There are many myths and speculations around Alaska that even make their way into some of the mainstream media, misleading people trying to get to the bottom of the topic. However, there are no alternatives to history, there is only one true version, which is better for anyone who wants to know at least a little about the path of their country to know about. So who sold Alaska, or Alexander 2, and most importantly, why?

Now it is widely believed that the sale of Alaska was a mistake of the Russian authorities of those times. However, it is enough to delve into the study of the circumstances and reasons for the deal between the United States and the Russian Empire and it becomes clear why this event happened and why the sale of the territory is the most logical and profitable way out for the country.

Colonization and trade

Let's start from afar, after the discovery of Alaska in 1732 and the arrival of Russian colonists on it, it almost immediately became a "fur" dwelling, a huge amount of sea otter fur was exported from the territories of North America for sale. Later, this phenomenon was called "marine fur trade". Most of the furs went to China, where they were exchanged for silk, porcelain, tea and other Asian curiosities, which were later sold to European countries and overseas.

In parallel with trade, the colonization of lands took place, during which ties with the local population were established, not always successfully. Settlers and merchants were hindered by some indigenous tribes, not too happy about the invasion of their lands. Sometimes with a carrot and sometimes with a whip, the colonists nevertheless came to an understanding with the locals and developed trade relations with them. The subject of trade was usually firearms. Some tribes adopted the Orthodox faith, Aboriginal children study in schools along with the children of the colonists.

Background and reasons for the sale

It would seem that everything goes on as usual, new territories bring good income, trade relations are developing, settlements are being built. But it is worth remembering that the main resource exported from North America was furs. The sea otters, which served as a source of fur, were practically killed, which means that the funds entering the region did not pay off, the protection of the colonies made less and less sense, and merchant ships began to sail less and less.

Who needed protection? The Russian Empire has long been in almost open confrontation with the British, whose colonies were in the neighborhood, on the territory of modern Canada. After the attempt by Britain to land its troops in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky during the Crimean War, the possibility of a military clash between the two empires on American soil was more real than ever.

Is the deal just a rash decision?

In 1854, the first offer was made for the sale, the initiator was the United States. The possibility of capturing a significant piece of North America by the British was not included in the plans of the US government elite. The deal was to become a sham, for a short time, so that Britain would not strengthen its position on the continent. However, the Russian Empire managed to come to an agreement with the British colonies, and the deal did not come into force.

Later, in 1857, a proposal to sell Alaska was made again, this time from the Russian side. This time the main initiator was the younger brother, Prince Konstantin Nikolayevich. The solution to the issue was postponed until 1862 until the expiration of privileges in trade, however, the deal also did not take place in 1862, there was a civil war in the United States. Finally, in 1866, at a meeting between Alexander, his brother and some ministers, a detailed discussion of the question of the sale took place. A unanimous decision was made to sell the territory for no less than $5 million in gold.

How was Alaska ultimately sold, and in what year, and for how much? In 1867, after a series of negotiations, the sale agreement was signed first by the American and then by the Russian side. The final cost is 7.2 million dollars, the area of ​​land sold is 1.5 million square kilometers.

Throughout the year, both parties settled various formalities, some doubts were expressed about the expediency of the transaction. As a result, in May 1867 the treaty entered into legal force, in June there was an exchange of letters, and in October Alaska was finally and irrevocably transferred to America. The deal was completed more than 10 years after the first offer - a decision that certainly cannot be called rash.

Conclusions without far-fetched myths

The history with all the details is known, the documents are preserved and there is no doubt about their authenticity. Despite this, the deal is still surrounded by myths and legends that have no basis. They are generated by rumors, Soviet propaganda of the times and other reasons that have no historical background. The vast majority of historians believe that Alaska was sold, not leased, for ninety-nine, one hundred, or a thousand years, and that the payment for the transaction was received in full, and did not sink with the ship.

Thus, one can clearly trace the desire of the Russian authorities to get rid of Alaska for a number of quite reasonable reasons. It was sold by Alexander, not Catherine, this myth appeared only thanks to the song of the Lyube group under Yeltsin, and historians know for sure which king sold Alaska.

The condemnation of Alexander for the sale also does not make sense, the country was in a very deplorable situation: the abolition of serfdom, the war and a number of reasons required measures to address them. The sale of a loss-making region located across the ocean, the existence of which most of the inhabitants of the then Russia did not even suspect, was a reasonable decision and did not arouse distrust among any of the high ranks.

No one suspected any gold in the bowels of the cold land, and there are still disputes about the costs of its development in the United States. And the buyer, as many believe, a gold mine, was not very enthusiastic about the acquisition. Even at present, Alaska is poorly developed: there are few roads, trains run infrequently, and the population of the entire vast region is only 600 thousand people. There are many dark spots in history, but this is not one of them.

In 1894, at the beginning of the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, there were 122 million inhabitants in Russia. 20 years later, on the eve of the 1st World War, its population increased by more than 50 million; thus, in Tsarist Russia, the population increased by 2,400,000 a year. If the revolution had not happened in 1917, by 1959 its population would have reached 275,000,000.

Unlike modern democracies, Imperial Russia built its policy not only on deficit-free budgets, but also on the principle of a significant accumulation of gold reserves. Despite this, state revenues from 1,410,000,000 rubles in 1897, without the slightest increase in the tax burden, grew steadily, while state spending remained more or less at the same level.

Over the last 10 years before the First World War, the excess of state revenues over expenditures was expressed in the amount of 2,400,000,000 rubles. This figure seems all the more impressive because during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, railway tariffs were lowered and redemption payments for lands that had been transferred to the peasants from their former landowners in 1861 were canceled, and in 1914, with the outbreak of war, all types of drinking taxes.

In the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, by law of 1896, a gold currency was introduced in Russia, and the State Bank was allowed to issue 300,000,000 rubles in credit notes not backed by gold reserves. But the government not only never took advantage of this right, but, on the contrary, ensured paper circulation of gold cash by more than 100%, namely: by the end of July 1914, credit notes were in circulation in the amount of 1,633,000,000 rubles, while the gold reserve in Russia was 1.604.000.000 rubles, and in foreign banks 141.000.000 rubles.

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.

In Russia, taxes, before the First World War, were the lowest in the whole world.

The burden of direct taxes in Russia was almost four 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.

The total amount of taxes per inhabitant in Russia was more than half that in Austria, France and Germany and more than four times less than in England.

Between 1890 and 1913 Russian industry quadrupled its productivity. Its income not only almost equaled the income from agriculture, but the goods covered almost 4/5 of the domestic demand for manufactured goods.

During the last four years before the First World War, the number of newly founded joint-stock companies increased by 132%, and the capital invested in them almost quadrupled.

In 1914, the State Savings Bank had deposits of 2,236,000,000 rubles.

The amount of deposits and own capital in small credit institutions (on a cooperative basis) in 1894 was about 70,000,000 rubles; in 1913 - about 620,000,000 rubles (an increase of 800%), and by January 1, 1917 - 1,200,000,000 rubles.

On the eve of the revolution, Russian agriculture was in full bloom. During the two decades leading up to the war of 1914-18, the grain harvest doubled. In 1913, the harvest of the main cereals in Russia was 1/3 higher than that of Argentina, Canada and the United States. States combined.

During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, Russia was the main breadwinner of Western Europe.

Russia supplied 50% of world egg imports.

In the same period of time, sugar consumption per inhabitant increased from 4 to 9 kg. in year.

On the eve of the 1st World War, Russia produced 80% of the world's flax production.

Thanks to extensive irrigation work in Turkestan, undertaken back in the reign of Emperor Alexander III, the cotton harvest in 1913 covered all the annual needs of the Russian textile industry. The latter doubled its production between 1894 and 1911.

The railway network in Russia covered 74,000 versts (one verst equals 1,067 km), of which the Great Siberian Way (8,000 versts) was the longest in the world.

In 1916, i.e. at the height of the war, more than 2,000 miles of railways were built, which connected the Arctic Ocean (port of Romanovsk) with the center of Russia.

In Tsarist Russia in the period from 1880 to 1917, i.e. in 37 years, 58.251 km were built. For 38 years of Soviet power, i.e. by the end of 1956, only 36,250 km had been built. roads.

On the eve of the war of 1914-18. the net income of the state railways covered 83% of the annual interest and amortization of the public debt. In other words, the payment of debts, both internal and external, was provided in proportion to more than 4/5 by the income that the Russian state received from the operation of its railways.

It should be added that the Russian railways, in comparison with others, were the cheapest and most comfortable in the world for passengers.

Industrial development in the Russian Empire was naturally accompanied by a significant increase in the number of factory workers, whose economic well-being, as well as the protection of their life and health, were the subject of special concern for the Imperial government.

It should be noted that it was in Imperial Russia, and moreover, in the 18th century, during the reign of Empress Catherine II (1762-1796), for the first time in the world, laws were issued regarding working conditions: the work of women and children was prohibited, in factories a 10-hour working day was established, and so on. Characteristically, the code of Empress Catherine, which regulated children's and women's labor, printed in French and Latin, was banned for publication in France and England, as "seditious".

In the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, before the convening of the 1st State Duma, special laws were issued to ensure the safety of workers in the mining industry, on railways and in enterprises that are especially dangerous to the life and health of workers.

Child labor under the age of 12 was prohibited, and minors and females could not be employed in factory work between 9 pm and 5 am.

The size of the penalty deductions could not exceed one third of the wages, and each fine had to be approved by the factory inspector. Penalty money went to a special fund designed to meet the needs of the workers themselves.

In 1882, a special law regulated the work of children from 12 to 15 years old. In 1903, worker elders were introduced, who were elected by the factory workers of the respective workshops. The existence of workers' unions was recognized by law in 1906.

At that time, the Imperial social legislation was undoubtedly the most progressive in the world. This prompted Taft, then President of the Union. States, two years before the First World War, to publicly declare, in the presence of several Russian dignitaries: "Your Emperor created such a perfect working legislation that no democratic state can boast of."

During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, public education reached an extraordinary development. In less than 20 years, loans allocated to the Ministry of Public Education, with 25.2 mil. rubles increased to 161.2 million. This did not include the budgets of schools that drew their loans from other sources (military, technical schools), or maintained by local governments (zemstvos, cities), whose loans for public education increased from 70,000,000 rubles. in 1894 to 300,000,000 rubles. in 1913

At the beginning of 1913, the total budget for public education in Russia reached a colossal figure for that time, namely 1/2 billion rubles in gold.

Initial education was free by law, but 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 in the 20th century ranked first in Europe, if not in the whole world.

The reign of Nicholas II was the period of the highest rates of economic growth in the history of Russia. For 1880-1910 the growth rate of Russian industrial output exceeded 9% per year. According to this indicator, Russia came out on top in the world, ahead of even the rapidly developing United States of America (although it should be noted that different economists give different estimates on this issue, some put the Russian Empire in first place, others put the United States in first place, but the fact that the pace growth were comparable - an indisputable fact). In terms of the production of the most important agricultural crops, Russia has taken the first place in the world, growing more than half of the world's rye, more than a quarter of wheat, oats and barley, and more than a third of potatoes. Russia became the main exporter of agricultural products, the first "breadbasket of Europe". It accounted for 2/5 of all world exports of peasant products.

Successes in agricultural production were the result of historical events: the abolition of serfdom in 1861 by Alexander II and the Stolypin land reform during the reign of Nicholas II, as a result of which more than 80% of arable land was in the hands of the peasants, and in the Asian part - almost all. The area of ​​landed estates has been steadily declining. Granting the peasants the right to freely dispose of their land and the abolition of communities was of great national importance, the benefits of which, in the first place, were recognized by the peasants themselves.

The autocratic form of government did not hinder the economic progress of Russia. According to the manifesto of October 17, 1905, the population of Russia received the right to inviolability of the person, freedom of speech, press, assembly, and unions. Political parties grew in the country, thousands of periodicals were published. The Parliament, the State Duma, was elected by free will. Russia was becoming a legal state - the judiciary was practically separated from the executive.

The rapid development of the level of industrial and agricultural production and a positive trade balance allowed Russia to have a stable gold convertible currency. The emperor attached great importance to the development of railways. Even in his youth, he participated in the laying of the famous Siberian road.

During the reign of Nicholas II in Russia, the best labor legislation for those times was created, providing for the regulation of working hours, the selection of work elders, remuneration in case of accidents at work, and compulsory insurance of workers against illness, disability and old age. The emperor actively promoted the development of Russian culture, art, science, and the reforms of the army and navy.

All these achievements of the economic and social development of Russia are the result of the natural historical process of the development of Russia and are objectively related to the 300th anniversary of the reign of the Romanov dynasty.

The French economist Teri wrote: "None of the European peoples has achieved such results."

The myth that the workers lived very poorly.

1. Workers. The average salary of a worker in Russia was 37.5 rubles. We multiply this amount by 1282.29 (the ratio of the exchange rate of the royal ruble to the modern one) and we get the amount of 48085 thousand rubles for modern conversion.

2. Janitor 18 rubles or 23081 rubles. with modern money

3. Lieutenant (modern analogue - lieutenant) 70 p. or 89 760 rubles. with modern money

4. Policeman (ordinary police officer) 20.5 p. or 26,287 rubles. with modern money

5. Workers (Petersburg). It is interesting that the average salary in Petersburg was less and amounted to 22 rubles 53 kopecks by 1914. We multiply this amount by 1282.29 and get 28890 Russian rubles.

6. Cook 5 - 8 p. or 6.5-10 thousand for modern money

7. Primary school teacher 25 p. or 32050 r. with modern money

8. Gymnasium teacher 85 rubles or 108970 rubles. with modern money

9. Senior janitor 40 p. or 51 297 rubles. with modern money

10. District warden (modern analogue - district police officer) 50 p. or 64,115 in modern money

11. Paramedic 40 rubles or 51280 r.

12. Colonel 325 rubles or 416 744 rubles. with modern money

13. Collegiate assessor (middle-class official) 62 p. or 79 502 rubles. with modern money

14. Privy Councilor (high-class official) 500 or 641,145 in modern money. The same amount received an army general

And how much, you ask, did the products cost then? A pound of meat in 1914 cost 19 kopecks. The Russian pound weighed 0.40951241 grams. This means that a kilogram, if it were then a measure of weight, would cost 46.39 kopecks - 0.359 grams of gold, that is, in today's money, 551 rubles 14 kopecks. Thus, a worker could buy 48.6 kilograms of meat with his salary, if, of course, he wanted to.

Wheat flour 0.08 r. (8 kopecks) = 1 pound (0.4 kg)
Rice pound 0.12 p. = 1 pound (0.4 kg)
Biscuit 0.60 r. = 1 lb (0.4 kg)
Milk 0.08 r. = 1 bottle
Tomatoes 0.22 rub. = 1 lb
Fish (perch) 0.25 r. = 1 lb
Grapes (raisins) 0.16 r. = 1 pound
Apples 0.03 rub. = 1 lb

A very good life!!!

Now let's see how much it cost to rent a house. Rental housing in St. Petersburg cost 25, and in Moscow and Kyiv 20 kopecks per square arshin per month. These 20 kopecks today amount to 256 rubles, and a square arshin - 0.5058 m². That is, the monthly rent of one square meter in 1914 cost 506 today's rubles. Our clerk would rent an apartment of one hundred square arshins in St. Petersburg for 25 rubles a month. But he did not rent such an apartment, but was content with a basement and attic closet, where the area was smaller, and the rent was lower. Such an apartment was rented, as a rule, by titular advisers who received a salary at the level of an army captain. The bare salary of a titular adviser was 105 rubles per month (134,640 rubles) per month. Thus, a 50-meter apartment cost him less than a quarter of his salary.

So many wonderful books have been written about the holy Passion-Bearer Tsar Nicholas II, which leave no stone unturned against the false testimonies of the Marxists. But these indignant voices, even after the canonization of the Royal Family, continue to sound, the choir does not stop.

They say that a drop wears away a stone. I would like to contribute at least a small fraction to this matter of restoring justice in connection with the memory of the Passion-Bearer Tsar. We need this first of all. What will be written below can be described as my personal impressions, marginal notes in the context of everything read and heard on this topic by researchers and memoirists. I state them in the hope of planting at least a drop of doubt in the categorical attitude of those who, I am sure, so far, only for the time being, remain against it.

The discrediting of the king as a symbol of sacred statehood after his assassination went through the fabrication of various myths that were introduced into the mass consciousness. I confess that I was once in the grip of these myths, and therefore I offer some of the facts and arguments that I found that changed my position. This was facilitated by my communication with a brilliant specialist in the history of that period, S. F. Kolosovskaya, to whom I am grateful from the bottom of my heart.

The most common myths that I would like to disprove at least to some extent, basically boil down to the following.

The myth that under the tsar Russia was a backward country

Under Nicholas II, Russia experienced an unprecedented period of material prosperity. On the eve of the First World War, its economy flourished and from 1894 to 1914 grew at the fastest rate in the world.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the growth of the national economy of Russia led to an increase in social wealth and the well-being of the population.

During 1894-1914, the state budget of the country grew 5.5 times, the gold reserves - 3.7 times. The Russian currency was one of the strongest in the world.

At the same time, government revenues grew without the slightest increase in the tax burden. Direct taxes in Russia were 4 times less than in France and Germany, and 8.5 times less than in England; indirect taxes - on average half as much as in Austria, Germany and England.

The increase in grain yield was 78%. The grain exported by Russia fed the whole of Europe. Coal production increased by 325%, copper - by 375%, iron ore - by 250%, oil - by 65%. The growth of railways amounted to 103%, the merchant fleet - 39%.

The overall growth of the Russian economy, even in the difficult years of the First World War, was 21.5%.

Many domestic economists and politicians argued that the continuation of the development trends that existed in 1900-1914 would inevitably bring Russia to the place of the world leader in 20-30 years, give it the opportunity to dominate Europe, exceed the economic potential of all European powers taken together.

The French economist Teri wrote: “None of the European nations has achieved such results” .

Charles Sarolea, a professor at the University of Edinburgh, wrote in The Truth About Czarism:

“One of the most frequent attacks against the Russian Monarchy was the assertion that it is reactionary and obscurant, that it is the enemy of enlightenment and progress. In fact, it was, in all likelihood, the most progressive government in Europe… It is easy to refute the opinion that the Russian people rejected tsarism and that the revolution found Russia in a state of decline, collapse and exhaustion… When I visited Russia in 1909, I expected to find traces of suffering everywhere after the Japanese war and the turmoil of 1905. Instead, I noticed a miraculous restoration, a gigantic land reform ... leaps and bounds of growing industry, an influx of capital into the country, etc. ... Why did the catastrophe happen? .. Why did the Russian Monarchy fall almost without a fight? .. It fell not because it had outlived its century. She fell for purely random reasons ... "

The myth that Nicholas II was a tyrant who destroyed the Russian people

The most important indicator of the effectiveness and morality of power and the well-being of the people is population growth. From 1897 to 1914, that is, in just 17 years, it amounted to a fantastic figure for us - 50.5 million people.

A very competent demographic and migration policy was carried out. Stolypin wrote about the tasks in this area: “So, our main task is to strengthen the lower classes. All the strength of the country lies in them... Believe me, the state will have health and strong roots, and the words of the Russian government will sound completely different before Europe and before the whole world... Give the state 20 years of peace, internal and external, and you will not recognize today's Russia! “Our distant, harsh outskirts are at the same time rich ... in vast expanses of the earth .... In the presence of a densely populated state neighboring us, this outskirts will not remain deserted. A stranger will suck into it if a Russian does not come there earlier ... If we continue to sleep in a lethargic sleep, then this region will be saturated with other people's juices, and when we wake up, maybe it will turn out to be Russian only in name ... "

In the post-perestroika years, we lost and continue to lose an average of about 1 million deaths a year, plus abortions and murdered children. According to 2005 data, their number was 1,611,000. As a result, losses reach more than two million a year.

Another important indicator is the number of suicides. So then it was 2.7 per 100,000 inhabitants. And now we have 40. In the period 1995-2003, 500,000 people died as a result of suicide. At the same time, according to statistics, only one attempt out of 20 ends in death. Therefore, including these "incomplete" suicide attempts, we get a figure 20 times higher, that is, 10 million.

The myth that workers were very poor

In 1913, a worker in Russia earned 20 gold rubles a month.

At the same time, bread cost 3-5 kopecks. A kilogram of beef - 30 kopecks. A kilogram of potatoes - 1.5 kopecks.

At the same time, the income tax was one ruble per year and was the lowest in the world.

Hence the opportunity to support a large family.

The contrast here is the characterization of the policy of the Russian leader, pleasing to the West, which Edward Pierce wrote about in the article “In praise of Putin”, published in The Guardian: “Was there ever a more contemptible figure than Boris Yeltsin? Always drunk, unable to lead the country, he allowed a pack of corrupt crooks to plunder the national wealth. He approved the abolition of food price subsidies, which meant that ordinary people fell into poverty overnight. If we talk about the pride and self-esteem of Russia, then it turns out that Yeltsin served as a collaborator, a policeman who enriched himself and found solace in alcohol ... People picked up food from a landfill, but Boris Yeltsin was a Westerner, a wonderful example, a clear example of the triumph of the West " .

The myth that Russia was a dark country

From 1894 to 1914 the public education budget increased by 628%. The number of schools increased: higher schools - by 180%, secondary schools - by 227%, women's gymnasiums - by 420%, public schools - by 96%.

I. Ilyin in his work "On Russian Culture" writes that Russia was on the verge of the implementation of universal public education with a network of schools within a radius of one kilometer.

In Russia, 10,000 schools were opened annually.

The Russian Empire was a reading country. During the reign of Nicholas II, more newspapers and magazines were published in Russia than in the USSR in 1988.

Russia also experienced a flowering of cultural life.

The myth of Rasputin

A close aide-de-camp of the sovereign, Colonel A. Mordvinov, completely rejects in his “Memoirs” (“Russian Chronicle” for 1923, vol. V) the influence of the Empress and anyone else on the decisions of the sovereign and gives convincing examples.

He also reveals the truth of the famous legend about Rasputin.

Mordvinov writes: “The sovereign was dissatisfied with some statesmen, not because they did not sympathize with Rasputin, but because they allowed themselves to believe and spread this belief in some special power of Rasputin in state affairs. In the eyes of his majesty, the mere possibility of such an assumption was insulting, degrading to his dignity.

Mordvinov, who had been constantly in the palace since 1912 and always traveled with the tsar during the war, had never seen Rasputin in five years, had never heard of him in his family, with whom he was very close.

Gilliard, the tutor of the Tsarevich, who lived at the Court, as well as the life physician Botkin (who died in Yekaterinburg with his family), who visited the palace every day, testify that for several years Rasputin was seen in the palace only once, and both connected Rasputin’s visit with ill health of the heir.

General Resin, without whom not a single soul could enter the palace, had not seen Rasputin for seven months.

Alexander Eliseev in his article “Nicholas II as a strong-willed politician of troubled times” notes that even the Extraordinary Investigation Commission of the Provisional Government was forced to admit that Rasputin had no influence on the state life of the country. This despite the fact that it included experienced liberal lawyers who were sharply opposed to the Sovereign, the dynasty and the monarchy as such.

The myth of the weakness of the character of the king

French President Loubet said: “Usually they see in Emperor Nicholas II a kind, generous, but weak person. This is a deep mistake. He always has well-thought-out plans, the implementation of which is slowly achieved. Under visible timidity, the king has a strong soul and a courageous heart, unshakably faithful. He knows where he's going and what he wants."

The royal service required strength of character, which Nicholas II possessed. During the Holy Coronation of the Russian Throne on May 27, 1895, Metropolitan Sergius of Moscow, in his address to the Sovereign, said: “Just as there is no higher, so there is no more difficult on earth royal power, there is no burden heavier than royal service. Through the visible anointing, may an invisible power from above be given to you, acting to exalt your royal virtues ... "

A number of arguments refuting this myth are given in the above-mentioned work by A. Eliseev.

So, in particular, S. Oldenburg wrote that the Sovereign had an iron hand, many are only deceived by the velvet glove put on it.

The presence of a firm will in Nicholas II is brilliantly confirmed by the events of August 1915, when he took on the duties of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief - against the desire of the military elite, the Council of Ministers and the entire "public opinion". And, I must say, he brilliantly coped with these duties.

In general, the Sovereign was a real warrior - both in "profession" and in spirit. He was raised as a warrior. Archpriest V. Asmus notes: “Alexander III brought up children in great severity, for example, no more than 15 minutes were allotted for food. Children had to sit down at the table and get up from the table with their parents, and children often remained hungry if they did not fit into these limits, which were so hard for children.

We can say that Nicholas II received a real military upbringing and a real military education, Nicholas II felt like a military man all his life, this affected his psychology and many things in his life.

Being the Heir to the Throne, Nikolai Alexandrovich studied military affairs with great enthusiasm. This is evidenced by his diligently compiled notes on military topography, tactics, artillery, navigational instruments, military criminal law, and strategy. Very impressive records on fortification, provided with drawings and drawings.

Was not neglected and practical training. Alexander III sent his heir to military training. For two years, Nikolai Alexandrovich served in the Preobrazhensky Regiment, where he served as a subaltern officer, then as a company commander. For two whole seasons he served as a platoon commander in a hussar regiment, then he was a squadron commander. Naslednik spent one camp season in the ranks of the artillery.

The emperor did a lot to improve the country's defense capability, having learned the hard lessons of the Russo-Japanese war. Perhaps his most significant act was the revival of the Russian fleet, which saved the country at the beginning of the First World War. It happened against the will of military officials. The emperor was even forced to dismiss the Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich. Military historian G. Nekrasov writes: “It should be noted that, despite its overwhelming superiority in forces in the Baltic Sea, the German fleet made no attempts to break into the Gulf of Finland in order to bring Russia to its knees with one blow. Theoretically, this was possible, since most of the Russian military industry was concentrated in St. Petersburg. But on the way of the German fleet stood the Baltic Fleet, ready to fight, with ready mine positions. The price of a breakthrough for the German fleet was becoming unacceptably expensive. Thus, by the mere fact that he achieved the restoration of the fleet, Emperor Nicholas II saved Russia from an imminent defeat. This should not be forgotten!”

Let us especially note that the Sovereign made absolutely all the important decisions that contributed to victorious actions, precisely by himself - without the influence of any "good geniuses". The opinion that Alekseev led the Russian army, and the Tsar was in the post of Commander-in-Chief for the sake of formality, is completely unfounded. This false opinion is refuted by telegrams from Alekseev himself. For example, in one of them, to a request to send ammunition and weapons, Alekseev replies: “I cannot resolve this issue without the Highest permission.”

The communist publicist M. Koltsov writes the following about the behavior of the Sovereign during the days of the February Troubles: “... The courtiers absolutely in vain paint their leader in the last minutes of his reign as a dull cretin, non-resistance, who meekly surrendered his regime at the first demand of the revolution.” Koltsov describes how the Sovereign stubbornly resisted all the demands of the army conspirators (Alekseev, Ruzsky, etc.) to create a responsible ministry (that is, in essence, to turn the autocracy into a constitutional monarchy). His resistance was so strong that even Alexandra Feodorovna exclaimed in a letter: “You are alone, without an army behind you, caught like a mouse in a trap - what can you do ?!” And the Tsar did everything he could - he even sent an expeditionary force led by General N.I. Ivanov to Petrograd. He fought the revolution alone (because the conspirators cut him off from communication with the outside world, from the right parts). And on this occasion, Koltsov asks: “Where is the rag? Where is the weak-willed nonentity? In the frightened crowd of defenders of the throne, we see only one person who is true to himself - Nikolai himself.

“The Sovereign-Emperor did everything in his power. He managed to suppress the terrible power of the revolution of 1905 and delay the triumph of the "demons" for as much as 12 years. Thanks to his personal efforts, a radical turning point was achieved in the course of the Russian-German confrontation. Being already a prisoner of the Bolsheviks, he refused to approve the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and thereby save his life. He lived with dignity and accepted death with dignity.

The myth that Russia was a prison of nations

Russia was a family of peoples thanks to the balanced and thoughtful policy of the Sovereign. The Russian tsar-father was considered the monarch of all peoples and tribes living on the territory of the Russian Empire.

He pursued a national policy based on respect for traditional religions - the historical subjects of state building in Russia. And this is not only Orthodoxy, but also Islam. So, in particular, the mullahs were supported by the Russian Empire and received a salary. Many Muslims fought for Russia.

The Russian Tsar honored the feat of all peoples who served the Fatherland. Here is the text of the telegram, which serves as a clear confirmation of this:

TELEGRAM

Like a mountain avalanche, the Ingush regiment fell on the German Iron Division. He was immediately supported by the Chechen regiment.

In the history of the Russian Fatherland, including our Preobrazhensky Regiment, there was no case of an enemy heavy artillery attack by cavalry.

4.5 thousand killed, 3.5 thousand captured, 2.5 thousand wounded. In less than 1.5 hours, the iron division ceased to exist, with which the best military units of our allies, including those in the Russian army, were afraid to come into contact.

On my behalf, on behalf of the royal court and on behalf of the Russian army, convey fraternal cordial greetings to the fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and brides of these brave eagles of the Caucasus, who put an end to the German hordes with their immortal feat.

Russia will never forget this feat. Honor and praise to them!

With brotherly greetings, Nicholas II.

In general, the sacred monarchy, as a form of government, had a great advantage in matters of nationality over what K. Pobedonostsev calls the "evil of parliamentary government." He points out that the election does not result in the selection of the best, but only "the most ambitious and impudent." Especially dangerous, in his opinion, is the electoral struggle in multi-tribal states. Pointing to the advantages of the monarchical system for Russia, he writes: “The unlimited monarchy managed to eliminate or reconcile all such demands and impulses - and not only by force, but by equalizing rights and relations under one authority. But democracy cannot cope with them, and the instincts of nationalism serve as a corrosive element for it: each tribe expels representatives from its locality - not the state and popular ideas, but representatives of tribal instincts, tribal irritation, tribal hatred ... "

The very title of the Russian tsar reflects the saving gathering of lands and peoples behind the state Orthodox fence: “The Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, Moscow, Kyiv, Vladimir, Novgorod; Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Tsar of Poland, Tsar of Siberia, Tsar of Tauride Chersonis, Tsar of Georgia and others, others, others.

If we talk about prisons in the truest sense of the word, then the crime rate was so low that less than 33,000 prisoners were kept in prisons throughout the Russian Empire in 1913.

Now in our territory, which is much smaller than the Russian Empire, this figure exceeds 1.5 million people.

The myth that Russia under the tsar was defeated in the First World War

S.S. Oldenburg, in his book The Reign of Emperor Nicholas II, wrote: “The most difficult and most forgotten feat of Emperor Nicholas II was that, under incredibly difficult conditions, he brought Russia to the threshold of victory: his opponents did not let her cross this threshold.”

General N. A. Lokhvitsky wrote: “... It took Peter the Great nine years to turn the Narva vanquished into Poltava winners.

The last Supreme Commander of the Imperial Army, Emperor Nicholas II, did the same great work in a year and a half. But his work was also appreciated by the enemies, and between the Sovereign and his Army and the victory "became a revolution."

A. Eliseev cites the following facts. The military talents of the Sovereign were fully revealed at the post of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. Already the very first decisions of the new commander-in-chief led to a significant improvement in the situation at the front. So, he organized the Vilna-Molodechno operation (September 3 - October 2, 1915). The sovereign managed to stop a major German offensive, as a result of which the city of Borisov was captured. They issued a timely directive to stop the panic and retreat. As a result, the onslaught of the 10th German Army was stopped, which was forced to withdraw - in some places completely disorderly. The 26th Mogilev Infantry Regiment of Lieutenant Colonel Petrov (8 officers and 359 bayonets in total) made his way to the rear of the Germans and captured 16 guns during a surprise attack. In total, the Russians managed to capture 2,000 prisoners, 39 guns and 45 machine guns. “But most importantly,” notes historian P.V. Multatuli, “the troops regained confidence in their ability to beat the Germans.”

Russia definitely began to win the war. After the failures of 1915 came the triumphant 1916, the year of the Brusilov breakthrough. During the fighting on the Southwestern Front, the enemy lost one and a half million people killed, wounded and taken prisoner. Austria-Hungary was on the verge of defeat.

It was the Sovereign who supported the Brusilov offensive plan, with which many military leaders did not agree. Thus, the plan of the chief of staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief M. V. Alekseev provided for a powerful strike against the enemy by the forces of all fronts, with the exception of Brusilov's front.

The latter believed that his front was also quite capable of an offensive, with which other front commanders disagreed. However, Nicholas II strongly supported Brusilov, and without this support the famous breakthrough would have been simply impossible.

Historian A. Zayonchkovsky wrote that the Russian army had reached “in terms of its size and technical supply with everything it needs, the greatest development in the entire war.” The enemy was opposed by more than two hundred combat-ready divisions. Russia was preparing to crush the enemy. In January 1917, the Russian 12th Army launched an offensive from the Riga bridgehead and caught the German 10th Army by surprise, which fell into a catastrophic situation.

The chief of staff of the German army, General Ludendorff, who cannot be suspected of sympathizing with Nicholas II, wrote about the situation in Germany in 1916 and the growth of Russia's military power:

“Russia is expanding military formations. The reorganization undertaken by her gives a great increase in strength. In her divisions, she left only 12 battalions each, and in batteries only 6 guns each, and from the battalions and guns liberated in this way she formed new combat units.

The battles of 1916 on the Eastern Front showed the strengthening of Russian military equipment, the number of firearms increased. Russia has transferred part of its factories to the Donets Basin, raising their productivity tremendously.

We understood that the numerical and technical superiority of the Russians in 1917 would be felt even more sharply by us than in 1916.

Our situation was extremely difficult and there was almost no way out of it. There was nothing to think about their own offensive - all the reserves were necessary for defense. Our defeat seemed inevitable ... it was hard with food. The rear was also badly damaged.

The prospects for the future were extremely bleak."

Moreover, according to Oldenburg, on the initiative of Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich, in the summer of 1916, a commission was established to prepare a future peace conference in order to determine in advance what Russia's wishes would be. Russia was to receive Constantinople and the straits, as well as Turkish Armenia.

Poland was to be reunited in a personal union with Russia. The sovereign declared (at the end of December) c. Velepolsky that he thinks of free Poland as a state with a separate constitution, separate chambers and its own army (apparently, he meant something like the position of the Kingdom of Poland under Alexander I).

Eastern Galicia, Northern Bukovina and Carpathian Rus were to be included in Russia. The creation of the Czechoslovak kingdom was planned; regiments of captured Czechs and Slovaks were already formed on Russian territory.

B. Brazol "The reign of Emperor Nicholas II in figures and facts"

to be continued...

In contact with

Classmates

Permanent address of the publication on our website:

Page address QR code:

For clarity, we will correct our terminology. Speaking of the word "king", we will here mean by it "general secretaries", "presidents", "sultans" and, in general, all kinds of heads of state. Whatever political systems they represent, the supreme power is concentrated in their hands. Today, some of them are spoken of with disdain, some with disgust, someone's name is pronounced with reverence, bordering on worship of God.

I noticed how people often like to get shabby:

Now, if we lived under Stalin ... But it was good under Brezhnev ... Peter I was smart, the Tsar was a hard worker ... Catherine II collected a lot of land ... Tsar Father Nicholas II was magnificent .. And now what?! Gorbachev destroyed the "indestructible union of free republics" ... Putin is a thief and a murderer, Yeltsin is a drunkard, in Ukraine Yanukovych is a former ... convict. Yushchenko is neither fish nor fowl... How unlucky we are for the king!!! What an unfortunate time we live in!!!

The logic is more than strange. It turns out that people's favorites were the most fruitful only in the past. The miserable present time suffers from impotence, and the future is too vague. In general, all the most glorious things have passed us by ... It's just that melancholy seizes from complete hopelessness: we will never have a drink with the glorious Peter on brotherhood, nor attack with a cry: "For Stalin!" don't rush. Drip-drip - salty water flows from the eyes ...

Poor thing! Nobody gives you a normal life. The authorities are fattening, and you are in the "Khrushchev" loitering around like a monkey in a zoo. Once I was on an excursion to the Vorontsov Palace in Alupka and the thought came to me: "How chic the counts and princes lived in the 19th century!" Looking at the spacious halls, furniture, paintings and utensils, I felt like the last bum of the end of the 20th century. And how big was the social gap between the proletarians and the aristocracy of that time? I don’t know, but I like my three-room electrified cell with water and gas pipelines more like a clay hut with amenities in the yard. Reasons for dissatisfaction on the basis of social inequality in the 19th century could have been more among those citizens than among our contemporaries.

At any time there were oligarchs. Even in the Soviet period. In Yalta, as a kid, I saw the general's dacha. Not personal property - I understand, but not just a sanatorium. A two-story house surrounded by manicured flower beds and neatly trimmed trees. There was also a guard, a gardener and a cook. The same was, as I understand it, with the secretaries of regional committees and people's commissars with the ministers. Not as rich as modern business tycoons, but also with something. In my opinion, it was a sin for them to be offended by inattention to their persons ...

Well, you were born under Tsar Nicholas II. So what? He was the same oligarch, if not more than the current ones. In the questionnaire, he once wrote about himself without hesitation: "The owner of the Russian land." There were revolutions under him and a lot of blood was shed. He was no better than Yushchenko or Yeltsin. Strongly attracted?

Under Stalin, there was order and are you nostalgic about it as heaven on earth? Vissarionovich accepted the country in bast shoes, and handed over spaceships to his followers. Praise the leader! He carried out industrialization, collectivization, famines in record time, along the way he cleansed society of capitalist filth, defeated Hitler and made every person feel involved in the greatest power of our time.

Honestly, I would not want to live in that country and, thank God, I do not live in it. I am glad that no one is re-educating me on Solovki, that no one is forcing me to go to rallies and study party demagoguery. My father told how one of his fellow villagers in the time of Stalin went out of need to the garden and had the imprudence to wipe himself with a newspaper with a portrait of the leader. To his misfortune, a neighbor found a piece of paper and carried it where it should be. The unlucky neighbor "sat down" under the article for anti-Soviet activities. Now there is enough toilet paper, and if necessary, you can safely use a newspaper.

I have someone to live for without Stalin or some other leader. Honestly, I agree that my state should not be an empire that everyone would be afraid of. I don't get an inferiority complex. If only it was comfortable for life, not violating the will of the citizen. You won’t earn all the money, everyone will never live in palaces. At least, I have not seen such a period in domestic or foreign history. Does the state think little about pensioners? And when my grandmother received a pension of 26 rubles in the 1970s, during the Brezhnev era, did they think about her a lot then?

I do not think that Putin or Yanukovych are more criminals than the same Stalin or Peter I. The Russian writer Fyodor Tyutchev once remarked: "The history before Peter I is a complete memorial service, and after that - one criminal case." How much blood does each ruler shed when seizing power and then to maintain it? Well, where has the power been seen without intrigues, compromising evidence and murders?! Peter the Great did not spare his son, implicated in a conspiracy, betraying him to death. Catherine the Great eliminated her husband on her way to the throne. The list is endless...

Great deeds require great sacrifices, and ordinary citizens serve as lambs for the slaughter. As we are with you.

But you have to make a breakthrough! You can’t sit and slurp cabbage soup with bast shoes! Who will do it if not us?!

It is precisely this constant need in national history that frightens me, either hastily "cutting windows to Europe", or with a bullet "jumping out of bast shoes into the cockpit of an aircraft." Strange, all the same, abroad! They somehow do everything without sharp jerks. Railroads are being built without Komsomol rushes, canals are being dug without corpses being dumped, cities are not being built on bones. The gold rush in Alaska passed without the involvement of convicts, but here in Magadan, at the mines, they washed up a lot of gold for nothing. Their design bureaus managed to create excellent equipment without convicts and intimidated "Kulibins". How did they manage all this without hassle and without revolver? This is the price of our victory.

The sacrifices were not in vain, comrade! We won!!! Otherwise it was impossible! - one hears consolation from the lips of a patriot.

Thank God that at least not in vain. I really want to believe in it. And it was impossible to do without victims? In our country, after all, everyone who fell into the category of "great state reformers" has always been generous donors of human souls to the altar of human progress. Peter loved Russia, Stalin loved the USSR, and both spared no one. When will an ordinary person live for himself?

Did the Americans destroy the mighty USSR? Did the spies work? So why didn't our intelligence agents destroy the USA? They sat there too. Listen, the two empires came together in a deadly battle: "Who wins?" and the veins of the weakest cracked. I see no reason to be surprised. The socialist system turned out to be weaker than the rotten capitalist one. Will we cry on its ruins and dream of revenge?

Life goes on at its own pace. We always want more from the government than it can give, and they always want to grab more than they can take. Also my news of the day! Life very bad?

It is worth taking a look at the high-rise buildings and reflecting on what you have seen in order to at least slightly appease the endless whining. What will we see there? Lots of plastic windows and satellite dishes! The facades are literally hung with air conditioners, which used to live only in the offices of the authorities. I don’t know where, but in the provincial town of Armyansk, pipes of autonomous heating boilers stick out from almost every apartment. If you go into each of them, you will find foreign refrigerators and TVs with washing machines.

I cannot remember these Soviet-made units without tears. After defrosting the Absheron miracle refrigerator, cold sweat broke through and the age-old question arose: "Will it be able to turn itself off periodically?" Modern "Samsung-Hitachi" do everything without our participation. Due to the constant whims of "Birch-Chayek", almost every month it was necessary to call a telemaster, and now "Philips-Panasonic" work so much that you forget when you pulled out the plug for the last time. Washing machines sometimes shocked their owners. The current "Indesites" have not learned how to hang out their own linen and iron it.

I am already silent about computers, laptops, mobile phones and other equipment. We have all this at our disposal, so that it would be more convenient to grumble at the authorities and complain about the terrible life. In fact, we just stopped appreciating what we have. It was interesting for me to imagine: if there was a time machine and show the past generations the conditions of our life, then where would they prefer to be? Would you have stayed with your great leaders, or would you still give everything to be with us at least for a year or two? Perhaps they would have liked not only life, but also freedom without black funnels. Who knows, maybe our time is the object of someone's envy?

Yes, there are plenty of problems in the country, but it is also full of advantages. War, thank God, no. We don’t swell from hunger, we don’t go naked. Then everything depends only on us, and not on the presidents. We will be able to create a family hearth, find wonderful friends and satisfaction for the soul - this is our happiness. In this situation, we will prosper under any government. If only she didn't send us to wash our boots in the Indian Ocean...

There have been many rulers in the history of Russia, but not all of them can be called successful. Those who could, expanded the territory of the state, won wars, developed culture and production in the country, and strengthened international ties.

Yaroslav the Wise

Yaroslav the Wise, son of Saint Vladimir, was one of the first truly effective rulers in Russian history. He founded the city-fortress Yuryev in the Baltic, Yaroslavl in the Volga region, Yuryev Russian, Yaroslavl in the Carpathian region and Novgorod-Seversky.

During the years of his reign, Yaroslav stopped the Pecheneg raids on Russia, defeating them in 1038 near the walls of Kyiv, in honor of which the Hagia Sophia was founded. Artists from Constantinople were called in to paint the temple.

In an effort to strengthen international relations, Yaroslav used dynastic marriages, gave his daughter Princess Anna Yaroslavna in marriage to the French King Henry I.

Yaroslav the Wise actively built the first Russian monasteries, founded the first large school, allocated large funds for translations and correspondence of books, published the Church Charter and the Russian Truth. In 1051, having gathered the bishops, he himself appointed Hilarion as metropolitan, for the first time without the participation of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Hilarion became the first Russian metropolitan.

Ivan III

Ivan III can be confidently called one of the most successful rulers in the history of Russia. It was he who managed to gather around Moscow the scattered principalities of northeastern Russia. During his lifetime, the Yaroslavl and Rostov principalities, Vyatka, Great Perm, Tver, Novgorod and other lands became part of a single state.

Ivan III was the first of the Russian princes to take the title "Sovereign of All Russia", and introduced the term "Russia" into use. He also became the liberator of Russia from the yoke. Standing on the Ugra River, which happened in 1480, marked the final victory of Russia in the struggle for its independence.

Adopted in 1497, the Sudebnik of Ivan III laid the legal foundations for overcoming feudal fragmentation. The Sudebnik had a progressive character for its time: at the end of the 15th century, not every European country could boast of uniform legislation.

The unification of the country required a new state ideology and its foundations appeared: Ivan III approved the double-headed eagle, which was used in the state symbols of Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire, as the symbol of the country.

During the life of Ivan III, the main part of the architectural ensemble of the Kremlin, which we can observe today, was created. The Russian Tsar invited Italian architects for this. Under Ivan III, about 25 churches were built in Moscow alone.

Ivan the Terrible

Ivan the Terrible is an autocrat whose reign still has very different, often opposite, assessments, but at the same time his effectiveness as a ruler is difficult to dispute.

He successfully fought against the successors of the Golden Horde, annexed the Kazan and Astrakhan kingdoms to Russia, significantly expanded the territory of the state to the east, subjugating the Great Nogai Horde and the Siberian Khan Edigey. However, the Livonian War ended with the loss of part of the land, without solving its main task - access to the Baltic Sea.
Under Grozny, diplomacy developed, Anglo-Russian contacts were established. Ivan IV was one of the most educated people of his time, possessed a phenomenal memory and erudition, wrote numerous messages himself, was the author of music and the text of the service of the feast of Our Lady of Vladimir, the canon to the Archangel Michael, developed book printing in Moscow, supported the chroniclers.

Peter I

Peter's coming to power radically changed the vector of Russia's development. The tsar “cut a window to Europe”, fought a lot and successfully, fought against the clergy, reformed the army, education and the tax system, created the first fleet in Russia, changed the tradition of chronology, and carried out a regional reform.

Peter personally met with Leibniz and Newton, was an honorary member of the Paris Academy of Sciences. By order of Peter I, books, instruments, weapons were purchased abroad, foreign craftsmen and scientists were invited to Russia.

During the reign of the emperor, Russia gained a foothold on the shores of the Sea of ​​\u200b\u200bAzov, received access to the Baltic Sea. After the Persian campaign, the western coast of the Caspian Sea with the cities of Derbent and Baku moved to Russia.

Under Peter I, outdated forms of diplomatic relations and etiquette were abolished, and permanent diplomatic missions and consulates abroad were established.

Numerous expeditions, including those to Central Asia, the Far East and Siberia, made it possible to begin a systematic study of the country's geography and develop cartography.

Catherine II

The main German on the Russian throne, Catherine II was one of the most effective Russian rulers. Under Catherine II, Russia finally gained a foothold on the Black Sea, the lands were annexed, which received the name Novorossia: the Northern Black Sea region, Crimea, and the Kuban region. Catherine took Eastern Georgia under Russian citizenship and returned the Western Russian lands torn away by the Poles.

Under Catherine II, the population of Russia increased significantly, hundreds of new cities were built, the treasury quadrupled, industry and agriculture developed rapidly - Russia began to export bread for the first time.

During the reign of the empress, paper money was introduced for the first time in Russia, a clear territorial division of the empire was carried out, a system of secondary education was created, an observatory, a physics office, an anatomical theater, a botanical garden, instrumental workshops, a printing house, a library, and an archive were founded. In 1783, the Russian Academy was founded, which became one of the leading scientific bases in Europe.

Alexander I

Alexander I - Emperor, under which Russia defeated the Napoleonic coalition. During the reign of Alexander I, the territory of the Russian Empire expanded significantly: Eastern and Western Georgia, Mingrelia, Imeretia, Guria, Finland, Bessarabia, most of Poland (which formed the Kingdom of Poland) passed into Russian citizenship.

With domestic policy, Alexander the First was not going smoothly (“Arakcheevshchina”, police measures against the opposition), but Alexander I carried out a number of reforms: merchants, petty bourgeois and state settlers were given the right to buy uninhabited lands, ministries and a cabinet of ministers were established, a decree was issued about free cultivators, who created the category of personally free peasants.

Alexander II

Alexander II went down in history as the "Liberator". Under him, serfdom was abolished. Alexander II reorganized the army, shortened the term of military service, and corporal punishment was abolished under him. Alexander II established the State Bank, carried out financial, monetary, police and university reforms.

During the reign of the emperor, the Polish uprising was suppressed, the Caucasian War ended. According to the Aigun and Beijing treaties with the Chinese Empire, Russia annexed the Amur and Ussuri regions in 1858-1860. In 1867-1873, the territory of Russia increased due to the conquest of the Turkestan Territory and the Ferghana Valley and the voluntary entry into the vassal rights of the Emirate of Bukhara and the Khiva Khanate.
What Alexander II still cannot be forgiven for is the sale of Alaska.

Alexander III

Russia spent almost its entire history in wars. There were no wars only during the reign of Alexander III.

He was called "the most Russian tsar", "Peacemaker". Sergei Witte spoke of him this way: "Emperor Alexander III, having received Russia at the confluence of the most unfavorable political conditions, deeply raised the international prestige of Russia without shedding a drop of Russian blood."
The merits of Alexander III in foreign policy were noted by France, which named the main bridge over the Seine in Paris in honor of Alexander III. Even the Emperor of Germany Wilhelm II said after the death of Alexander III: "This, indeed, was the autocratic Emperor."

In domestic politics, the activities of the emperor were also successful. A real technical revolution took place in Russia, the economy stabilized, industry developed by leaps and bounds. In 1891, Russia began building the Great Siberian Railway.

Joseph Stalin

The era of Stalin's rule was ambiguous, but it is difficult to deny that he "took over the country with a plow, and left it with a nuclear bomb." Do not forget that it was under Stalin that the USSR won the Great Patriotic War. Let's remember the numbers.
During the reign of Joseph Stalin, the population of the USSR increased from 136.8 million people in 1920 to 208.8 million in 1959. Under Stalin, the country's population became literate. According to the 1879 census, the population of the Russian Empire was 79% illiterate, by 1932 the literacy of the population had risen to 89.1%.

The total volume of industrial production per capita for 1913-1950 in the USSR increased 4 times. The growth in agricultural production by 1938 was + 45% compared to 1913 and + 100% compared to 1920.
By the end of Stalin's rule in 1953, the gold reserves had grown 6.5 times and reached 2,050 tons.

Nikita Khrushchev

Despite all the ambiguity of Khrushchev's domestic (giving back Crimea) and foreign (Cold War) policies, it was during his reign that the USSR became the world's first space power.
After Nikita Khrushchev's report at the 20th Congress of the CPSU, the country breathed more freely, a period of relative democracy began, in which citizens were not afraid to go to jail for telling a political anecdote.

During this period, there was an upsurge in Soviet culture, from which the ideological shackles were removed. The country discovered the genre of "street poetry", the poets Robert Rozhdestvensky, Andrei Voznesensky, Yevgeny Yevtushenko, Bella Akhmadulina were known by the whole country.

During the years of Khrushchev's rule, International Youth Festivals were held, Soviet people gained access to the world of imports and foreign fashion. In general, breathing in the country has become easier.