Speech therapy portal / Dysarthria / Oldenburg S.S. Reign of Emperor Nicholas II. Sergei Oldenburg - The reign of Emperor Nicholas II

Oldenburg S.S. Reign of Emperor Nicholas II. Sergei Oldenburg - The reign of Emperor Nicholas II

06.12.2023

Volume I: Part One – Part Two. Belgrade. Society for the Dissemination of Russian National and Patriotic Literature, 1939, 386 p., with illustration. Period full leather binding with blackened embossing on the spine and top cover. 19.5x25 cm.

Volume II: Part Three – Part Four. Munich, 1949, 260 pp., with illustration. In paperback publisher's cover. Enlarged format.

A tray copy for the Prince of Imperial Blood Nikita Alexandrovich Romanov. Nikita Aleksandrovich’s autograph on the flyleaf – “NA / 1940”. Two paper bookmarks with the Prince's marginalia. After the title page there is a tray sheet with handwritten signatures of the Members of the Committee for the publication of the history of the reign of Emperor Nicholas II: P. Skarzhinsky (deputy chairman), Princess Maria Svyatopolk-Mirskaya, Prof. F. Verbitsky, G. Lyubarsky and others. Nikita Alexandrovich Romanov (January 4 (16), 1900, St. Petersburg - September 12, 1974, Cannes) - Prince of the Imperial Blood, youngest son of Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich and Grand Duchess Ksenia Alexandrovna. Grandson of Emperor Alexander III on the maternal side, and great-grandson of Emperor Nicholas I on the direct male line.

A modest official in the Russian Ministry of Finance, the son of an academician and Minister of Culture, Sergei Sergeevich Oldenburg (1888-1940) did not in any way correspond to the magnificent laurels of his parent. But, once in exile, he became a serious and profound historian, a temperamental publicist, taking conservative positions, fiercely defending the national idea. Thus he accomplished his life’s feat... The two-volume work, which has become a classic study of the history of Russia at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries, creates a complete portrait of a living and strong Power in all its diversity economic, political, social...

The basis for Oldenburg’s book was the memoirs of contemporaries of the events (A.N. Kuropatkina, S.Yu. Witte), published materials of the Temporary Extraordinary Investigative Commission (VChSK) of the Provisional Government and correspondence of Nicholas II with various persons (mother, Dowager Empress Maria Fedorovna, wife, Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, ministers), transcripts of State Duma meetings. Oldenburg also used periodicals from the reign of Nicholas II as a source.

Part one. Autocratic Rule. 1894-1904.

Part two. Turning years. 1904 - 1907.

Part Three. Duma Monarchy. 1907 - 1914.

Part Four. World War. 1914 – 1917.

From the Committee for the Publication of the History of the Reign
Emperor NICHOLAS II.

By releasing a real historical work by S.S. Oldenburg, the Committee for the Publication of the History of the Reign of Emperor Nicholas II sees in it a worthy monument to the last Russian Tsar. Let the new Russian generations, using this book, become acquainted with the past of their Motherland and treat with complete impartiality the One Who stood head and shoulders above their contemporaries and Whom, alas, the Russian people were unable to appreciate in time and, rallying around the Throne, to defend their Motherland from those terrible and disastrous shocks, which the Lord destined us to witness. Let this book become a reference book for every Russian person who purifies himself as a Russian and cares about his Motherland. We express deep gratitude to all High Patrons, Governments, organizations, military units and individual donors who contributed to the publication of the History, as well as to the author, who put so much soul, labor and talent into it.

Chairman of the Committee Prince Nikita Alexandrovich.

Deputy Chairman P. Skarzynski.

The first edition of the 1st volume of the most important work about the era of Nicholas II. The book was written by prof. S.S. Oldenburg, commissioned by the Supreme Monarchical Council, based on documents stored in the Russian embassy in Paris and unknown to Soviet historians. The 1st volume, published in Belgrade in January-February 1940, is an exceptional bibliographic rarity: as Yu.K. wrote in the preface to the 3rd edition of this book (Washington, 1981). Meyer, the entire circulation was lost during the German occupation of Yugoslavia; only a few copies have survived from it (the 2nd volume, which was submitted to the printing house, was not published at all and was printed for the first time only in 1949). Only a reprint of the 1st volume in 2 issues, published in Munich in 1949, is available for sale (without indicating the new place and year of publication). The 1st volume of the 1st edition is very different from the Munich reprint of 1949 (in 2 parts): the quality of the paper, the cover, the chalk for the illustrations, everything is completely different. equipped with tracing paper and arranged differently; there is a text about a subscription to the 2nd volume that went to print, closed on May 1, 1940 (the 2nd volume was never published in 1940), etc. About 70 rare photographs of the tsar, the royal family, portraits, maps on separate sheets of chalk. This set, in which both volumes are presented in first editions, is a rarity of museum value.

Graduated from the Faculty of Law of Moscow University. Worked as an official of the Russian Ministry of Finance. Unlike his father, who adhered to liberal political views, Sergei Sergeevich from a young age adhered to right-wing views, was close to the Union of October 17 party, and sympathized with the Chairman of the Council of Ministers P. A. Stolypin. In 1918 he left for Crimea, where he joined the White movement. In the fall of 1920, he was unable to evacuate with the Russian Army of General Baron P. N. Wrangel due to the fact that he was sick with typhus. Having recovered, he traveled from Crimea to Petrograd with forged documents, where he met his father, who helped him emigrate. Crossed the border into Finland, then reached France. In exile he lived in Finland, Germany and France (Paris), was a political associate of P. B. Struve, one of the leading authors of right-wing emigrant publications: the magazine “Russian Thought”, the newspapers “Vozrozhdenie”, “Russia”, “Russia and Slavism” . He was a member of the Paris Union for the Liberation and Reconstruction of the Motherland. He sympathized with the right-wing French writer and politician C. Maurras. He was an erudite, an expert on history. In exile he lived in poverty. Father - Sergei Fedorovich Oldenburg (1863-1934) - academician (1900), orientalist, permanent secretary of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (since 1904), Russian Academy of Sciences (since 1917), USSR Academy of Sciences (1925-1929), Minister public education (July-September 1917). One of the founders of the domestic Indological school. His wife, Ada Dmitrievna, left Russia in 1925 to join her husband in Paris. The family had five children. One of the daughters, Zoe Oldenburg, is a famous French writer.

The Supreme Monarchical Council commissioned S.S. Oldenburg to write a history of the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, which was published in 1939 (volume 1) and 1949 (volume 2). The work he wrote is of an apologetic nature; the author substantiates that the revolution interrupted the successful progressive economic development of Russia: “in the twentieth year of the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, Russia reached a level of material prosperity unprecedented in it.” S. S. Oldenburg was able to carry out such scientific research, having access to unique documents: copies of genuine historical acts of the Russian Empire in the Russian Embassy in Paris on Grenelle Street, duplicates of the originals of which, for precautionary purposes, long before the First World War, began to be sent for storage to the Russian embassy in Paris. Before the recognition of the USSR by the French government, the Russian Embassy was managed by V. A. Maklakov, who had previously been appointed by the Provisional Government to the post of Ambassador to France. During the author’s lifetime, the manuscript was delivered to Belgrade at the beginning of 1940, but preparation of the manuscript for publication began only after the death of Sergei Sergeevich.

In 1941, due to the outbreak of German military operations against Yugoslavia, only a few copies remained from the first printing of the book. According to the first publisher of this major work, Yu. K. Meyer, these circumstances made it possible for Professor S. S. Oldenburg to create an objective study of the corresponding historical period of the Russian State. The archival documents he used in his work on “The Reign of Emperor Nicholas II” did not fall into the hands of the Bolsheviks, as they were promptly sent to Stanford University in the USA in Palo Alto in California. In 1991, S. S. Oldenburg’s book was republished in Russia and is considered one of the most objective and thorough studies of the reign of the last Russian emperor. In modern Russia, the work has gone through a number of reprints.

Book one
Autocratic rule
1894–1904

Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. 1896

Chapter 1

Manifesto on the accession of the sovereign to the throne. – Assessment of the reign of Emperor Alexander III (V. O. Klyuchevsky, K. P. Pobedonostsev). – General situation in 1894 – Russian Empire. - Royal power. - Officials. – Tendencies of the ruling circles: “demophiliac” and “aristocratic”. – Foreign policy and the Franco-Russian alliance. - Army. - Fleet. - Local government. – Finland. – Press and censorship. – The softness of laws and courts. – Cultural level. – Literature by the beginning of the 90s. - Art. – Situation of agriculture. – Growth of industry. – Construction of railways; The Great Siberian Way. - Budget. - International trade. – Discord between the authorities and educated society. – Review by K. N. Leontyev

“It pleased Almighty God, in his inscrutable ways, to interrupt the precious life of our dearly beloved parent, Emperor Alexander Alexandrovich. The serious illness did not yield to either treatment or the fertile climate of Crimea, and on October 20 He died in Livadia, surrounded by his august family, in the arms of Her Imperial Majesty the Empress and ours.

Our grief cannot be expressed in words, but every Russian heart will understand it, and we believe that there will be no place in our vast state where hot tears would not be shed for the sovereign, who untimely passed away into eternity and left his native land, which he loved with all his might. the Russian soul and on whose welfare he placed all his thoughts, sparing neither his health nor his life. And not only in Russia, but far beyond its borders they will never cease to honor the memory of the tsar, who personified unshakable truth and peace, which was never violated throughout his reign.”

These words begin the manifesto that announced to Russia the accession of Emperor Nicholas II to the ancestral throne.

The reign of Emperor Alexander III, who received the name Tsar-Peacemaker, was not replete with external events, but it left a deep imprint on Russian and world life. During these thirteen years, many knots were tied - both in foreign and domestic policy - which his son and successor, Emperor Nicholas II Alexandrovich, had the opportunity to untie or cut.

Both friends and enemies of Imperial Russia equally recognize that Emperor Alexander III significantly increased the international weight of the Russian Empire, and within its borders established and exalted the importance of autocratic tsarist power. He led the Russian ship of state on a different course than his father. He did not believe that the reforms of the 60s and 70s. - an absolute good, but tried to make those amendments to them that, in his opinion, were necessary for the internal balance of Russia.

After the era of the Great Reforms, after the war of 1877–1878, this enormous tension of Russian forces in the interests of the Balkan Slavs, Russia in any case needed a respite. It was necessary to master and “digest” the changes that had occurred.

At the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University, the famous Russian historian, Professor V. O. Klyuchevsky, in his speech in memory of Emperor Alexander III a week after his death, said:

“During the reign of Emperor Alexander III, before the eyes of one generation, we peacefully carried out a number of profound reforms in our state system in the spirit of Christian rules, therefore, in the spirit of European principles - such reforms that cost Western Europe centuries-long and often violent efforts - and this Europe continued to see in us representatives of Mongolian inertia, some kind of imposed adoptions of the cultural world...

Thirteen years of the reign of Emperor Alexander III passed, and the more hastily the hand of death hastened to close His eyes, the wider and more astonished the eyes of Europe opened to the global significance of this short reign. Finally, the stones cried out, the organs of public opinion in Europe began to speak the truth about Russia, and they spoke the more sincerely, the more unusual it was for them to say this. It turned out, according to these confessions, that European civilization had insufficiently and carelessly ensured its peaceful development, for its own safety it had placed itself on a powder magazine, that the burning fuse had approached this dangerous defensive warehouse more than once from different sides, and each time the caring and patient hand of the Russian Tsar quietly and carefully led him away... Europe recognized that the Tsar of the Russian people was the sovereign of the international world, and with this recognition confirmed the historical vocation of Russia, for in Russia, according to its political organization, the will of the Tsar expresses the thought of His people, and the will of the people becomes the thought of its Tsar. Europe recognized that the country, which it considered a threat to its civilization, stood and stands guard over it, understands, appreciates and protects its foundations no worse than its creators; she recognized Russia as an organically necessary part of her cultural composition, a blood, natural member of the family of her peoples...

Science will give Emperor Alexander III his rightful place not only in the history of Russia and all of Europe, but also in Russian historiography, will say that He won a victory in the area where these victories are most difficult to achieve, defeated the prejudice of peoples and thereby contributed to their rapprochement, conquered the public conscience in the name of peace and truth, increased the amount of good in the moral circulation of humanity, encouraged and raised Russian historical thought, Russian national consciousness, and did all this so quietly and silently that only now, when He was no longer there, Europe understood what He was for her."

If Professor Klyuchevsky, a Russian intellectual and rather a Westerner, dwells more on the foreign policy of Emperor Alexander III and, apparently, hints at a rapprochement with France, the closest collaborator of the late monarch, K. P. Pobedonostsev, spoke about the other side of this reign in a concise and expressive form : “Everyone knew that he would not give in to the Russian, his history of bequeathed interest either in Poland or on other outskirts of the foreign element, that he deeply preserves in his soul the same faith and love for the Orthodox Church with the people; finally, that he, along with the people, believes in the unshakable significance of autocratic power in Russia and will not allow it, in the ghost of freedom, a disastrous confusion of languages and opinions.”

At a meeting of the French Senate, its chairman, Challmel-Lacourt, said in his speech (November 5, 1894) that the Russian people were experiencing “the grief of the loss of a ruler immensely devoted to his future, his greatness, his security; The Russian nation, under the just and peaceful authority of its emperor, enjoyed security, this highest good of society and an instrument of true greatness.”

Most of the French press spoke in the same tones about the late Russian Tsar: “He leaves Russia greater than he received it,” wrote the Journal des Debats; a Revue des deux Mondes echoed the words of V. O. Klyuchevsky: “This grief was also our grief; for us it has acquired a national character; but other nations experienced almost the same feelings... Europe felt that it was losing an arbiter who had always been guided by the idea of justice.”

*** * ***

1894 – just like the 80s and 90s in general. – refers to that long period of “calm before the storm,” the longest period without major wars in modern and medieval history. This time left its mark on everyone who grew up during these years of calm. By the end of the 19th century. the growth of material well-being and external education proceeded with increasing acceleration. Technology went from invention to invention, science - from discovery to discovery. Railways and steamships have already made it possible to “travel around the world in 80 days”; Following the telegraph wires, strings of telephone wires were already stretched around the world. Electric lighting was quickly replacing gas lighting. But in 1894, the clumsy first cars could not yet compete with the graceful carriages and carriages; “live photography” was still in the stage of preliminary experiments; controllable balloons were just a dream; Heavier-than-air vehicles have never been heard of. Radio had not been invented, and radium had not yet been discovered...

In almost all states, the same political process was observed: the growth of the influence of parliament, the expansion of suffrage, and the transfer of power to more left-wing circles. In essence, no one in the West waged a real struggle against this trend, which at that time seemed to be a spontaneous course of “historical progress.” The Conservatives, themselves gradually moving to the left and to the left, were content to at times slow down the pace of this development - 1894 in most countries saw just such a slowdown.

In France, after the assassination of President Carnot and a series of senseless anarchist assassination attempts, up to a bomb in the Chamber of Deputies and the notorious Panama scandal, which marked the beginning of the 90s. In this country, there has just been a slight shift to the right. The president was Casimir Perrier, a right-wing republican inclined to expand presidential power; The Dupuis ministry was governed by a moderate majority. But already at that time those who in the 70s were considered “moderate”. were on the extreme left of the National Assembly; just shortly before - around 1890 - under the influence of the advice of Pope Leo XIII, a significant part of French Catholics joined the ranks of the Republicans.

In Germany, after the resignation of Bismarck, the influence of the Reichstag increased significantly; Social Democracy, gradually conquering more and more large cities, became the largest German party. The conservatives, for their part, relying on the Prussian Landtag, waged a stubborn struggle against the economic policies of Wilhelm II. For lack of energy in the fight against the socialists, Chancellor Caprivi was replaced in October 1894 by the elderly Prince Hohenlohe; but this did not result in any noticeable change in course.

In England in 1894, the liberals were defeated on the Irish question, and the “intermediate” ministry of Lord Rosebery was in power, which soon gave way to the cabinet of Lord Salisbury, which relied on conservatives and liberal unionists (opponents of Irish self-government). These unionists, led by Chamberlain, played such a prominent role in the government majority that soon the name of the unionists generally supplanted the name of the conservatives for twenty years. Unlike Germany, the English labor movement was not yet political in nature, and the powerful trade unions, which had already organized very impressive strikes, were for now content with economic and professional achievements - finding more support in this from conservatives than from liberals. These relationships explain the phrase of a prominent English figure of that time: “We are all socialists now”...

In Austria and Hungary, parliamentary rule was more pronounced than in Germany: cabinets that did not have a majority had to resign. On the other hand, the parliament itself opposed the expansion of suffrage: the dominant parties were afraid of losing power. By the time of the death of Emperor Alexander III, Vienna was ruled by the short-lived ministry of Prince Windischgrätz, which relied on very heterogeneous elements: German liberals, Poles and clerics.

In Italy, after a period of dominance of the left with Giolitti at the head, after a scandal with the appointment to the Senate of the thieving bank director Tanlongo, at the beginning of 1894 the old politician Crispi, one of the authors of the Triple Alliance, who played a role in the special Italian parliamentary conditions, came back to power conservative.

Although the 2nd International had already been founded in 1889 and socialist ideas were becoming increasingly widespread in Europe, by 1894 the socialists did not yet represent a serious political force in any country except Germany (where in 1893 they had already carried out 44 deputies). But the parliamentary system in many small states - Belgium, Scandinavian, Balkan countries - has received an even more straightforward application than that of the great powers. Apart from Russia, only Turkey and Montenegro among European countries did not have parliaments at all at that time.

The era of calm was at the same time an era of armed peace. All the great powers, and after them the small ones, increased and improved their weapons. Europe, as V. O. Klyuchevsky put it, “for its own safety has placed itself in a powder magazine.” Universal conscription was carried out in all the main states of Europe, except insular England. The technology of war did not lag behind the technology of peace in its development.

Mutual distrust between states was great. The Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy seemed the most powerful combination of powers. But its participants did not fully rely on each other. Until 1890, Germany still considered it necessary to “play it safe” through a secret treaty with Russia - and Bismarck saw a fatal mistake in the fact that Emperor Wilhelm II did not renew this treaty - and France entered into negotiations with Italy more than once, trying to tear it away from the Tripartite Treaty union. England was in "magnificent solitude." France harbored the unhealed wound of its defeat in 1870–1871. and was ready to side with any enemy of Germany. The thirst for revenge clearly manifested itself in the late 80s. the successes of Boulangism.

The division of Africa was largely completed by 1890, at least on the coast. Enterprising colonialists strove from everywhere to the interior of the mainland, where there were still unexplored areas, to be the first to raise the flag of their country and secure “no man's lands” for it. Only on the middle reaches of the Nile was the path of the British still blocked by the state of the Mahdists, Muslim fanatics, who in 1885 defeated and killed the English general Gordon during the capture of Khartoum. And mountainous Abyssinia, against which the Italians began their campaign, was preparing an unexpectedly powerful rebuff for them.

All these were just islands - Africa, like Australia and America before, became the property of the white race. Until the end of the 19th century. the prevailing belief was that Asia would suffer the same fate. England and Russia were already watching each other through the thin barrier of weak, still independent states, Persia, Afghanistan, and semi-independent Tibet. The closest it came to war during the entire reign of Emperor Alexander III was when in 1885 General Komarov defeated the Afghans near Kushka: the British kept a vigilant eye on the “Gateway to India”! However, the acute conflict was resolved by an agreement in 1887.

But in the Far East, where back in the 1850s. The Russians occupied the Ussuri region, which belonged to China, without a fight, and the dormant peoples just began to stir. When Emperor Alexander III was dying, cannons thundered on the shores of the Yellow Sea: small Japan, having mastered European technology, was winning its first victories over the huge but still motionless China.

*** * ***

In this world, the Russian Empire, with its area of 20 million square miles, with a population of 125 million people, occupied a prominent position. Since the Seven Years' War, and especially since 1812, Russia's military power has been highly valued in Western Europe. The Crimean War showed the limits of this power, but at the same time confirmed its strength. Since then, the era of reforms, including in the military sphere, has created new conditions for the development of Russian strength.

Russia began to be seriously studied at this time. A. Leroy-Beaulieu in French, Sir D. Mackenzie-Wallace in English published large studies about Russia in the 1870s–1880s. The structure of the Russian Empire differed very significantly from Western European conditions, but foreigners then already began to understand that we were talking about dissimilar, and not “backward” state forms.

“The Russian Empire is governed on the exact basis of laws emanating from the highest authority. The Emperor is an autocratic and unlimited monarch,” read the Russian fundamental laws. The king had full legislative and executive power. This did not mean arbitrariness: all essential questions had precise answers in the laws, which were subject to execution until repealed. In the field of civil rights, the Russian tsarist government generally avoided a sharp break, took into account the legal skills of the population and acquired rights, and left in force on the territory of the empire both the Napoleon Code (in the Kingdom of Poland), and the Lithuanian Statute (in the Poltava and Chernigov provinces), and the Magdeburg law (in the Baltic region), and common law among peasants, and all kinds of local laws and customs in the Caucasus, Siberia, and Central Asia.

But the right to make laws indivisibly belonged to the king. There was a State Council of the highest dignitaries appointed there by the sovereign; he discussed draft laws; but the king could agree, at his discretion, with both the opinion of the majority and the opinion of the minority - or reject both. Usually, special commissions and meetings were formed to conduct important events; but they had, of course, only preparatory value.

In the executive sphere, the fullness of royal power was also unlimited. After the death of Cardinal Mazarin, Louis XIV declared that from now on he wanted to be his own first minister. But all Russian monarchs were in the same position. Russia did not know the position of the first minister. The title of chancellor, sometimes assigned to the minister of foreign affairs (the last chancellor was His Serene Highness Prince A.M. Gorchakov, who died in 1883), gave him the rank of first class according to the Table of Ranks, but did not mean any primacy over the other ministers. There was a Committee of Ministers, it had a permanent chairman (in 1894 it was still the former Minister of Finance N.H. Bunge). But this Committee was, in essence, only a kind of interdepartmental meeting.

All ministers and chief managers of individual units had their own independent report to the sovereign. The governors-general, as well as the mayors of both capitals, were also directly subordinate to the sovereign.

This did not mean that the sovereign was involved in all the details of the management of individual departments (although, for example, Emperor Alexander III was “his own minister of foreign affairs”, to whom everything “incoming” and “outgoing” was reported; N.K. Girs was, as it were, his “ comrade minister"). Individual ministers sometimes had great power and the possibility of broad initiative. But they had them because the And Bye the sovereign trusted them.

To implement plans coming from above, Russia also had a large staff of officials. Emperor Nicholas I once dropped an ironic phrase that Russia is governed by 30,000 government officials. Complaints about “bureaucracy” and “mediastinum” were very common in Russian society. It was customary to scold officials and grumble at them. Abroad, there was an idea of almost universal bribery of Russian officials. He was often judged by the satires of Gogol or Shchedrin; but a caricature, even a successful one, cannot be considered a portrait. In some departments, such as the police, low salaries actually contributed to quite widespread bribery. Others, such as the Ministry of Finance or the judicial department after the reform of 1864, enjoyed, on the contrary, a reputation for high integrity. It must be admitted, however, that one of the features that united Russia with the eastern countries was an everyday condescending attitude towards many actions of dubious honesty; the fight against this phenomenon was psychologically difficult. Some groups of the population, such as engineers, enjoyed an even worse reputation than officials - quite often, of course, undeserved.

But the top government officials were free from this disease. Cases where ministers or other government officials were involved in abuses were rare and sensational exceptions.

Be that as it may, the Russian administration, even in its most imperfect parts, carried out, despite difficult conditions, the task entrusted to it. The tsarist government had at its disposal an obedient and well-organized state apparatus, adapted to the diverse needs of the Russian Empire. This apparatus was created over centuries - from Moscow orders - and in many ways achieved high perfection.

But the Russian Tsar was not only the head of state: he was at the same time the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, which occupied a leading position in the country. This, of course, did not mean that the tsar had the right to touch upon church dogmas; The conciliar structure of the Orthodox Church excluded such an understanding of the rights of the tsar. But at the proposal of the Holy Synod, the highest church college, the appointment of bishops was made by the king; and the replenishment of the Synod itself depended on him (in the same order). The chief prosecutor of the Synod was the link between the church and the state. This position was occupied by K. P. Pobedonostsev, a man of outstanding intelligence and strong will, for more than a quarter of a century, the teacher of two emperors - Alexander III and Nicholas II.

During the reign of Emperor Alexander III, the following main tendencies of power appeared: not sweepingly negative, but in any case critical attitude towards what was called “progress”, and the desire to give Russia more internal unity by asserting the primacy of the Russian elements of the country. In addition, two currents appeared simultaneously, far from being similar, but seemingly complementing each other. One, which sets itself the goal of protecting the weak from the strong, preferring the broad masses of the people to those who have separated from them, with some egalitarian inclinations, in the terms of our time could be called “demophilic” or Christian-social. This is a trend whose representatives were, along with others, the Minister of Justice Manasein (who resigned in 1894) and K.P. Pobedonostsev, who wrote that “the nobles, like the people, are subject to curbing.” Another trend, which found its exponent in the Minister of Internal Affairs, Count D. A. Tolstoy, sought to strengthen the ruling classes and establish a certain hierarchy in the state. The first movement, among other things, ardently defended the peasant community as a unique Russian form of solving the social problem.

The Russification policy met with more sympathy from the “demophile” movement. On the contrary, a prominent representative of the second trend, the famous writer K. N. Leontyev, came out in 1888 with the brochure “National Policy as a Weapon of World Revolution” (in subsequent editions the word “national” was replaced by “tribal”), proving that “the movement of modern political nationalism is nothing more than the spread of cosmopolitan democratization, modified only in its methods.”

Of the prominent right-wing publicists of that time, M. N. Katkov joined the first trend, and Prince V. P. Meshchersky joined the second.

Emperor Alexander III himself, with his deeply Russian mindset, did not sympathize with the Russification extremes and expressively wrote to K.P. Pobedonostsev (in 1886): “There are gentlemen who think that they are the only Russians, and no one else. Do they already imagine that I am a German or a Chukhonian? It’s easy for them with their farcical patriotism when they are not responsible for anything. It’s not I who will offend Russia.”

*** * ***

In foreign policy, the reign of Emperor Alexander III brought great changes. That closeness with Germany, or rather, with Prussia, which remained a common feature of Russian politics since Catherine the Great and runs like a red thread through the reigns of Alexander I, Nicholas I and especially Alexander II, gave way to a noticeable cooling. It would hardly be correct, as is sometimes done, to attribute this development of events to the anti-German sentiments of Empress Maria Feodorovna, a Danish princess who married the Russian heir shortly after the Danish-Prussian War of 1864! Can we really say that political complications this time were not mitigated, as in previous reigns, by personal good relations and family ties of the dynasties. The reasons were, of course, mainly political.

Although Bismarck considered it possible to combine the Triple Alliance with friendly relations with Russia, the Austro-German-Italian alliance was, of course, at the root of the cooling between the old friends. The Berlin Congress left bitterness in Russian public opinion. Anti-German notes began to sound at the top. General Skobelev's harsh speech against the Germans is known; Katkov in Moskovskie Vedomosti led a campaign against them. By the mid-80s. the tension began to be felt more strongly; The German seven-year military budget (septennat) was caused by deteriorating relations with Russia. The German government closed the Berlin market to Russian securities.

Emperor Alexander III, like Bismarck, was seriously worried about this aggravation, and in 1887 a so-called reinsurance agreement was concluded for a three-year period. This was a secret Russian-German agreement, according to which both countries promised each other benevolent neutrality in the event of an attack by any third country on one of them. This agreement constituted a significant reservation to the act of the Triple Alliance. It meant that Germany would not support any anti-Russian action by Austria. Legally, these treaties were compatible, since the Triple Alliance provided only support in the event that any of its participants will be attacked(which gave Italy the opportunity to declare neutrality in 1914 without violating the union treaty).

But this reinsurance agreement was not renewed in 1890. Negotiations about it coincided with the resignation of Bismarck. His successor, General Caprivi, pointed out to William II with military straightforwardness that this treaty seemed disloyal to Austria. For his part, Emperor Alexander III, who had sympathy for Bismarck, did not seek to get involved with the new rulers of Germany.

After this, in the 90s, things came to a Russian-German customs war, which ended with a trade agreement on March 20, 1894, concluded with the close participation of the Minister of Finance S. Yu. Witte. This agreement gave Russia - for a ten-year period - significant advantages.

Relations with Austria-Hungary had no reason to deteriorate: from the time when Austria, saved from the Hungarian revolution by Emperor Nicholas I, “surprised the world with ingratitude” during the Crimean War, Russia and Austria clashed on the entire Balkan front, just like Russia and England on the entire Asian front.

England at that time still continued to see in the Russian Empire its main enemy and competitor, “a huge glacier hanging over India,” as Lord Beaconsfield (Disraeli) put it in the English Parliament.

In the Balkans, Russia experienced in the 80s. grave disappointments. The liberation war of 1877–1878, which cost Russia so much blood and such financial turmoil, did not bring it immediate fruit. Austria actually took over Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Russia was forced to admit this in order to avoid a new war. In Serbia, the Obrenovic dynasty, represented by King Milan, was in power, clearly gravitating towards Austria. Even Bismarck spoke caustically about Bulgaria in his memoirs: “Liberated peoples are not grateful, but pretentious.” There it came to the persecution of Russophile elements. The replacement of Prince Alexander of Battenberg, who became the head of anti-Russian movements, by Ferdinand of Coburg did not improve Russian-Bulgarian relations. Only in 1894 was Istanbulov, the main inspirer of Russophobic policies, supposed to resign. The only country with which Russia for many years did not even have diplomatic relations was Bulgaria, so recently resurrected by Russian weapons from a long state oblivion!

Romania was allied with Austria and Germany, offended that in 1878 Russia regained a small portion of Bessarabia, taken from it in the Crimean War. Although Romania received in the form of compensation the entire Dobruja with the port of Constanta, it preferred to get closer to the opponents of Russian policy in the Balkans.

When Emperor Alexander III proclaimed his famous toast to “Russia’s only true friend, Prince Nicholas of Montenegro,” this, in essence, corresponded to reality. Russia's power was so great that it did not feel threatened in this solitude. But after the termination of the reinsurance agreement, during a sharp deterioration in Russian-German economic relations, Emperor Alexander III took certain steps to move closer to France.

The republican system, state unbelief and such recent phenomena as the Panama scandal could not endear the Russian Tsar, the keeper of conservative and religious principles, to France. Many therefore considered a Franco-Russian agreement out of the question. The ceremonial reception of the sailors of the French squadron in Kronstadt, when the Russian Tsar listened to the Marseillaise with his head uncovered, showed that sympathy or antipathy for the internal system of France was not decisive for Emperor Alexander III. Few people, however, thought that already in 1892, a secret defensive alliance was concluded between Russia and France, supplemented by a military convention indicating how many troops both sides undertake to field in the event of war with Germany. This agreement was so secret at that time that neither the ministers (of course, except for two or three senior officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Military Department), nor even the heir to the throne knew about it.

French society had long been eager to formalize this union, but the tsar made it a condition of strict secrecy, fearing that confidence in Russian support could give rise to militant sentiments in France, revive the thirst for revenge and the government, due to the peculiarities of the democratic system, would not be able to resist the pressure of public opinion.

*** * ***

The Russian Empire at that time had the largest peacetime army in the world. Its 22 corps, not counting the Cossacks and irregular units, reached a strength of 900,000 people. With a four-year term of military service, an annual call for recruits was given in the early 90s. three times more people than the army needed. This not only made it possible to make strict selection based on physical fitness, but also made it possible to provide broad benefits based on marital status. The only sons, older brothers, in whose care were younger ones, teachers, doctors, etc., were exempted from active military service and were directly enlisted in the second-class militia warriors, to whom mobilization could only reach the very last place. In Russia, only 31 percent of conscripts each year enlisted, compared with 76 percent in France.

Sergey Oldenburg

Reign of Emperor Nicholas II

Book one

Autocratic rule

Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. 1896

These words begin the manifesto that announced to Russia the accession of Emperor Nicholas II to the ancestral throne.

Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. 1896

These words begin the manifesto that announced to Russia the accession of Emperor Nicholas II to the ancestral throne.

Sergey Oldenburg

Reign of Emperor Nicholas II

Book one

Autocratic rule