France | 7,727 | 193,18 |
| Russia | 10 | 57,06 |
If in total production volumes Russia was in 2nd place after the USA, then per capita production put it in 5th place.
If we take other European countries, Australia, Canada, then Russia was thrown into the 2nd ten and even lower.
It is necessary to pay attention to the figures characterizing grain production per capita.
England, France, Germany, producing less than 500 kg of grain per capita, were its importers. The USA, Canada, Argentina, producing 800-1200 kg of grain per capita exported it.
And only Russia, producing less than 500 kg (the norm of self-sufficiency in industrial grain) of grain per capita, exported it. Those. exports came at the expense of dooming part of the population to malnutrition and hunger.
Even tsarist officers and generals testified that 40% of conscripts at the beginning of the 20th century. for the first time in their lives they ate meat in the army.
The level of technical equipment of agriculture was low. More than 52% of peasant farms did not have plows, cultivating the land with plows and roe deer. In 1913, there were only 152 tractors in Russia (in the USA, Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, and Denmark, the number of tractors was in the thousands and tens of thousands). 80% of agricultural work was done manually (although in 1908-1913 the fleet of agricultural machines grew significantly).
Due to chronic landlessness, annually up to 2 million peasants from the central non-chernozem provinces were forced to go to work in the southern provinces in the summer months, being hired as farm laborers by kulaks and landlords.
The chronic crisis of animal husbandry continued in Russia. So the number of working horses in agriculture per 100 people of the rural population fell from 38 in 1870 to 30 in 1911. The number of livestock (cattle and pigs) per 100 people decreased from 67 heads in 1896-1898. up to 65 goals in 1899-1901. and up to 55 heads in 1911-1913.
In 1914, there were 293 heads of cattle per 1,000 inhabitants in Russia, 622 in the USA, and 888 in Denmark.
The productivity of a dairy cow in 1913 was: in Russia - 28 rubles, in the USA - 94 (1: 3.36), in Switzerland 150 rubles. (1:5.36). Russia also yielded in the productivity of grain production per hectare (tithe).
So the yield in 1913 from the tithe was, pounds:
| Wheat | Rye | |
| Russia | 55 | 56 |
| Austria | 89 | 92 |
| Germany | 157 | 127 |
| Belgium | 168 | 147 |
Science and engineering
And back to industry. Remember on which planes Utochkin and Nesterov shone? Newport, Farman, Bristol Bulldog, Sopwith, Fokker. England, France, Belgium... but not Russia.
For 1914-1917 only 94 "Ilya Muromets" were assembled, and then the engines and instruments were imported.
What about cars? Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Fiat, Renault, Peugeot. And where are the Russian companies that produce cars completely (from raw materials to finished products) - they are not.
Russian destroyers, cruisers and battleships were equipped with German and Swedish turbines, English gyrocompasses and rangefinders.
I analyze Russia's lags in such detail not in order to savor them. No. I am no less proud of D.I. Mendeleev, K.E. Tsiolkovsky, and many other talented scientists and engineers. I remember that the first diesel engines and motor ships were built in Kolomna, I remember that destroyers of the Novik type and Russian steam locomotives were considered standard, I remember that Russia is the birthplace of radio, but, unfortunately, these were only rays of light in the general bleak picture.
Recall that Mendeleev and Sechenov (the pride of Russia!!!) were voted out of the Academy of Sciences (if only they were Germans...), the inventor of radio communication, Popov, remained a modest teacher at the naval school.
All this is analyzed in order to prevent the creation of a new mythology, because any myth, in the end, turns against itself, which we saw in the example of the CPSU, when Shevardnadze, Yakovlev, etc. etc. swung first to one side and then to the other.
Moral
After all, Russia was by no means a quiet and God-fearing country of high Christian morality and legality (immediately after the February Revolution in 1917, when the Provisional Government abolished the obligatory attendance of prayer services, in the Russian army, which consisted mainly of peasants, 70% of the soldiers stopped attending church) .
In St. Petersburg in 1913, the number of higher educational institutions was equal to the number of officially registered brothels.
Let us recall the Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich, who embezzled funds allocated for the construction of battleships of the Borodino type, as a result of which Russia, by 1904, instead of 10 battleships of this type in service, had only 5. And even then only on stocks.
If we want to get a more complete impression of the life of Russia in those times, then, really, we should turn to the works of such writers as L. Tolstoy, A. Chekhov, I. Shmelev, V. Zasodimsky, I. Zlatovratsky, G. Uspensky, D .Mamin-Sibiryak, F. Reshetnikov, M. Gorky, I. Bunin.
And finally, I will propose a statement by the Prime Minister of the tsarist government, Kokovtsev, to the deputies of the 4th State Duma: “The talk that Russia will catch up with countries with advanced culture in 15-20 years is, gentlemen, a demand that is not serious.” And Kokovtsev knew what he was saying...
Sad as it sounds for those who are trying to present Russia as a country where patriarchal silence and universal brotherhood between rich and poor prevailed, it should be noted that a stubborn struggle was going on in the country, the mention of which is so unfashionable now, and which is called the struggle of classes.
According to the 4th State Duma, from 1901 to 1914. The tsarist troops opened fire more than 6,000 times, including artillery, on rallies and demonstrations of workers, as well as on gatherings and processions of peasants. And this is only for PEACEFUL rallies, processions, gatherings.
The number of victims ranged from 9 to a thousand people. In total, the number of victims of this kind of "shooting" exceeded 180 thousand. In 1907-1910. More than 40,000 people died in penal servitudes.
Everything written in this material should give us a clear picture of why events inevitably went to 1917, why the military assistance of England, France, the USA, Japan, provided to Kolchak, Denikin, Yudenich, Miller, direct foreign military intervention could not break the Bolsheviks.
This material gives an answer why the white movement, controlling up to 4/5 of the territory of Russia in the summer of 1918, was eventually defeated.
It was not the terror of the Cheka that caused this.
Peasant Russia concluded an unspoken agreement with the Bolsheviks - agreed to endure the surplus appraisal, the Cheka, the ChON, the committees, etc. etc., but on the condition that the Bolsheviks GUARANTEE THE NON-RETURN OF THE OLD ORDER.
And this turn of the peasantry to the Bolsheviks in 1918 ensured the collapse of the white movement. The peasant, seeing Kolchak and Denikin, the White Czechs and Krasnov, understood what awaited him, and made his choice.
And the result of this choice was the Victory Parade, Gagarin's flight was, there was one of the TWO superpowers - the USSR.
You cannot mythologize the past. Otherwise, the truth about him turns into an all-destroying battering ram.
A. Brusilov
The editors of our site received a question from a reader:
“After reading your answers, I realized that modern society is completely corrupted by television and modern music; they say, there used to be a strong faith and a decent society. You quote Russian classics, setting them as an example, making it clear that in their time it was completely different. So I have some questions for you.
1. If in tsarist times it was so good, how then do you feel about the fact that the great Russian (by the way, especially revered by me) composer Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky was a homosexual, the writer Nekrasov played cards, then I won’t stir up the past, I hope that’s enough .
2. And if God gave us complete freedom in development, limited by the commandments, then why in the painting “Unequal Marriage”, which takes place in the Orthodox Church and where the priest crowns an old man with a young girl, her eyes do not show happiness and love for her husband , and all this action takes place with the tacit consent of the parents (after all, as one of the commandments says, they must be obeyed) and the priest!!! Where is the truth? So why if two people live in love and harmony in a civil marriage, this is fornication (a grave sin), and “Unequal marriage”, concluded in the church and initially not implying love, but implying the lust of an old male on the one hand and the submission of a young maiden to the will of her parents from on the other hand, is interpreted in a completely different way? Thanks in advance. Ivan.
We asked Priest Mikhail Nemnonov to answer these questions. .
Ivan, first of all, I cannot fully agree with any of your initial assumptions. Modern society is indeed corrupted by television and music, but not completely. So before, faith in the Russian people was stronger (if we consider the people as a whole) and society was more decent, but there was no ideal society and complete holiness in all people before. In the time of the Russian classics, indeed, much was completely different, but it is the Russian classics who testify in their creations to many imperfections of the then society and people of that time. Now about your questions.
1. How do I feel about the fact that Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky was a homosexual? I don't care at all. Because I haven't heard anything but gossip about it. Many only say: “Don’t you know that Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky…” To the question “how do you know about this”, the answer usually follows like “so everyone knows about it.” Only two of my acquaintances referred to "irrefutable" evidence - correspondence with my brother and diaries. And one of them was so kind that he presented one of such evidence: after some social event, Pyotr Ilyich described in detail, either in a diary or in a letter, the appearance of one young man. Can you imagine?! What else is there to talk about! Moreover, the persistence with which this gossip is spread is surprising. I think people of the 19th century would simply be ashamed to call a person a homosexual on the basis of such “facts”. And besides, Tchaikovsky did not glorify either homosexuality or “free love” in general in his work - unlike many contemporary authors, and this is his clear advantage over them.
As for Nekrasov, he, indulging in a game of cards, wrote in his works (which I personally, by the way, never was a fan of) about something completely different. Arriving at any modern theater or bookstore, I think he would have crossed himself and hastened to leave. This modesty of people, even those who are subject to certain sins, distinguishes for the better the former time from the present.
2. You write: "God gave us complete freedom in development, limited by the commandments." No not like this. Our outward freedom is not limited by commandments, but by force majeure circumstances. Inner freedom is again limited not by commandments, but by the free will of man. And if he decides to follow the commandments, it is not because he has no other choice, but because he himself so wanted to.
As for the picture "unequal marriage", I do not intend to be responsible for the work of the author of this picture. Therefore, let's leave it aside and consider a similar situation in life - a young girl, with the blessing of her parents, marries an elderly man, and they are crowned in the Church. In the eyes of the girl, happiness and love for her husband are not visible. But after all, during the wedding, they ask her if she is marrying of her own free will! And she agrees! And it is not necessary to say that all the girls in the old days got married, obeying their parents - those who did not agree with their choice knew how to insist on their own. For example, a curious “retreat letter” from the time of Ivan the Terrible has been preserved, in which the boyar gives her granddaughter’s unloved fiancé 400 rubles for refusing to marry “for her tears”, a truly gigantic amount - the cost of thirty villages! So if the girl went down the aisle, then she somehow agreed to it. Another question is why? Perhaps the truth is out of respect for the parents, and perhaps for the sake of the wealth of his elderly fiancé (which, it seems, was what the author of the picture you named had in mind). But this is, excuse me, her business, and not ours with you. In addition, not all elderly suitors deserve the name "old males", and not all "unequal marriages" were entered into with one thought of lust. There is a lot more in marriage besides lust - in particular, mutual responsibility and respect for each other, and the fact that there is a person nearby who, perhaps, does not burn with love, but, in any case, is attached to you and ready to support you. Such relationships, of course, are not fornication and not a serious sin, unlike extramarital cohabitation, in which people want to enjoy one pleasant side of communication with a person of the opposite sex, avoiding mutual responsibility and other “costs” in every possible way. That is why, to me personally, the marriage of an elderly man with a young girl seems to be a less painful phenomenon than the cohabitation of two people who “love” each other, but are afraid of creating a real family like fire.
In tsarist times, not everything was so good. Everything bad that exists in the world and in Russia now existed in one way or another even in tsarist times. But there really was less corruption, and holiness was the ideal of life, apparently, for a larger number of people. Which, however, does not prevent you and me from guarding against corruption and striving to live a Christian spiritual life.
