When and by which of the Russian rulers. Who ruled Russia most successfully? The myth that under the Tsar Russia was a backward country
Unlike modern democracies, Imperial Russia based its policy not only on deficit-free budgets, but also on the principle of significant accumulation of gold reserves. Despite this, state revenues grew steadily from 1,410,000,000 rubles in 1897, without the slightest increase in the tax burden, while state expenditures remained more or less at the same level.
Over the last 10 years before the First World War, the excess of government revenues over expenses amounted to 2,400,000,000 rubles. This figure seems all the more impressive since during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, railway tariffs were lowered and redemption payments for lands transferred to the peasants from their former landowners in 1861 were abolished, and in 1914, with the outbreak of the war, all types of drinking taxes were abolished.
During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, by law of 1896, a gold currency was introduced in Russia, and the State Bank was authorized 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, bank notes were in circulation in the amount of 1,633,000,000 rubles, while the gold reserve in Russia it was equal to 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 banknotes 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 as much as in Austria, France, Germany and England.
The total amount of taxes per capita in Russia was more than half as much as 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 received from agriculture, but the goods covered almost 4/5 of the domestic demand for manufactured goods.
Over the last four years before the First World War, the number of newly established joint stock companies increased by 132%, and the capital invested in them almost quadrupled.
In 1914, the State Savings Bank had deposits worth 2,236,000,000 rubles.
The amount of deposits and equity capital in small credit institutions (on a cooperative basis) was about 70,000,000 rubles in 1894; 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 preceding the 1914-18 war, the grain harvest doubled. In 1913, the harvest of major 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 the world's egg imports.
During the same period of time, sugar consumption per inhabitant increased from 4 to 9 kg. per year.
On the eve of World War I, Russia produced 80% of the world's flax production.
Thanks to extensive irrigation work in Turkestan, undertaken during 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 Velikiy 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. expensive
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 ensured in a proportion of more than 4/5 by the income alone received Russian state from the operation of their railways.
It should be added that Russian railways, compared to others, were the cheapest and most comfortable in the world for passengers.
Industrial development in Russian Empire naturally accompanied by a significant increase in the number of factory workers, whose economic well-being, as well as the protection of their lives and health, were the subject of special concerns of 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 whole world, laws were issued regarding working conditions: the work of women and children in factories was prohibited a 10-hour working day was established, etc. It is characteristic that the code of Empress Catherine, regulating child and female labor, printed in French and Latin languages, was banned for publication in France and England as “seditious.”
During 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 were especially dangerous to the life and health of workers.
Child labor under 12 years of age was prohibited, and minors and females could not be hired for factory work between 9 pm and 5 am.
The amount of penalty deductions could not exceed one third of wages, and each fine had to be approved by a factory inspector. The fine money went into a special fund intended 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, elected by factory workers of the relevant workshops. The existence of workers' unions was recognized by law in 1906.
At that time, Imperial social legislation was undoubtedly the most progressive in the world. This forced Taft, then President of the Union. States, two years before the 1st World War, publicly declare, in the presence of several Russian dignitaries: “Your Emperor created such perfect labor legislation that no democratic state can boast of.”
During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, public education achieved extraordinary development. In less than 20 years, loans allocated to the Ministry of Public Education, from 25.2 mil. rubles increased to 161.2 million. This did not include the budgets of schools that received their loans from other sources (military, technical schools), or those maintained by local self-government bodies (zemstvos, cities), whose loans for public education increased from 70,000,000 rubles. in 1894 up 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 training was free by law, and from 1908 it became compulsory. Since this year, about 10,000 schools have been opened annually. In 1913 their number exceeded 130,000.
In the 20th century, Russia ranked first in Europe, if not in the whole world, in terms of the number of women studying in higher educational institutions.
The reign of Nicholas II was a period of the highest growth rates in Russian history. economic growth. For 1880-1910 The growth rate of Russian industrial output exceeded 9% per year. According to this indicator, Russia has taken first place in the world, ahead of even the rapidly developing United States of America (although it should be noted that on this issue different economists give different estimates, some put the Russian Empire in first place, others - the United States, but the fact that the pace growth were comparable - an indisputable fact). Russia has taken first place in the world in the production of the main agricultural crops, 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 has become the main exporter of agricultural products, the first “granary of Europe”. Its share 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 ended up in the hands of peasants, and almost all of it in the Asian part. The area of landowners' lands was steadily declining. Granting peasants the right to freely dispose of their land and the abolition of communities had enormous national significance, the benefits of which, first of all, the peasants themselves were aware of.
The autocratic form of government did not impede Russia's economic progress. According to the manifesto of October 17, 1905, the population of Russia received the right to personal integrity, freedom of speech, press, assembly, and unions. Political parties grew in the country, and thousands of periodicals were published. The Parliament - the State Duma - was elected by free will. Russia was becoming a rule of law 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 gave great value development of railways. Even in his youth, he participated in the laying of the famous Siberian road.
During the reign of Nicholas II, the best labor legislation for those times was created in Russia, providing for the regulation of working hours, the choice of worker elders, remuneration for industrial accidents, compulsory insurance of workers against illness, disability and old age. The Emperor actively promoted the development of Russian culture, art, science, and reforms of the army and navy.
All these achievements of economic and social development of Russia are the result of natural historical process development of Russia and are objectively related to the 300th anniversary of the reign of the House of Romanov.
The French economist Théry wrote: “Not a single European nation has achieved such results.”
The myth is that workers lived very poorly.
1. Workers. The average worker's salary in Russia was 37.5 rubles. Let's multiply this amount by 1282.29 (the ratio of the exchange rate of the Tsar's ruble to the modern one) and get an amount of 48,085 thousand rubles in modern terms.
2. Janitor 18 rubles or 23081 rubles. with modern money
3. Second lieutenant (modern equivalent - lieutenant) 70 rub. or 89,760 rub. with modern money
4. Policeman (ordinary police officer) 20.5 rubles. or 26,287 rub. with modern money
5. Workers (St. Petersburg). It is interesting that the average salary in St. Petersburg was lower and by 1914 amounted to 22 rubles 53 kopecks. Let's multiply this amount by 1282.29 and get 28890 Russian rubles.
6. Cook 5 - 8 r. or 6.5-10 thousand in modern money
7. Teacher primary school 25 rub. or 32050 rub. with modern money
8. Gymnasium teacher 85 rub. or 108970 rub. with modern money
9. Senior janitor 40 rub. or 51,297 rub. with modern money
10. District warden (modern analogue - local police officer) 50 rub. or 64,115 in modern money
11. Paramedic 40 rub. or 51280 rub.
12. Colonel 325 rub. or 416,744 rub. with modern money
13. Collegiate assessor (middle class official) 62 rub. or 79,502 rub. with modern money
14. Privy Councilor (high-class official) 500 or 641,145 in modern money. An army general received the same amount
How much, you ask, did the products cost back 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.
Wheat flour 0.08 rub. (8 kopecks) = 1 pound (0.4 kg)
Rice pound 0.12 rubles = 1 pound (0.4 kg)
Biscuit RUR 0.60 = 1 lb (0.4 kg)
Milk 0.08 rubles = 1 bottle
Tomatoes 0.22 rub. = 1 pound
Fish (pike perch) 0.25 rub. = 1 pound
Grapes (raisins) 0.16 rubles = 1 pound
Apples 0.03 rub. = 1 pound
A very worthy life!!!
Now let's see how much it cost to rent a house. Renting housing cost 25 in St. Petersburg, and 20 kopecks per square arshin per month in Moscow and Kyiv. These 20 kopecks today amount to 256 rubles, and a square arshin is 0.5058 m². That is, a month's rent for one square meter cost in 1914 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 rental rate 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 thousand 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 from the false testimonies of Marxists. But these indignant voices, even after the canonization of the Royal Family, continue to sound, the chorus does not stop.
They say that a drop wears away a stone. I would like to contribute at least a little bit to this matter of restoring justice in connection with the memory of the Passion-Bearer Tsar. First of all, we need this. What will be written below can be described as my personal impressions, notes in the margins in the context of everything I have read and heard on this topic from researchers and memoirists. I present them in the hope of casting at least a drop of doubt into the peremptory attitude of those who, I am sure, for now, only for the time being, remain against it.
The discrediting of the tsar as a symbol of sacred statehood after his assassination proceeded through the fabrication of various myths that were introduced into the mass consciousness. I admit that I was once in the grip of these myths, and therefore I offer some of the facts and arguments 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 sincerely grateful.
The most common myths, which I would like to refute 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 was booming and from 1894 to 1914 it grew at the fastest rate in the world.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the growth of the Russian national economy led to an increase in social wealth and well-being of the population.
During 1894-1914, the country's state budget increased by 5.5 times, and its gold reserves by 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 are 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 was 103%, the merchant fleet - 39%.
Overall growth Russian economy even during the difficult years of the First World War it was 21.5%.
Many domestic economists and politicians argued that maintaining the development trends that existed in 1900-1914 would inevitably, within 20-30 years, lead Russia to the place of a world leader, give it the opportunity to dominate Europe, and exceed the economic potential of all European powers combined.
French economist Théry wrote: “None of the European nations has achieved such results” .
Edinburgh University professor Charles Sarolea wrote in his work “The Truth about Tsarism”:
“One of the most frequent attacks against the Russian Monarchy was the assertion that it was reactionary and obscurantist, that it was an 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... Having visited Russia in 1909, I expected to find traces of suffering everywhere after the Japanese War and the Troubles of 1905. Instead, I noticed a miraculous restoration, a gigantic land reform... a rapidly 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 did not fall because it had outlived its usefulness 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 government 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. The whole strength of the country lies in them... The state will have health and strong roots, believe me, and the words of the Russian government will sound completely differently 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 remote, harsh outskirts are at the same time rich... in vast expanses of land... If there is a densely populated state neighboring us, this outskirts will not remain deserted. A stranger will seep into it if a Russian doesn’t come there first... If we continue to sleep in a lethargic sleep, then this region will be saturated with foreign 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 on average about 1 million per year in deaths, plus abortions and murdered children. According to 2005 data, their number was 1,611,000. As a result, losses reach more than two million per year.
Another important indicator is the number of suicides. So then it was equal to 2.7 per 100,000 inhabitants. And now we have 40. Between 1995 and 2003, 500,000 people died as a result of suicide. Moreover, according to statistics, only one attempt out of 20 ends in death. Therefore, including these “incomplete” suicide attempts, we get a figure 20 times larger, that is, 10 million.
The myth that workers lived very poorly
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 is 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 policies of the Russian leader, pleasing to the West, about whom Edward Pearce wrote in the article “In praise of Putin”, published in The Guardian: “Has there ever been a more contemptible figure than Boris Yeltsin? Always drunk and unable to lead the country, he allowed a pack of corrupt crooks to plunder the nation's wealth. He approved the end of subsidized food prices, which meant that ordinary people fell into poverty overnight. If we talk about Russia’s pride and self-esteem, 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, an excellent 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 – by 180%, secondary – by 227%, girls’ gymnasiums – by 420%, public schools– by 96%.
I. Ilyin in his work “On Russian Culture” writes that Russia was on the threshold of implementing 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 was also experiencing a flourishing cultural life.
The myth of Rasputin
The sovereign’s close aide-de-camp, Colonel A. Mordvinov, in his “Memoirs” (“Russian Chronicle” for 1923, vol. V) completely denies the influence of the Empress and anyone else on the sovereign’s decisions and gives convincing examples.
He also reveals the truth of the famous legend about Rasputin.
Mordvinov writes: “The Emperor 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 visiting the palace since 1912 and always traveled with the Tsar during the war, had never seen Rasputin in five years, never heard of him in the family with whom he was very close.
Gilliard, the Tsarevich’s tutor who lived at the Court, as well as physician Botkin (who died in Yekaterinburg with his family), who visited the palace every day, testify that over the course of several years they saw Rasputin in the palace only once, and both associated Rasputin’s visit with ill health of the heir.
General Resin, without whom not a single soul could enter the palace, never saw Rasputin for seven months.
Alexander Eliseev in his article “Nicholas II as a strong-willed politician of troubled times” notes that even the Extraordinary Investigative Commission of the Provisional Government was forced to admit that there was no influence on public life Rasputin did not render any assistance to the country. This is 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 Tsar's Weakness of Character
French President Loubet said: “People usually see Emperor Nicholas II as a kind, generous, but weak man. This is a deep mistake. He always has long-thought-out plans, the implementation of which he slowly achieves. Beneath his apparent timidity, the king has a strong soul and a courageous heart, unshakably loyal. He knows where he's going and what he wants."
Tsar's service required strength of character, which Nicholas II possessed. During the Holy Coronation to 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 visible anointing may invisible power from above be given to you, acting to exalt your royal virtues..."
A number of arguments refuting this myth are presented in the above-mentioned work by A. Eliseev.
Thus, in particular, S. Oldenburg wrote that the Tsar had an iron hand; many are only deceived by the velvet glove he wore.
The presence of a strong will in Nicholas II is brilliantly confirmed by the events of August 1915, when he assumed the responsibilities of Supreme Commander-in-Chief - against the wishes of the military elite, the Council of Ministers and all “public opinion”. And, I must say, he coped with these responsibilities brilliantly.
In general, the Emperor was a real warrior - both by “profession” and by spirit. He was raised as a warrior. Archpriest V. Asmus notes: “Alexander III raised children with 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 the children often remained hungry if they did not fit into these frameworks that were so strict 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 carefully compiled notes on military topography, tactics, artillery, navigational instruments, military criminal law, and strategy. The records on fortification, complete with drawings and drawings, are very impressive.
Practical training was not neglected either. 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, and then as a company commander. For two whole seasons he served as a platoon commander in a hussar regiment, then was a squadron commander. The Heir 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 Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich. Military historian G. Nekrasov writes: “It must 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 Russia's military industry was concentrated in St. Petersburg. But on the way German fleet The Baltic Fleet stood ready to fight, with ready-made mine positions. The cost of a breakthrough for the German fleet was becoming unacceptably expensive. Thus, only by the fact that he achieved the reconstruction of the fleet, Emperor Nicholas II saved Russia from imminent defeat. This should not be forgotten!”
We especially note that the Emperor made absolutely all the important decisions contributing to victorious actions himself - without the influence of any “good geniuses”. The opinion that the Russian army was led by Alekseev, 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 Alekseev’s own telegrams. For example, in one of them, in response 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 are completely in vain in portraying their leader in the last minutes of his reign as a sad cretin, a non-resistance who resignedly surrendered his regime at the first demand of the revolution.” Koltsov describes how the Emperor stubbornly resisted all the demands of the army conspirators (Alekseev, Ruzsky, etc.) to create a responsible ministry (that is, in essence, to transform 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 to Petrograd led by General N.I. Ivanov. He fought the revolution alone (for the conspirators cut him off from communication with the outside world, from the loyal 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 true to himself - Nicholas himself.”
“The Sovereign Emperor did everything in his power. He managed to suppress the terrible revolution of 1905 and delay the triumph of the “demons” for 12 years. Thanks to his personal efforts, a radical turning point was achieved in the course of the Russian-German confrontation. Already a prisoner of the Bolsheviks, he refused to approve the Brest Peace Treaty 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 nations thanks to the balanced and thoughtful policies 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– historical subjects state building 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 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 a cavalry attack on an enemy heavy artillery unit.
4.5 thousand killed, 3.5 thousand captured, 2.5 thousand wounded. In less than 1.5 hours, the iron division, which the best military units of our allies, including those in the Russian army, were afraid to come into contact with, ceased to exist.
Convey on my behalf, on behalf of the royal court and on behalf of the Russian army fraternal heartfelt greetings to the fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and brides of these brave eagles of the Caucasus, who with their immortal feat marked the beginning of the end of the German hordes.
Russia will never forget this feat. Honor and praise to them!
With fraternal greetings, Nicholas II.
In general, the sacred monarchy as a form of government had a great advantage in national issues over what K. Pobedonostsev calls “the evil of parliamentary government.” He points out that the elections do not select the best, but only “the most ambitious and impudent.” In his opinion, the electoral struggle in multi-tribal states is especially dangerous. Pointing out the advantages of the monarchical system for Russia, he writes: “An unlimited monarchy managed to eliminate or reconcile all such demands and impulses - and not by force alone, 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 sends out representatives from its area - not of the state and people's 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: “Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod; Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Tsar of Poland, Tsar of Siberia, Tsar of Tauride Chersonis, Tsar of Georgia and so on, so on, so on.”
If we talk about prisons in the literal sense of the word, the crime rate was so low that in 1913 there were less than 33,000 prisoners in prisons throughout the Russian Empire.
Now, on a territory 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 allow her to cross this threshold.”
General N.A. Lokhvitsky wrote: “...It took Peter the Great nine years to turn the Narva vanquished into the Poltava victors.
The last Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Army, Emperor Nicholas II, did the same great work in a year and a half. But his work was appreciated by his enemies, and between the Sovereign and his Army and victory “there was a revolution.”
A. Eliseev cites the following facts. The Sovereign's military talents were fully revealed at the post of 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. Thus, he organized the Vilna-Molodechno operation (September 3 – October 2, 1915). The Emperor managed to stop a major German offensive, as a result of which the city of Borisov was captured. He issued a timely directive ordering an end to panic and retreat. As a result, the onslaught of the 10th German Army was stopped, which was forced to retreat - in some places completely disorderly. The 26th Mogilev Infantry Regiment under Lieutenant Colonel Petrov (a total of 8 officers and 359 bayonets) made its way to the German rear and during a surprise attack captured 16 guns. 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, the triumphant year 1916 came Brusilovsky breakthrough. During the fighting on the Southwestern Front, the enemy lost one and a half million people killed, wounded and captured. Austria-Hungary was on the verge of defeat.
It was the Emperor who supported Brusilov’s 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 on the enemy by forces of all fronts, with the exception of the Brusilov Front.
The latter believed that his front was also quite capable of an offensive, with which other front commanders disagreed. However, Nicholas II decisively supported Brusilov, and without this support the famous breakthrough would simply have been impossible.
Historian A. Zayonchkovsky wrote that the Russian army achieved “in terms of its numbers and technical supply with everything necessary, the greatest development in the entire war.” More than two hundred combat-ready divisions confronted the enemy. Russia was preparing to crush the enemy. In January 1917, the Russian 12th Army launched an offensive from the Riga bridgehead and took the German 10th Army by surprise, which found itself in 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 about the increase in the military power of Russia:
“Russia is expanding its military formations. The reorganization she has undertaken gives a great increase in strength. In its divisions it left only 12 battalions, and in its batteries only 6 guns, and from the battalions and guns liberated in this way, it formed new combat units.
The battles of 1916 on the Eastern Front showed an increase in Russian military equipment and an increase in the number of firearms supplies. Russia has moved some of its factories to the Donetsk basin, greatly increasing their productivity.
We understood that the numerical and technical superiority of the Russians in 1917 would be felt even more acutely than in 1916.
Our situation was extremely difficult and there was almost no way out of it. There was no point in thinking about our own offensive - all reserves were needed for defense. Our defeat seemed inevitable... food supply was difficult. The rear was also seriously damaged.
The prospects for the future were extremely bleak.”
Moreover, as Oldenburg writes, 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 Emperor declared (at the end of December) gr. Wielepolsky that he thinks of a free Poland as a state with a separate constitution, separate chambers and its own army (apparently, he meant something like the situation of the Kingdom of Poland under Alexander I).
Eastern Galicia, Northern Bukovina and Carpathian Rus' were to be included in Russia. The creation of a Czechoslovak kingdom was planned; regiments of captured Czechs and Slovaks were already being formed on Russian territory.
B. Brasol “The reign of Emperor Nicholas II in figures and facts”
to be continued...
Classmates
Permanent publication address on our website:
QR code of page address:
For clarity, let's make an amendment to our terminology. When we say the word "king", we will here mean " general secretaries", "presidents", "sultans" and in general all kinds of heads of state. No matter what they represent political systems, the highest power is concentrated in their hands. Today some of them are spoken of disdainfully, others with disgust, someone’s name is pronounced with reverence bordering on worship.
I noticed how people often like to chat:
Now, if only we had lived under Stalin... But under Brezhnev it was good... Peter I was a smart man, a hard-working Tsar... Catherine II collected a lot of land... Tsar Father Nicholas II was magnificent.. . And now what?! Gorbachev destroyed the “unbreakable union of free republics”... Putin is a thief and a murderer, Yeltsin is a drunkard, in Ukraine Yanukovych is a former... prisoner. Yushchenko is neither fish nor fowl... How unlucky we are to have the Tsar!!! What unfortunate times we live in!!!
The logic is more than strange. It turns out that people's favorites were most prolific only in the past. The miserable present times suffer from impotence, and the future is too vague. In general, all the most glorious things have passed us by... It’s just melancholy from complete hopelessness: we will never drink with the glorious Peter at the Brotherhood, nor will we ever go on the attack shouting: “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 hanging around in the Khrushchev like a monkey in a zoo. I was once on an excursion to the Vorontsov Palace in Alupka and the thought came to me: “How luxuriously the countes and princes lived in the 19th century!” Looking at the spacious halls, furniture, paintings and dishes, I felt like the last homeless person of the end of the 20th century. How big was the social gap between the proletarians and the aristocracy of that time? I don’t know, but I like my electrified three-room cell with water and gas pipes better than a clay hut with amenities in the yard. Those citizens might have had more reasons for discontent based on social inequality in the 19th century than our contemporaries.
Every time has had its oligarchs. Even in the Soviet period. In Yalta, while still a boy, I saw the general's dacha. Not personal property - I understand, but not just a sanatorium. A two-story house surrounded by well-kept flower beds and neatly trimmed trees. It had its own guards, a gardener and a cook. The same thing happened, as I understand, with the secretaries of regional committees and people's commissars and 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 the lack of attention to their persons...
Okay, you were born under Tsar Nicholas II. And what? He was the same oligarch, if not more so than today. In his questionnaire, he once wrote about himself without embarrassment: “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. Very attractive?
There was order under Stalin and you are nostalgic about it as heaven on earth? Vissarionovich received the country in bast shoes, and handed over spaceships to his followers. Praise the leader! He carried out industrialization, collectivization, famines in record time, simultaneously cleansed society of capitalist filth, defeated Hitler and made every person feel involved in the greatest power of our time.
Honestly, I wouldn’t want to live in that country and, thank God, I don’t live in it. I’m glad that no one is re-educating me in Solovki, forcing me to go to rallies and study party demagoguery. My father told how one of his fellow villagers during Stalin’s time went to the garden to relieve himself and had the imprudence to wipe himself with a newspaper with a portrait of the leader. Unfortunately for him, a neighbor found the piece of paper and took it to the right place. The unlucky neighbor was sentenced to prison for anti-Soviet activities. Now there is enough toilet paper, and if necessary, you can safely use newspaper.
I have someone to live for even without Stalin or some other leader. Honestly, I agree that my state should not be an empire that everyone would be afraid of. An inferiority complex won't bother me. If only it was comfortable for life, without violating the will of the citizen. You won’t earn all the money, everyone will never live in palaces. At least, I have never seen such a period in domestic or foreign history. Does the state think little about pensioners? And when my grandmother received a 26-ruble pension in the 1970s, during Brezhnev’s times, did they think much about her then?
I don’t think that Putin or Yanukovych are more criminals than Stalin or Peter I. Russian writer Fyodor Tyutchev once remarked: “History before Peter the Great is a complete funeral service, and after it is just a criminal case.” How much blood does each ruler shed when seizing power and then to maintain it? Well, where have we seen power without intrigue, compromising evidence and murder?! Peter the Great did not spare his son, who was involved in the conspiracy, and delivered him to death. Catherine the Great eliminated her husband on the way to the throne. The list goes on and on...
Great things require great sacrifices, and ordinary citizens serve as lambs to the slaughter. Just like you and me.
But we need to make a breakthrough! You can’t sit and slurp cabbage soup with your bast shoes! Who will do this if not us?!
It’s this constant need for national history either hastily “cutting windows to Europe,” or “jumping from bast shoes into the cockpit of an airplane.” Strange, after all, abroad! They somehow do everything there without sudden jerks. Railways are built without Komsomol rush jobs, canals are dug without corpse dumping, cities are not built on bones. The gold rush in Alaska passed without the involvement of prisoners, but in our Magadan mines they washed up a lot of gold for nothing. Their design bureaus were able to create excellent equipment without the condemned and intimidated “Kulibins”. How did they manage all this without hassle and without a revolver? This is the price of our victory.
The sacrifices were not in vain, comrade! We have won!!! It was impossible otherwise!!! - one can hear consolation from the lips of the patriot.
Thank God that at least they weren’t in vain. I really want to believe in this. Couldn't it have been done without sacrifices? In our country, all those who fell into the category of “great state reformers” have always been generous donors of human souls on the altar of human progress. Peter loved Russia, Stalin loved the USSR, and both did not spare anyone. When can an ordinary person live for himself?
Did the Americans destroy the mighty USSR? Did the spies work? So why didn’t our intelligence officers destroy the USA? They were sitting there too. Listen, two empires are locked in mortal combat: “Who will win?” and the veins of the weakest were cracked. I see no reason to be surprised. The socialist system turned out to be weaker than the rotten capitalist one. Will we cry in its ruins and dream of revenge?
Life moves forward as usual. We always want more from power than it can give, and they always want to grab more than they can take. Also news of the day for me! Is life very bad?
It’s worth looking at the high-rise buildings and reflecting on what you see in order to calm down the endless whining at least a little. What will we see there? Lots of plastic windows and satellite dishes! The facades are literally covered with air conditioners, which previously only lived in the offices of management. I don’t know where, but in the provincial town of Armyansk, pipes from autonomous heating boilers protrude from almost every apartment. If you go into each of them, you will find foreign refrigerators and televisions with washing machines.
I can’t remember these Soviet-made units without tears. After defrosting the “Absheron” miracle refrigerator, I broke out in a cold sweat and the eternal question arose: “Will it be able to periodically turn itself off?” Modern Samsung-Hitachis do everything without our participation. Due to the constant whims of the Berezok-Chaikas, you had to call a TV technician almost every month, and now the Philips-Panasonics work so much that you forget when the plug was last pulled out. Washing machines sometimes shocked their owners. The current “Indesites” have not learned to do anything other than hang out their own laundry and iron it.
I’m already silent about computers, laptops, mobile phones and other equipment. We have all this at our disposal to make it more convenient to grumble against the authorities and complain about the terrible life. In fact, we simply stopped appreciating what we have. It was interesting for me to imagine: if a time machine existed and showed past generations the conditions of our life, where would they prefer to be? Would you stay with your great leaders or would you still give everything to be with us at least for a year or two? Perhaps they would like not only everyday 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 there are also plenty of advantages. There is no war, thank God. We don’t go hungry, we don’t go naked. Then everything depends only on us, and not on the presidents. We can create a family home, 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 were able 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 Vladimir the Saint, was one of the first truly effective rulers in Russian history. He founded the fortress city of Yuryev in the Baltic states, Yaroslavl in the Volga region, Yuryev Russky, Yaroslavl in the Carpathian region and Novgorod-Seversky.
During the years of his reign, Yaroslav stopped the Pecheneg raids on Rus', defeating them in 1038 near the walls of Kyiv, in honor of which the Hagia Sophia Cathedral was founded. Artists from Constantinople were called to paint the temple.
In an effort to strengthen international ties, Yaroslav used dynastic marriages and married his daughter, Princess Anna Yaroslavna, 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 rewriting of books, and published the Church Charter and “Russian Truth”. In 1051, having gathered 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 confidently be called one of the most successful rulers in Russian history. It was he who managed to gather the scattered principalities of northeastern Rus' around Moscow. During his lifetime the composition single state included the Yaroslavl and Rostov principalities, Vyatka, Perm the Great, Tver, Novgorod and other lands.
Ivan III was the first of the Russian princes to accept the title “Sovereign of All Rus'”, and introduced the term “Russia” into use. He became the liberator of Rus' from the yoke. The stand on the Ugra River, which happened in 1480, marked final victory Rus' in the struggle for its independence.
The Code of Laws of Ivan III, adopted in 1497, laid the legal foundations for overcoming feudal fragmentation. The Code of Law was progressive 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 as the symbol of the country, which was used in the state symbols of Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire.
During the life of Ivan III, the main part of that architectural ensemble the Kremlin, which we can see today. 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 rule still has a variety of, often opposing, assessments, but at the same time his effectiveness as a ruler is difficult to dispute.
He successfully fought with 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 Greater Nogai Horde and the Siberian Khan Edigei. However, the Livonian War ended with the loss of part of the lands, without solving its main task - access to the Baltic Sea.
Under Grozny, diplomacy developed and Anglo-Russian contacts were established. Ivan IV was one of the most educated people of his time, had a phenomenal memory and erudition, he himself wrote numerous messages, was the author of the music and text of the service for the feast of Our Lady of Vladimir, the canon to the Archangel Michael, developed book printing in Moscow, and supported chroniclers.
Peter I
Peter's rise to power radically changed the vector of Russia's development. The tsar “opened a window to Europe,” fought a lot and successfully, fought with the clergy, reformed the army, education and tax system, created the first fleet in Russia, changed the tradition of chronology, and carried out regional reform.
Peter personally met with Leibniz and Newton, and was an honorary member of the Paris Academy of Sciences. By order of Peter I, books, instruments, and weapons were purchased abroad, and 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 Azov and gained access to the Baltic Sea. After the Persian campaign, the western coast of the Caspian Sea with the cities of Derbent and Baku went to Russia.
Under Peter I, outdated forms were abolished diplomatic relations and etiquette, permanent diplomatic missions and consulates were established abroad.
Numerous expeditions, including 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 the Second was one of the most effective Russian rulers. Under Catherine II, Russia finally gained a foothold in the Black Sea; lands were annexed, called Novorossiya: the Northern Black Sea region, Crimea, and the Kuban region. Catherine accepted Eastern Georgia under Russian citizenship and returned the Western Russian lands seized by the Poles.
Under Catherine II, the population of Russia increased significantly, hundreds of new cities were built, the treasury quadrupled, industry and agriculture– Russia began to export bread for the first time.
During the reign of the Empress, paper money was introduced in Russia for the first time, a clear territorial division of the empire was carried out, a secondary education system was created, an observatory, a physics laboratory, 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 is the emperor under whom Russia defeated the Napoleonic coalition. During the reign of Alexander I, the territory of the Russian Empire expanded significantly: Eastern and Western Georgia, Mingrelia, Imereti, Guria, Finland, Bessarabia, and most of Poland (which formed the Kingdom of Poland) came under Russian citizenship.
Not everything went smoothly with Alexander the First’s internal policy (“Arakcheevshchina”, police measures against the opposition), but Alexander I carried out a number of reforms: merchants, townspeople and state-owned villagers were given the right to buy uninhabited lands, ministries and a cabinet of ministers were established, and 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”. It was canceled under him Serfdom. Alexander II reorganized the army, shortened the term military service, under him corporal punishment was abolished. 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 and the Caucasian War ended. According to the Aigun and Beijing treaties with the Chinese Empire, Russia annexed the Amur and Ussuri territories in 1858-1860. In 1867-1873, the territory of Russia increased due to the conquest of the Turkestan region and the Fergana Valley and the voluntary entry into vassal rights of the Bukhara Emirate and the Khanate of Khiva.
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 said this about him: “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.”
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, after the death of Alexander III, said: “This, indeed, was an autocratic Emperor.”
In domestic politics, the emperor’s activities were also successful. A real technical revolution took place in Russia, the economy stabilized, industry developed by leaps and bounds. In 1891, Russia began construction of the Great Siberian Railway.
Joseph Stalin
The era of Stalin's reign was controversial, but it is difficult to deny that he “took over the country with a plow and left it with a nuclear bomb.” We should not forget that it was under Stalin that the USSR won the Great Patriotic War. 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, literacy of the population had risen to 89.1%.
The total volume of industrial production per capita for the years 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 reign in 1953, gold reserves had increased 6.5 times and reached 2050 tons.
Nikita Khrushchev
Despite all the ambiguity of internal (return of Crimea) and external ( Cold War) Khrushchev's 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 a freer breath, and a period of relative democracy began, in which citizens were not afraid to go to prison for telling a political joke.
This period saw a rise in Soviet culture, from which ideological shackles were removed. The country discovered the genre of “square poetry”; the whole country knew the poets Robert Rozhdestvensky, Andrei Voznesensky, Evgeny Yevtushenko, and Bella Akhmadulina.
During the reign of Khrushchev, International Youth Festivals were held, Soviet people gained access to the world of imports and foreign fashion. In general, it has become easier to breathe in the country.
There are many myths and speculations surrounding Alaska that permeate even some serious media outlets, misleading people trying to understand the topic. However, there are no alternatives to history; there is only one true version, which is better known to everyone who wants to know at least a little about the path of their country. So who sold Alaska, or Alexander 2, and most importantly, why?
Now there is a very widespread opinion that the sale of Alaska was a mistake by 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 solution for the country.
Colonization and trade
Let's start from afar, after the discovery of Alaska in 1732 and the arrival of Russian colonists, it almost immediately became a “fur” vein, a huge amount of sea otter fur was exported from the territories of North America for sale. Later, this phenomenon was called “marine fur harvesting.” 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.
Parallel to trade, the colonization of lands also took place, during which connections were established with local population, not always successful. The settlers and merchants were hindered by some indigenous tribes, who were not too happy about the invasion of their lands. Sometimes with carrots, and sometimes with sticks, the colonists nevertheless came to an understanding with the local residents and developed trade relations with them. The item of trade was usually firearms. Some tribes accepted the Orthodox faith, the children of the aborigines are educated in schools together with the children of the colonists.
Background and reasons for sale
It would seem that everything is going as usual, new territories are bringing good income, trade relations are developing, settlements are being built. But it is worth remembering that the main resource exported from North America was fur. Sea otters, which served as a source of fur, were practically killed off, which means that funds flowing into the region did not pay off, protecting the colonies made less and less sense, and merchant ships began to sail less and less often.
From whom was protection required? The Russian Empire had long been in almost open confrontation with the British Empire, whose colonies were located next door, on the territory of modern Canada. After Britain attempted to land its troops in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky during 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, a proposal for sale was first made, initiated by the United States. The possibility of the British capturing a significant piece of North America was not part of the plans of the US government. The deal was supposed to be a fiction for a short period of 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, the proposal to sell Alaska was made again, this time from the Russian side. This time the main initiator was his younger brother, Prince Konstantin Nikolaevich. The resolution of the issue was postponed until 1862 until the expiration of trade privileges, however, in 1862 the deal also did not take place; civil war. Finally, in 1866, at a meeting between Alexander, his brother and some ministers, a detailed discussion of the sale took place. A unanimous decision was made to sell the territory for no less than 5 million dollars 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 Russian side. The final cost is $7.2 million, the area of land sold is 1.5 million square kilometers.
Throughout the year, both parties settled various formalities, and some doubts were expressed about the feasibility of the deal. As a result, in May 1867, the treaty entered into legal force, in June letters were exchanged, and in October Alaska was finally and irrevocably transferred to America. The deal was completed more than 10 years after the first proposal - such a decision certainly cannot be called rash.
Conclusions without far-fetched myths
The story is known in all its details, the documents have been preserved and there is no doubt about their authenticity. Despite this, the deal is still surrounded by myths and legends that have no basis in fact. They are generated by rumors, Soviet propaganda of the times and other reasons that have no historical background. The vast majority of historians are confident that Alaska was sold, not leased, for ninety-nine, one hundred, or one thousand years, and that payment for the deal was received in full rather than gone down 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.
Convicting Alexander for the sale also makes no sense; the country was in a very deplorable situation: the abolition of serfdom, war, and a number of reasons required measures to solve them. The sale of an unprofitable region located overseas, the existence of which most of the inhabitants of the then Russia did not even suspect, was a well-founded decision and did not arouse distrust among any of the high ranks.
No one suspected any gold in the depths of the cold region, and there are still disputes about the costs of its development in the United States. And the buyer, as many believe, of the gold mine was not very enthusiastic about the acquisition. Even today, Alaska is poorly developed: there are few roads, trains rarely run, and the population of the entire huge region is only 600 thousand people. There are many dark spots in history, but this is not one of them.
Loading...