Stolypin died from his wounds a few days later. The history of this murder still contains many obscure moments.
Encyclopedic YouTube
-
1 / 5
Archivist Olga Edelman cites a fragment from an illuminated letter from Paris, from a political emigrant to an exile in Irkutsk province, September 1911: “I will tell you how we survived the message about the attempt on Stolypin. […] The audience was terribly excited: the Socialist-Revolutionaries closed their reading room, in the village. D.-sky, on the other hand, was nailed to a huge poster with a notice of a joyful event. The rumor of Stolypin's recovery forced the local syndicalist organ Bataille Syndikaliste to headline its article: “Misfortune. Stolypin, it seems, will not die again ... ”Stolypin’s death produced a very good impression at all, although R. today (8 days after the assassination attempt) they officially declare that Bogrov acted without the sanction of any party s. R. organizations".
Death of Stolypin
On September 9, Stolypin was buried in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. The refectory church, where the funeral service was held, was filled with wreaths with national ribbons, the Government, representatives of the army and navy and all civilian departments, many members of the State Council and the State Duma gathered, more than a hundred peasants from nearby villages arrived.
The tombstone from the grave of Stolypin was removed in the early 1960s and long years preserved in the bell tower at the Far Caves. The site of the grave was paved. Headstone restored to same place in 1989, with the assistance of I. Glazunov.
perpetuation of memory
7 September some members State Duma and the vowels of the local Zemstvo proposed to erect a monument to Stolypin in Kyiv. We decided to raise funds through donations. Donations came so quickly that just three days later, in Kyiv alone, an amount was collected that could cover the costs of the monument. A year later, on September 6, 1912, on the square near the City Duma, on Khreshchatyk, a monument was opened in a solemn atmosphere. Stolypin was pictured speaking, the words he said are carved on the stone: “You need great upheavals - we need Great Russia”, and on the front side of the pedestal of the monument there was an inscription: “To Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin - Russian people.”
It was demolished on March 16 (29), 1917, two weeks after the February Revolution.
Upholstered in red velvet, chair number 17 of the second row of the stalls of the Kyiv City Theater, near which Stolypin was killed, is currently located in the Museum of the History of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Kyiv.
Malovladimirskaya Street, where Stolypin died, was renamed Stolypinskaya. During the 20th century, this street was renamed six more times, now it is called Olesya Gonchara Street.
Investigation
Also in student years Bogrov was involved in revolutionary activity, was arrested several times, but was quickly released, thanks to the influence of his father, who was in the highest urban circles. In the midst of rebellious unrest in Kyiv he was a member of the Revolutionary Council of Student Representatives and at the same time conducted intelligence work. According to chief security department Kulyabko, Bogrov betrayed many revolutionaries, prevented terrorist acts and thereby earned confidence.
Directly from the theater, Bogrov was sent to the Kyiv fortress "Slanting Caponier", where he was imprisoned in solitary confinement.
When he appeared on August 16, “Styopa” […] told me that my provocation had been unconditionally and definitively established […] and that it was decided to bring all the facts collected to the attention of society […] When I began to challenge the reliability of the Paris information and the competence of the party court, "Styopa" told me that I can rehabilitate myself in only one way, namely, by committing some terrorist act. […] Whether I would shoot at Stolypin or at anyone else, I did not know, but I finally settled on Stolypin already in the theater.
The history of this extraordinary case is still fraught with a lot of ambiguities. None Political Party did not claim responsibility for the murder. The most common version was this: after being exposed by the revolutionaries, the Okhrana agent was forced to kill Stolypin. Information about Trotsky's appearance in Kyiv on the eve of Trotsky's assassination that got into the press also indirectly testifies to this.
At the same time, the circumstances of the assassination suggest that it became possible thanks to the negligence of the Okhrana, which is akin to malice.
According to one version, the assassination attempt was organized with the help of the security department. Many facts point to this, for example, a ticket to the theater was issued to Bogrov by the head of the Kyiv security department N. N. Kulyabko with the consent of P. G. Kurlov, A. I. Spiridovich and M. N. Verigin, while Bogrov was not assigned observation.
According to another version, Kulyabko was misled by Bogrov: he told him that he had entered into the confidence of a certain “Nikolai Yakovlevich”, who was going to make an attempt on Stolypin, so as not to arouse suspicion in “N. I." Bogrov must be present at the scene of the assassination attempt. At the same time, no measures were taken by Kulyabko to verify the legend of Bogrov. According to the memories Kyiv governor Girs, Stolypin's guards in the city were poorly organized.
To investigate the circumstances of the case, a senatorial audit was appointed, headed by Senator M. I. Trusevich. At the beginning of 1912, the results of the commission, which took up 24 volumes, were transferred to State Council. The report raised the issue of "exceeding and inaction of power, which had a very important implications”And the perpetrators were named - Comrade Minister Kurlov, Vice-Director Verigin, head of the palace guard Spiridovich and head of the Kyiv security department Kulyabko. Inaction was expressed in passive attitude to the legend given by Bogrov, which no one has verified, the excess of power is that, contrary to clear circulars, he was admitted to the ceremonial performance. As a result, these persons were brought to preliminary investigation as accused of criminal inaction of the authorities.
The leadership of the investigation was entrusted to Senator N. Z. Shulgin. During the investigation, Kurlov stated that “I did not make a special order for Kulyabka to establish surveillance over the personality of Alensky himself (Bogrov’s undercover pseudonym), believing that such an elementary search method cannot be missed by an experienced head of the security department.”
In the testimony of Kulyabko, a significant circumstance is noticeable: he refuses an extremely important testimony. At first he declared that he could not consider himself guilty of the misfortune that had occurred, since Bogrov was admitted to the theater with the knowledge of General Kurlov. Then he changed his testimony, saying that he "allowed Bogrov to enter the theater without the knowledge of Kurlov and specifically asked that these testimony be considered valid." The reason for this change was seen in a letter found during a search at the wife of Kulyabko, who was the sister of Spiridovich. It contained a threat:
If they put me in the dock, then I will also remember that I have a wife and a child, and then I will discard all scrupulousness and put the question point-blank about all the conspiracy that was carried out regarding me on September 1. They wanted to do it without me, well, they did it, it doesn’t matter, it just happened.
Unexpectedly, at the beginning of 1913, the case was closed on behalf of Nicholas II.
public attitude to what happened was different: from disappointment and annoyance to undisguised indignation. Prominent Russian lawyer and public figure A.F. Koni wrote about this:
Having repeatedly betrayed Stolypin and placed him in a defenseless position in relation to open and secret enemies, the “adored monarch” did not find it possible to be at the funeral of the murdered man, but found an opportunity to stop the case of connivance with the murderers.
Notes
- Protocol interrogation lieutenant colonel N.N. Kulyabko. website www.hrono.info (2.11.1911). Retrieved January 26, 2011. Archived from the original on August 11, 2011.
- Stolypin Pyotr Arkadyevich website www.chrono.info. Retrieved January 30, 2011. Archived from the original on August 11, 2011.
Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin (April 2, 1862, Dresden, Saxony - September 5, 1911, Kyiv) - statesman Russian Empire. AT different years served as district marshal of the nobility in Kovno, governor of Grodno and Saratov province, Minister of the Interior, Prime Minister.
AT Russian history At the beginning of the 20th century, he is known primarily as a reformer and statesman who played a significant role in the suppression of the revolution of 1905-1907. In April 1906, Emperor Nicholas II offered Stolypin the post of Minister of the Interior of Russia. Shortly thereafter, the government was dissolved along with the State Duma of the 1st convocation, and Stolypin was appointed as the new prime minister.
On the new position, which he occupied until his death, Stolypin spent whole line bills that went down in history as the Stolypin agrarian reform, the main content of which was the introduction of a private peasant land ownership. The law on courts-martial adopted by the government increased the penalties for serious crimes. Subsequently, Stolypin was sharply criticized for the rigidity of the measures taken. Among other activities of Stolypin as prime minister, the introduction of zemstvos in the western provinces, the restriction of the autonomy of the Grand Duchy of Finland, the change in electoral legislation and the dissolution of the Second Duma, which put an end to the revolution of 1905-1907, are of particular importance.
During speeches to the deputies of the State Duma, oratorical skills Stolypin. His phrases "Do not intimidate!" and "They need great upheavals, we need a great Russia" became winged.
Of the personal traits of his contemporaries, his fearlessness was especially distinguished. 11 attempts were planned and made on Stolypin. During the last, committed in Kyiv by Dmitry Bogrov, Stolypin received mortal wound from which he died a few days later.
If we briefly formulate who Pyotr Stolypin was, then, first of all, two simple words: reformer and patriot. The combination is amazing, which in our country has met and is extremely rare. I can name only Peter the Great and, perhaps, Grigory Potemkin and Alexander II as his predecessors in Russia. Of our contemporaries, there is no one to name yet. \ Moscow State social university \.
Who interfered with Stolypin?
The high-profile political murder committed at the Kyiv Opera has not been solved so far
Stolypin Pyotr Arkadyevich - statesman. Descended from the old noble family. He spent his childhood and early youth mainly in Lithuania, leaving for Switzerland for the summer. He studied at the Vilna gymnasium.
Graduated from Petersburg University. He served in the western provinces until the age of forty, i.e. most life lived outside the central historical Russia. From 1884 he served in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, from 1899 - district, and then provincial marshal of the nobility, from 1902 - governor of Grodno province, from February 1903 to April 1906 - Saratov province, where he led the suppression of peasant unrest during the revolution 1905 - 1907. On April 26, 1906, Stolypin was appointed Minister of the Interior, and on July 8, 1906 - at the same time Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire. In 1907 - 1911 determined government policy. In 1906, he proclaimed a course of socio-political reforms.In August 1906, the first of 11 assassination attempts was made on Stolypin. At the ministerial dacha, many visitors died from a bomb explosion, Stolypin's son and daughter were injured, but he himself was not injured.
Reformer of All Russia
Under the leadership of Stolypin, a number of major bills were developed, including on the reform local government, the introduction of universal primary education, religious tolerance.
On June 3, 1907, the Second Duma was dissolved, the electoral law was changed (the "June 3 coup"), after which the Stolypin government received "appeasement" and was able to move on to reforms, the main of which was agrarian.
Low level of efficiency Agriculture in Russia, experts explained the existence of a community that impeded the development of a market economy. In their opinion, the problem was not absolute, but relative land hunger; it is necessary to strive not to provide additional allotments of land, but to increase the productivity of peasant labor.
Stolypin's idea was to solve the agrarian problem without affecting landownership, enriching some peasants at the expense of others. After the destruction of the community, the land was to become the property of strong peasants, the ruined would go to work in urban industry and will be relocated to the outskirts of the country. Following the emergence of a layer of personal owners in the countryside, Stolypin intended to provide them with economic and political equality through reforms. local government and courts and thus creating a powerful support for the monarchy.
The development of the land market was hindered by the restriction of the peasants in their right to dispose of the allotment, the establishment of the maximum and minimum sizes land plots for possession, and they were even called not private, but personal property.
The results of Stolypin's reforms, their economic and political impact are usually determined on the basis of statistical data, but various historians interpret them differently: the liberal ones say that Stolypin simply did not have enough time, the Soviet ones - about the failure of the reforms.
If speak about ultimate goals reforms, they were not achieved, and in this sense the reforms failed. But private results are very tangible: thanks to a system of political, economic and financial measures carried out from 1906 to 1915, up to a quarter of households emerged from the community, providing up to half of the market grain and raising their efficiency with the help of agricultural machinery and fertilizers. But in the absence of a social basis for reforms, with the conservatism of both the landlord and small-peasant economy, and most importantly, in the absence of time (Stolypin asked for 20 years of rest), Stolypin failed to become the Russian Bismarck.
The independent position of Stolypin restored the nobility against him, proving to Nicholas II that the prime minister was transferring power to the bourgeoisie; an open clash with Grigory Rasputin aroused the enmity of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. His influence was waning.
The obstacles placed on Stolypin "from above" accelerated the solution of the accumulated problems by the revolutionary upheaval of 1917.
Version one: a victim of palace intrigues
... According to one version, Nicholas II himself wanted to get rid of Stolypin. But since the prime minister stubbornly did not resign, and the weak-willed sovereign did not dare to dismiss him, the Okhrana, having received a corresponding hint, did what was expected of it.
Stolypin came to power after the 1905 revolution. Nicholas II reluctantly agreed to some constitutional restrictions on his autocratic power. The prime minister had to maintain an unstable balance. On the one hand, the reactionary tsar with his even more reactionary entourage. On the other hand, there was the left opposition, which had neither the experience of practical politics nor the desire to compromise. As Stolypin himself rightly said to a certain extent: "They need great upheavals; we need a great Russia."
The reforms, which the prime minister carried out tough and purposefully, have borne fruit: about 9 million peasants have become owners of land. And thanks to the pre-war harvests, such a stock of grain was created that Bolshevik Russia was fed on it for several years. But the decisive actions and incorruptible honesty of the prime minister gave rise to many enemies of ill-wishers. Political course, outlined by Stolypin, caused sharp criticism of him from both left and right political forces.
In 1908, in the funds mass media the real bullying began. The conservatives accused the premier of indecision and inaction, the liberals labeled him the "all-Russian governor", the socialist parties sharply criticized domestic policy, called the pre-minister a "chief hangman" and a "pogromist".
By the beginning of 1911, Stolypin's relationship with the tsar had deteriorated sharply. Nicholas II feared the usurpation of power by the prime minister. Indeed, Pyotr Arkadyevich allowed himself to have own opinion even in those cases when it was at odds with the position of the king. He could make impartial remarks to Nicholas II, for example, that the role of Grigory Rasputin in the court should not be allowed to rise. Palace dignitaries weaved intrigues behind Stolypin's back, quarreling him with the empress, who believed that the tsar was in the shadow of an active prime minister. When Alexandra Fedorovna was informed that at dinner with Stolypin's wife the officers were armed, which was accepted only at the royal table, she said: "Well, there were still two queens, now there will be three."
Version two: the hand of the Bolsheviks
Some historians believe that the Bolsheviks, led by Ulyanov-Lenin, are to blame for the death of the influential Russian prime minister, who admitted that "with his successful policy, Stolypin knocks the ground out from under the Bolsheviks." By the way, this version is also not without reason, because hiding behind many pseudonyms cousin Dmitry Bogrov - Sergei (Veniamin) Evseevich Bogrov, better known as Nikolai Valentinov, was a good friend of Lenin. But in his literary biographies, Bogrov-Valentinov did not utter a word about such a remarkable connection. Meanwhile from various sources it follows that his influence on Dmitry Bogrov when they lived together in a St. Petersburg apartment was quite large.
It is also interesting that Lenin, who came to power in 1918, personally helps Dmitry Bogrov's relative, Valentina Lvovna Bogrova, and his brother, Vladimir Bogrov, leave Russia for Germany, and then tolerates Bogrov - Valentinov in his government in the diplomatic service, despite the previous quarrel with him, about which the latter wrote in detail in his "Meetings with Lenin", widely known in Russia.
By the way, immediately after the death of the prime minister, following the foreign left-wing press, which did not hide its delight in connection with the assassination of Stolypin, Lenin in the article "Stolypin and the Revolution" frankly expresses hopes for a turn in Russian history and hangs odious labels on the deceased.
tragic ending
... In August 1911, Stolypin rested in his estate in Kolnobrye, where he worked on new projects that he was going to present at a meeting of the Duma. But both work and leisure had to be interrupted due to a trip to Kyiv, where a monument to Alexander II was to be unveiled.
Stay in Kyiv began with an insult. Stolypin could not find a place in the cars in which the royal retinue followed - he was clearly given to understand that he was superfluous. The Chairman of the Council of Ministers had to look for a cab (!). When the retinue slowed down, Grigory Rasputin looked around, saw Stolypin and yelled "Death is after him, Death is coming after him. For Peter ... after him!"
The decisive events unfolded in early September. Kulyabko, the head of the Kyiv security department, reported on the impending assassination attempt to the Kyiv governor-general Trepov, who informed Stolypin about this and asked him not to walk around the city.
When the killer - Bogrov appeared at the Kyiv Opera, Stolypin was at that time facing the stalls. Bogrov approached the Prime Minister and fired two shots. One bullet hit his arm and the other hit his stomach. Stolypin died in Makovsky's private clinic. The bullet hit the liver, and this decided the matter, medicine turned out to be helpless.
Pyotr Arkadyevich wanted to be buried where death would overtake him. The ashes of the prime minister were interred in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, near the grave of Iskra and Kochubey. The royal court coldly said goodbye to the great reformer.
Former subordinates feverishly tried on the prime minister's uniform. Enemies frankly angered about the death an honest man. And Russia? Russia immediately found itself in new era. Here is how the Novoe Vremya newspaper wrote about it the next morning after Stolypin's death: new chapter". We all read the content of this chapter in our destinies.
Watch in advance "Logicology - about the fate of man".
Consider the FULL NAME code tables. \If there is a shift in numbers and letters on your screen, adjust the image scale\.
18 37 52 64 92 108 118 132 148 155 174 191 192 209 220 221 226 255 261 264 274 298
TABLES P I N P Y O T R A R K A D E V I C
298 280 261 246 234 206 190 180 166 150 143 124 107 106 89 78 77 72 43 37 34 2416 23 42 59 60 77 88 89 94 123 129 132 142 166 184 203 218 230 258 274 284 298
P E T R A R K A D E V I C S O L P I N
298 282 275 256 239 238 221 210 209 204 175 169 166 156 132 114 95 80 68 40 24 14PETER ARKADIEVICH STOLYPIN = 298 = MONSTERIOUS CRIME.
298 = 76-WILL DIE + 222-BULLET LIVER.
AT this case figures 77 and 221 have been corrected.
Let's do a reading individual words and suggestions:
STOLYPIN = 132 = DEATH.
PETER ARKADIEVICH = 166 = BLOODSHED, BLOOD LOSS.
298 \u003d 132-LEAVING LIFE + 166-BLOOD LOSS.
166 - 132 \u003d 34 \u003d DEATH \ b \.
STOLYPIN PETER \u003d 191 \u003d VIOLENT \u003d DEATH FROM WOUNDING.
ARKADIEVICH \u003d 107 \u003d BREATHLESS, BLOODY \ e \, END \ e \, VILLAINY.
191 - 107 = 84 = END
298 = 84 + 214-LIFE IS ENDED.
ARKADIEVICH STOLYPIN = 239 = MALICIOUS MURDER.
PETER = 59 = DEAD.
239 - 59 \u003d 180 \u003d SHOT, ABDOMINAL CAVITY \u003d 14-TROUBLE + 166-BLOOD LOSS.
298 \u003d 180 + 118-COMATOSIS
DATE OF BIRTH code: 2.\ 14 \.04. 1862. This = 2 + 04 + 18 + 62 = 86 = DIE.
298 = 86 + 212-BULLET LIVER \ and \.
Code DATE OF DEATH: 5. \ 18 \. 09.1911. This is = 5 + 09 + 19 + 11 = 44 = DEATH, DEATH, KILLED.
298 = 44 + 254-END OF EXISTENCE.
298 = 228 + 70-EXODUS.
Code of the full DATE OF DEATH = 228-FIFTH OF SEPTEMBER + 30- \ code of the YEAR OF DEATH \ = 258 = 166-BLOOD LOSS + 92-FROM A BULLET.
Let's look at the column:
258 = BLOOD LOSS FROM BULLET
_________________________________________________
68 = WOUNDED258 - 68 = 190 = LIFE IS INTERRUPTED.
Code for the number of COMPLETE YEARS OF LIFE = 76-FORTY + 94-NINE = 170 = SHOOTING.
298 = 170-FORTY-NINE + 128-SHOOTED WITH A REVOLVER.
Recently, Russian President V.V. Putin invited the government ministers to "throw in" on the monument to the great reformer Pyotr Stolypin, who loved Russia more than his life. More than a hundred years have passed since tragic events, which will be discussed, but the memory of an outstanding Russian person should not be erased from the memory of descendants.
Russia was an agricultural country. Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin was sure that the outdated way of life for the peasants was pulling Russia back. They developed a project peasant reform, and he, with all his perseverance, began to introduce it into life.
Pyotr Stolypin came from an old noble family. One could envy his career: Grodno, then Saratov mayor, and in April 1906, Minister of the Interior. Being a minister of a very difficult direction, he showed himself as an uncompromising fighter against troublemakers. In the summer of 1906, he became chairman of the Council of Ministers, retaining his previous position. The day after his appointment, Nicholas II dissolved the State Duma. Stolypin understood that it was urgent to implement a program to overcome the social and political crisis which brought the state to the brink of collapse. Pyotr Arkadyevich believed that the peasantry, having received more rights and state guarantees, would become the backbone of the monarchy in the future. The same peasants who wish to move to the city will become the main labor force in the growing industry.
Stolypin partially succeeded in realizing his plan. The Peasants' Bank, which he created, sold state lands to peasants on preferential terms, which significantly strengthened the country's agricultural sector. The government, led by Stolypin, implemented a number of measures that made it possible to resettle a significant part of the peasants on the outskirts of the empire. So, more than 3 million people moved beyond the Urals. These settlers became the main driving force economic recovery of Siberia. Under the supervision of Stolypin, new agro-industrial services were created, organized training courses on dairy production, animal husbandry, the study of new forms of agriculture.
The result of these efforts was so significant that long time achievements in all sectors were compared with the results achieved in 1910 under Stolypin. So, in 1910, Russia took first place in the world in the export of wheat. Stolypin repeatedly told the sovereign that "20 years of peace" were required to implement the planned reforms. But the first World War made adjustments to these plans. Stolypin did not receive support for his reforms, not only from Nicholas II, but also from senior government officials.
Today it is impossible to say with certainty on whose orders the persecution of Pyotr Stolypin began. In August 1906, there was an explosion at the prime minister's dacha. Stolypin himself was not injured, but 27 people were killed and the daughter and son of the reformer were wounded. Stolypin and his family moved to Winter Palace where you don't have to worry about the lives of loved ones. A decree was immediately issued on the establishment of courts-martial, where the verdict took no more than 48 hours. During the year, these courts handed down 1,102 death sentences. Control and censorship of assemblies were tightened.
In 1907, Nicholas II dissolved the II State Duma, which was considered "leftist". It was clear to everyone that this decision was made at the request of Stolypin, whose government received the time of "appeasement" that he needed so much.
Stolypin's life turned into a continuous struggle with " the mighty of the world» for the implementation of reforms so necessary for the state. 1911 was no exception. This summer, they planned to open a monument to Alexander II in Kyiv. The emperor and all the top officials, including Prime Minister Stolypin, were invited to the celebration. For guests in the theater they gave the opera "The Tale of Tsar Saltan". During the intermission, an unknown person approached Stolypin and mortally wounded the prime minister with point-blank shots.
The killer, Bogrov, was an informer of the security department and came to the theater on a ticket signed personally by the head of the Kyiv secret police. And although it is believed that Bogrov played some kind of double game, it is likely that in this case he carried out a very specific order to eliminate an outstanding political leader. So the deputy of the 3rd State Duma A. Guchkov said: "... it is impossible to make out who killed the prime minister - the revolutionaries or the police." The Prosecutor General believed that Minister of the Interior Kurlov and the head of the Kyiv Okhrana Kulyabko and other officials who had not fulfilled their obligations should be held accountable. job responsibilities and created an environment that made it possible to carry out this attempt on the life of the Prime Minister.
But, what, in end result, the leaders of the security services went unpunished, confirms the version of the imperial approval of this murder. And the Okhrana became the executor of this order. What could be feared by the emperor, who chose such cruel way destroying your closest official? Most likely, there were several reasons, but they were all against Stolypin, who had great political weight. The illiterate peasant G. Rasputin, whose influence on royal family was known to everyone.
But for everyone, the only accused was only Bogrov, who lived only 11 days after the assassination attempt on Stolypin. During the investigation, he stated that he considers Stolypin "the main culprit of the reaction that has begun in Russia." And although Stolypin's widow believed that the investigation was not carried out carefully, and the execution of the criminal should be postponed, Bogrov was executed with great haste.
So what versions of the causes of these tragic events exist today?
The first version is a provocation. Bogrov was a professional Okhrana agent. During his service, the provocateur betrayed more than 100 of his fellow revolutionaries to the security department. Most likely, his fellow anarchists suspected him of collaborating with the Okhrana, so Bogrov had to kill one of the top officials of the state in order to prove his commitment revolutionary movement. During the investigation, Bogrov said: “About August 15, an anarchist came to me, told me that I had finally been recognized as a provocateur, and threatened to print it and announce it to the public.” He was offered to rehabilitate himself by carrying out a terrorist act.
The second version is negligence. Bogrov was not an Okhrana agent. The slander was deliberately launched on the orders of the head of the Kyiv secret police, Kulyabko, in order to justify his failure to ensure the safety of the first persons of the state. This slip could call into question the work of the entire system of political investigation of the empire. Here is the entry in the documents of those times: “Thus, in relation to all four defendants (Kurlov, Spiridovich, Verigin and Kulyabko) in the present case, the inaction of the authorities, as well as the threat to the life of the sovereign and his family, should be considered established. Bogrov had every opportunity to approach the royal box during the performance or even take a projectile with him to the theater and throw it into the box when committing the murder of Stolypin, which misfortune did not happen only thanks to the attacker himself, who did not dare to such an encroachment.
The third version is the emperor. Was Nicholas II interested in the death of his prime minister? The popularity of Stolypin has already overshadowed the personality of the emperor himself. The official himself delivered an ultimatum to Nicholas II - he threatened to resign if the emperor would actively interfere with the peasant reform. Nicholas II was very angry with Stolypin. The tsar is said to have repeatedly spoken out about his bad luck with the appointment of prime ministers. Stolypin did not have a relationship with a prominent figure closest to the emperor. statesman of that time - by Count Witte, who skillfully whispered negative information about the prime minister to the emperor. Pyotr Arkadyevich knew that his position under royal court not firmly, and at any time Nicholas II can expel him, as the very last lackey. From archival documents it is known that the emperor, appointing Kokovtsev to the post of prime minister after the death of Stolypin, said: “I hope you will not overshadow me the way Stolypin did?”
Version four - Rasputin. Gregory was one of those close to royal family man. Stolypin repeatedly told the emperor that it was unacceptable for a semi-literate peasant with a dubious reputation to approach him. But I heard, in practice, one answer from Nicholas II: “I agree with you, Pyotr Arkadyevich, but let ten Rasputins be better than one hysteria of the empress.” By order of Stolypin, Rasputin's police department was placed under surveillance, but was soon removed on the personal instructions of the tsar. Rasputin predicted the imminent death of the Prime Minister: "Death came for him, here she is, here!". It is these statements of Rasputin that can serve as proof that Rasputin was connected with the murder of Pyotr Stolypin. It's no secret that Stolypin's death was very beneficial to Rasputin.
And although so much time has passed, none of the versions has received so far conclusive evidence, which means that the mystery of the death of the great Russian reformer has not been revealed.
No related links found
In a fairly short period of time, from 1905 to 1911, 11 assassination attempts were planned and committed on Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin, the last of them achieved its goal. September 1 (14), 1911 in Kyiv in the city theater at the play "The Tale of Tsar Saltan" this really great person received two bullets, one wound became fatal. Emperor Nicholas II and his family also attended the performance. It was the strongest blow to Russia and personally to the emperor, they removed smartest person who saved the empire and was against Russia's participation in the world war.
Although the agrarian reform of P. Stolypin cannot be called unequivocally positive (as well as collectivization in the USSR), for example, from 1905 to 1910, per 100 inhabitants in the European part of Russia, the number of horses decreased from 23 to 18, the number of cattle - from 36 to 26 goals; the average grain yield fell from 37.9 poods per tithe in 1900-1905 to 35.2 poods in 1906-1910. Grain production per capita in the empire fell from 25 poods in 1901-1905 to 22 poods in 1905-1910. And in 1911, a famine began that swept the provinces with a population of 30 million people.
But this reform was necessary for Russia, as a country that needed industrialization, the Russian Empire entered the 20th century as a predominantly peasant country, with almost 80% rural population, and many provincial cities, towns actually did not differ from villages. Russian peasantry largely preserved the traditions of a thousand years ago, being the most traditional part of the Russian world. And the state had to transfer it to the "new rails" of management. To do this, it was necessary to deprive a significant part of the peasantry of their land allotment, they moved to the cities and became workers, increasing the country's economic opportunities.Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire and head of the key Ministry of the Interior P.A. Stolypin decided to reform peasant class due to the destruction of the communal way of farming in favor of the medium and large landowner (“strong owners”). The peasants, who could not "stand on their feet" under the new conditions, went bankrupt, sold their land allotment and became farm laborers, moved to the city, looking for a new share. There, some of the former farmers nevertheless became lumpen, who never accepted the urban way of life. The process of industrialization of the empire required state power all more workers, and there was nowhere to take them, except from the peasants. Therefore, constantly strengthening capitalist relations among the peasants, the state actually deliberately went to the ruin of a part of the peasantry so that they would become workers in the cities. Moreover, in the Russian Empire, this process took place in a relatively "sparing" mode, for example, in contrast to England, where the so-called. "fencing" actually eliminated the peasant class (with "bloody legislation", the forcible removal of people from their land, with no alternatives other than vagrancy and slave labor in "workhouses"). It began with the reform of 1861 and dragged on until the beginning of the 20th century. In 1908, compulsory free universal elementary education more than 10,000 openings every year. public schools, their number by 1913 had grown to 130,000.
It is clear that the peasantry did not care about the high intentions of the sovereign people, it resisted, sabotaged these undertakings. If in the first revolution of 1905-1907 the peasantry, in its overwhelming part, became the backbone of the empire - pouring into the so-called by the thousands. "Black Hundred organizations", advocating the stability of the power, then after the start agrarian reform moods have changed, since 1911 the peasants are increasingly imbued with the ideas of the revolutionaries - mainly the Socialist-Revolutionaries (Socialist-Revolutionaries). Their program of land socialization (the abolition of private ownership of land, its transformation into public property without the right to buy and sell, the land was transferred to the management of local governments, the use of land was to become egalitarian labor) largely corresponded to the aspirations of most of the peasantry. They then supported the slogan "Land to the peasants, factories to the workers".
Is Stolypin to blame for the revolution and the death of the empire, and therefore the Romanov family? No, Stolypin was a true statesman and patriot of his Motherland, who understood the dangers of the "world behind the scenes" operating in Russia through its periphery in the form of Freemasonry and "professional revolutionaries." He could not be broken or intimidated: "Do not intimidate!" The transfer of the peasantry to new forms of management (with a predominance of medium and large farms), industrialization were necessary for the empire as air. The leading world powers already possessed a huge industrial potential (as british empire, USA, German Empire), some powers rapidly strengthened their industrial and military power(Germany, Japan), there was an arms race on the planet, everything was heading towards a world war. Russia had to be prepared for it. In fact, Stolypin, with the support of the emperor, did what Stalin later did with his collectivization and industrialization. Only Stalin had worse starting conditions- consequences of the First World War, civil war, liquidation or expulsion of most of the old managerial and scientific elite, plus opposition, sabotage by the "Trotskyists". Stolypin and Nicholas II did not have Stalin's experience in the field of "behind the scenes" underground activities, so they could not correctly assess the scale of the threat from the revolutionary and Masonic "underground". This ruined them - when Stolypin was removed, the emperor could no longer complete what he started, Russia was dragged into the war. They lacked just a few years, in this sense, the famous words of Stolypin are quite correct: “The state will have healthy and strong roots, believe me - and the words of the Russian Government will sound completely different before Europe and before the whole world ... Friendly, common, based on mutual trust work is the motto for all of us, Russians. Give the State 20 years of peace, internal and external, and you will not recognize today's Russia.
True, Stalin went further and made things wiser than Stolypin: in fact, there was a revival of the community on a new technical base, through the creation of machine and tractor stations (MTS) and the introduction of new agro-technical achievements. backward peasant labor, rural life turned into urban production in the countryside, with the creation of associations and complexes, this was completely impossible under the Western, capitalist way of doing business, but only with state ownership of the means of production and land, plus the development of creative, scientific and technical capabilities of the villagers - all kinds of houses of creativity , clubs, etc. But Stolypin was deprived of such an opportunity, he believed that a large owner in the village would be interested in the mechanization of agricultural production, in increasing crop yields and increasing livestock. Unfortunately, this did not happen, large and medium-sized owners chose to make super profits by minimizing the wages of laborers, as well as a significant increase in prices for agricultural products. This made the so-called. “kulaks” by merchants, new capitalists (“new Russians” of that time), who despised the peasant environment (“cattle”) from which they themselves came out. As a result, a real new class exploiters, who was hated by the majority of the peasants, this eventually led a significant part of the peasantry to the camp of the revolutionaries.
Therefore, Stalin actually continued the work of Stolypin and the sovereigns of the Russian Empire, not only in the region foreign policy, but in domestic politics, in creating a world Russian state. Having carefully studied the legacy of the empire that he inherited (Stalin read a lot), he brought to life many projects of the Russian Empire. As a result, the death of the Russian Empire did not become fatal for the people and Russian statehood, Stalin was able to create a great USSR.
Nicholas II, for all his weaknesses and shortcomings, like Stolypin, was not a traitor to Russia and the Russian people, therefore, unlike a number of other representatives of the Romanov dynasty and the elite of the Russian Empire, he was not allowed to end his life in luxury, in Europe. Nikolai and his family were brutally killed as an enemy of the "world behind the scenes."
Sources:
Borodin A.P. Stolypin. Reforms in the name of Russia. 2004.
Dorofeev V. E. Stalinism: people's monarchy. M., 2006.
http://www.stolypin.ru/publications/?ELEMENT_ID=485Archivist Olga Edelman cites a fragment from an illuminated letter from Paris, from a political emigrant, to an exile in the Irkutsk province, September 1911: “I will tell you how we survived the message about the attempt on Stolypin. […] The audience was terribly excited: the Socialist-Revolutionaries closed their reading room, in the village. D.-sky, on the other hand, was nailed to a huge poster with a notice of a joyful event. The rumor of Stolypin's recovery forced the local syndicalist organ Bataille Syndikaliste to headline its article: "Misfortune. Stolypin, it seems, will not die again…” Stolypin's death made a very good impression on everyone, although p. R. today (8 days after the assassination attempt) they officially declare that Bogrov acted without the sanction of any party s. R. organizations".
Death of Stolypin
On September 9, Stolypin was buried in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. The refectory church, where the funeral service was held, was filled with wreaths with national ribbons, the Government, representatives of the army and navy and all civil departments, many members of the State Council and the State Duma gathered, more than a hundred peasants from nearby villages arrived.
The tombstone from Stolypin's grave was removed in the early 1960s and kept for many years in the bell tower in the Far Caves. The site of the grave was paved. The tombstone was restored in its original place in 1989 with the assistance of I. Glazunov.
perpetuation of memory
On September 7, some members of the State Duma and councilors of the local Zemstvo proposed that a monument be erected to Stolypin in Kyiv. We decided to raise funds through donations. Donations came so quickly that just three days later, in Kyiv alone, an amount was collected that could cover the costs of the monument. A year later, on September 6, 1912, on the square near the City Duma, on Khreshchatyk, a monument was opened in a solemn atmosphere. Stolypin was depicted speaking a speech, the words he said were carved on the stone: “You need great upheavals - we need Great Russia”, and on the front side of the pedestal of the monument there was an inscription: “To Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin - Russian people”.
Demolished on March 16 (29), 1917, two weeks after the February Revolution.
Upholstered in red velvet, chair number 17 of the second row of the stalls of the Kyiv City Theater, near which Stolypin was killed, is currently located in the Museum of the History of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Kyiv.
Malovladimirskaya Street, where Stolypin died, was renamed Stolypinskaya. During the 20th century, this street was renamed six more times, now it is called Oles Gonchar Street.
Investigation
Even in his student years, Bogrov was involved in revolutionary activities, was arrested several times, but was quickly released, thanks to the influence of his father, who was in the highest urban circles. At the height of the rebellious unrest in Kyiv, he was a member of the Revolutionary Council of Student Representatives and at the same time conducted intelligence work. According to the testimony of the head of the security department, Kulyabko, Bogrov betrayed many revolutionaries, prevented terrorist acts, and thus earned confidence.
Directly from the theater, Bogrov was sent to the Kyiv fortress " Oblique Caponier", where he was imprisoned in solitary confinement.
When he appeared on August 16, “Styopa” […] told me that my provocation had been unconditionally and definitively established […] and that it was decided to bring all the facts collected to the attention of society […] When I began to challenge the reliability of the Paris information and the competence of the party court, "Styopa" told me that I can rehabilitate myself in only one way, namely, by committing some kind of terrorist act. […] Whether I would shoot at Stolypin or at anyone else, I did not know, but I finally settled on Stolypin already in the theater.
The history of this extraordinary case is still fraught with a lot of ambiguities. No political party claimed responsibility for this murder. The most common version was this: after being exposed by the revolutionaries, the Okhrana agent was forced to kill Stolypin. Information about Trotsky's appearance in Kyiv on the eve of Trotsky's assassination that got into the press also indirectly testifies to this.
At the same time, the circumstances of the assassination suggest that it became possible due to the negligence of the Okhrana, which is akin to malicious intent.
According to one version, the assassination attempt was organized with the help of the security department. Many facts point to this, for example, a ticket to the theater was issued to Bogrov by the head of the Kyiv security department N. N. Kulyabko with the consent of P. G. Kurlov, A. I. Spiridovich and M. N. Verigin, while Bogrov was not assigned observation.
According to another version, Kulyabko was misled by Bogrov: he told him that he had entered into the confidence of a certain “Nikolai Yakovlevich”, who was going to make an attempt on Stolypin, so as not to arouse suspicion in “N. I." Bogrov must be present at the scene of the assassination attempt. At the same time, no measures were taken by Kulyabko to verify the legend of Bogrov. According to the memoirs of the Kyiv governor Girs, Stolypin's guards in the city were poorly organized.
To investigate the circumstances of the case, a senatorial audit was appointed, headed by Senator M. I. Trusevich. At the beginning of 1912, the results of the commission, which took up 24 volumes, were submitted to the Council of State. The report raised the question of "exceeding and inaction of power, which had very important consequences" and named the perpetrators - Comrade Minister Kurlov, Vice-Director Verigin, head of the palace guard Spiridovich and head of the Kyiv security department Kulyabko. Inaction was expressed in a passive attitude towards the legend given by Bogrov, which no one checked, an excess of power - in the fact that, contrary to clear circulars, he was admitted to the ceremonial performance. As a result, these persons were brought to preliminary investigation as accused of criminal inaction of the authorities.
The leadership of the investigation was entrusted to Senator N. Z. Shulgin. During the investigation, Kurlov stated that “I did not make a special order for Kulyabka to establish surveillance over the personality of Alensky himself (Bogrov’s undercover pseudonym), believing that such an elementary search method cannot be missed by an experienced head of the security department.”
In the testimony of Kulyabko, a significant circumstance is noticeable: he refuses an extremely important testimony. At first he declared that he could not consider himself guilty of the misfortune that had occurred, since Bogrov was admitted to the theater with the knowledge of General Kurlov. Then he changed his testimony, saying that he "allowed Bogrov to enter the theater without the knowledge of Kurlov and specifically asked that these testimony be considered valid." The reason for this change was seen in a letter found during a search at the wife of Kulyabko, who was the sister of Spiridovich. It contained a threat:
If they put me in the dock, then I will also remember that I have a wife and a child, and then I will discard all scrupulousness and put the question point-blank about all the conspiracy that was carried out regarding me on September 1. They wanted to do it without me, well, they did it, it doesn’t matter, it just happened.
Unexpectedly, at the beginning of 1913, the case was closed on behalf of Nicholas II.
The public attitude to what happened was different: from disappointment and annoyance to undisguised indignation. A prominent Russian lawyer and public figure A.F. Koni wrote about this:
Having repeatedly betrayed Stolypin and placed him in a defenseless position in relation to open and secret enemies, the “adored monarch” did not find it possible to be at the funeral of the murdered man, but found an opportunity to stop the case of connivance with the murderers.
Notes
- Protocol of interrogation of Lieutenant Colonel N.N. Kulyabko (indefinite) . website www.hrono.info (2.11.1911). Retrieved January 26, 2011. Archived from the original on August 11, 2011.
- Stolypin Petr Arkadievich (indefinite) . website www.chrono.info. Retrieved January 30, 2011. Archived from the original on August 11, 2011.
- http://www.ruthenia.ru/logos/number/56/10.pdf
- The mystery of the murder of Stolypin (indefinite) . website www.chrono.info. Retrieved January 26, 2011. Archived from the original on August 11, 2011.
