Military Review

11 May 1881. The manifesto of Alexander III on the strengthening of autocratic power was published.

80
11 May 1881. The manifesto of Alexander III on the strengthening of autocratic power was published.

11 May 1881. Emperor Alexander III published a manifesto that confirmed the inviolability of the principles of autocracy. This document, prepared by a law scholar, statesman Konstantin Pobedonostsev, buried the hopes of liberal circles for constitutional changes in the state system of the Russian empire. These hopes appeared during the reign of Emperor Alexander II. At the end of his reign, a draft was drawn up aimed at restricting the autocracy in favor of bodies with limited representation. The rights of the already existing State Council were expanded, they also intended to establish a “General Commission” (congress) that was formed “by appointment” of the government and partly by representatives of zemstvos.


The conductor of this “constitutional project” was Minister of the Interior Mikhail Loris-Melikov, who at the end of the reign of Alexander II had extraordinary powers, as well as Minister of Finance Alexander Abaza. Many other statesmen and ministers supported the idea. Emperor Alexander II was inclined to support this project, and approved it. On 4 March, 1881 was scheduled to discuss the plan at a meeting of the Council of Ministers, with subsequent entry into force. However, 1 March, the emperor was killed.

8 March 1881, already under Tsar Alexander III, a discussion took place. Most ministers supported the idea. Against, Count Sergei Stroganov spoke, he rightly believed that "the power will pass from the hands of the autocratic monarch ... into the hands of various mischievous people who think ... only about their personal gain" and Pobedonostsev - "it is necessary to think not about the establishment of a new talker, ... about the business" . The emperor hesitated for a while before choosing the strategic course of his rule, taking a neutral position between the parties of the “liberals” and the “statesmen”. But in the end, he chose a course to strengthen the autocratic system.

It was the right choice. It should be noted that the virus of liberalism has always weakened the strength of Russia. The Russian state, due to its historical development, strategic location and territory, has almost always been an empire that requires strong, centralized power. The reign of the “liberator” tsar seriously undermined the foundations of the empire. The liberal economic policy, which was characterized by the refusal of the government of Alexander II from industrial protectionism, active foreign loans, led to an economic crisis.

Since the introduction of the liberal customs tariff in 1857, by 1862, cotton processing in the Russian state has decreased by 3,5 times, and iron production has decreased by 25%. In 1868, a new customs tariff was introduced, which continued the liberal course. Import duties were reduced on average 10 times, and for some products 20-40 times. As a result, the entire period of the reign of Alexander II and until the second half of the 1880-ies. continued economic depression. Evidence of slow industrial growth during the reign of Alexander Nikolayevich is the production of pig iron. 1855-1859 to 1875-1879 growth was only 67% (for comparison, in Germany, iron smelting increased during this time by 319%), and from 1880 — 1884 to 1900 — 1904. production growth was 487%.

The situation has worsened in agriculture. It was believed that the peasant reform would lead to an increase in productivity in this most important sector of the national economy, but these expectations were not fulfilled. Productivity increased only in 1880-s. Hunger, as a mass phenomenon, in Russia did not know since the time of Catherine II, during the reign of Alexander II, hunger again returned to the Russian villages.

The liberal customs tariff hindered the development of domestic industry and led to a serious increase in imports. By 1876, imports increased almost 4 times. If earlier the state’s trade balance was positive all the time, then during the reign of Alexander II its constant deterioration occurred. Since 1871, the trade balance has been negative for several years. In 1875, the deficit reached its record - 35% of the export volume (162 million rubles). This led to the outflow of gold from the country and the depreciation of the ruble. The situation has worsened so much that at the end of the reign of Alexander Nikolayevich the government began to resort to increasing import duties, which made it possible to somewhat improve the trade balance.

Alexander II is credited with the rapid development of the railway network, which stimulated the Russian steam engine and car building. But the development of the railway network was accompanied by massive abuses and deterioration of the financial situation of Russia. Huge government (national) money went to support private companies, which the state guaranteed to cover their expenses and supported subsidies. Private traders in order to obtain government subsidies artificially inflated their spending. The unpaid obligations of the Russian government to private railway companies in 1871 amounted to 174 million rubles, and after a few years they exceeded half a billion rubles (this was a huge sum for those times). A completely outrageous picture emerged when the railways that were actually built with state money belonged to private firms, and the state also reimbursed them for losses, often inflated. Predation and deception flourished. Subsequently, Alexander III had to eliminate the consequences of such unwise steps and return the railways to state control. This experience has shown that railways should not be given into private hands, “railway kings” think first of all about their own pocket, and not about the strategic interests of the state and the welfare of the people. In addition, the roads were often bad, with poor throughput. As a result, the state (the people) suffered huge losses.

Under Emperor Nicholas I, there were almost no foreign loans, and the government of Alexander II began to actively resort to covering budget expenses. This made Russia dependent on Western financial structures. Loans were taken on extremely unfavorable conditions: commission to banks amounted to 10% of the amount for borrowing. In addition, loans were placed, as a rule, at a price of 63-67% to its nominal, as a result, the treasury received a little more than half of the loan amount, and the debt was considered to be the full amount, and 7-8 annual interest was charged on the full amount. The Russian Empire received a huge debt burden: 1862 - 2,2 billion rubles., The beginning of 1880's - 5,9 billion rubles. With the "Liberator" from 1859, the hard ruble to gold exchange rate, which was adhered to under Nicholas I, was abolished, credit money was introduced into circulation that did not have a solid exchange rate to the precious metal. In 1860 and 1870, the government was forced, to cover the budget deficit, to resort to issuing loan money, which led to their depreciation and disappearance from the circulation of metallic money. Attempts to reintroduce a firm exchange rate of the paper ruble to gold failed.

In general, the economic course of the government of Alexander Nikolayevich led to the decline of industry, waste of forces and means, financial dependence on the Western world, and the prosperity of a narrow group of the predatory bourgeoisie. Depression in the economy was accompanied by an increase in corruption and theft. The largest feeders were the financial sector, various financial intermediaries appropriated a significant part of government loans and the railway industry. A number of high-ranking officials participated in the establishment of railway companies, helping them with their administrative resources. In addition, entrepreneurs paid large bribes to officials for certain permits in their favor. It came to the point that, according to a number of contemporaries and researchers, the emperor himself was unclean. As the Russian historian P.A. Zayonchkovsky noted, Alexander had “a very peculiar idea of ​​honesty”. In his reign, rail concessions were distributed to favorites and favorites to improve their financial situation. Often such transactions took place under the influence of his mistress and future morganatic wife of Princess Ekaterina Dolgorukova, who received the title of the brightest Princess Yuryevskaya. Very emphatically, the emperor also disposed of the treasury, gave the brothers a number of rich estates from state lands, and allowed them to build luxurious palaces at the expense of the state.

In foreign policy, the government of Alexander II also made a number of gross strategic miscalculations. Suffice it to recall the scam with the sale of Russian America. Many mistakes were made in the Balkan direction, where Russia first allowed itself to be drawn into the unnecessary war with Turkey, during the campaign itself, and then during the peace negotiations, when St. Petersburg allowed to take away a significant part of the fruits of victory.

It was during the reign of Alexander II that the revolutionary underground was created, which would destroy the empire in 1917. In the reign of Nicholas revolutionary activity was reduced to almost zero. The social base of the revolutionaries also increased. There was a significant increase in peasant uprisings, an increase in the number of protest groups among intellectuals and workers. For the first time, Russia has learned what terror is, which has become widespread. By the end of the reign of Alexander Nikolayevich protest moods infiltrated the nobility and the army. It got to the point that the liberal public applauded the terrorists. The Russian Empire accelerated towards the revolution. The death of the emperor was the logical outcome of his work. He who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind.

Emperor Alexander III reassured Russia. With his Manifesto on the inviolability of the autocracy, he inspired confidence in the course of the government to all statesmen. Liberal ministers and policymakers were dismissed. The key Ministry of the Interior was headed by Slavophil Nikolai Ignatiev, and the military department Peter Vannovsky. The period of counterreforms began, which led to the stabilization of the state.

The activities of Alexander Alexandrovich led to the prosperity of the empire and the growth of its power. Under Alexander III, nicknamed the Peacemaker, Russia did not wage external wars, but its territory increased by 429 895 square. km, for comparison, the area of ​​modern Britain - 243 809 square. km From 1881 to 1894, the year was constantly held measures to modernize the armed forces and strengthen the defenses of the Russian Empire. By the end of the reign of Alexander III, the number of the Russian army reached almost 1 million, which was about 1% of the population of Russia. In wartime, the Russian state could quickly mobilize 2,7 million. The military transformations carried out by the Minister of War, Vannovsky, significantly improved and strengthened the army.

The emperor paid much attention to the creation of a strong naval fleet, which after the Crimean War never regained its power. On behalf of Alexander Alexandrovich, the Maritime Department developed a shipbuilding program for 1882 - 1900: they were planning to put into operation 16 squadron battleships, 13 cruisers, 19 navigable gunboats and more than 100 destroyers. By 1896, 8 squadron battleships, 7 cruisers, 9 gunboats and 51 destroyers were launched. The implementation of the program for the construction of new battleships with a displacement of up to 10 thousand tons, armed with four 305 mm guns and twelve 152 mm guns, began. By the end of the reign of the emperor, the displacement of the Russian navy reached 300 thousand tons. The Russian fleet was now second only to the British and French.

In 1882, the sovereign approved the program for the construction of a strategic railway network. In the Russian state, a country of vast expanses, the railways were of great military-strategic and economic importance. They are "iron belts" the body of the empire in a single unit. An extensive network of railway communications allowed both pull troops to the front from the depths of the country, and maneuver them along the front line. Railways were of great importance in the supply of troops with all necessary. Railways contributed to the growth of heavy industry, engineering, development of trade and the economy as a whole. In the 1880-s, the construction of the Transcaucasian road was completed. Then they built the Transcaspian line, which in 1890-s continued to Tashkent and Kushka. The construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway began. Over the 13 years of the Peacemaker’s reign, the rail network in Russia has increased by almost 10 thousand miles (from 21 229 to 31 219). The railways were now predominantly state built. Partial nationalization of the railways was carried out - by the end of the century, only 44 remained from 6 private companies. The share of the state in the railways has become predominant. Railways have ceased to be unprofitable for the state and began to make a profit.

Great progress was made in the development of industry. This technical revolution occurred in metallurgy. The production of steel, iron, oil and coal grew at a record pace. The Russian government returned to protectionist policies that were carried out under Nicholas I. During the 1880s. several times increased import duties. Since 1891, a new system of customs tariffs has been introduced, the highest in the previous few decades. For most types of imported goods, duties in the amount of 25-30% were introduced, and for some product groups, such as luxury goods, up to 70%. This contributed not only to the growth of industry, but also to the improvement of the foreign trade balance and the strengthening of the state’s financial system. It was a real “Russian miracle”, which is usually forgotten, being carried away by the exposure of the “reactionary regime” of Alexander III, in just a decade (1887 — 1897) industrial production in Russia was doubled.

Significantly improved the state of public finances. They were favorably acted on the protectionism of the government and the rapid development of industry. In addition, the increase in public debt was slowed down, the share of the state budget, which was spent on servicing the public debt, decreased. They introduced a state monopoly on the trade in alcoholic beverages. Preparations began for the introduction of the gold ruble, the reform was carried out after the death of the emperor-hero. The capitation tax was abolished, which improved the condition of people. Treasury tried to replenish through indirect taxes. The emperor has taken measures to combat corruption. A ban has been imposed on officials to participate in the boards of private joint-stock companies and a number of other restrictions. The emperor tried to limit the appetites of the imperial family, the court.

In the field of foreign policy, Aleksandr Aleksandrovich was free from any external influences. It was a real autocrat. Russia did not get involved in any war, Russian soldiers did not die for the interests of others. The sovereign believed that Russia had no need to look for friends in Western Europe and get into European affairs. The words of Tsar Alexander, which have already become winged, are well known: “All over the world we have only two faithful allies — our army and navy. All the rest, as soon as possible, will themselves turn against us. ” At the same time, Russia was strengthening its position in the Far East, in relations with China, Japan, Korea, and Mongolia.

On the vast expanse of Central Asia, a railway was laid that connected the eastern coast of the Caspian Sea with the center of the Russian Central Asian possessions - Samarkand and the Amu Darya River. It must be said that Emperor Alexander III persistently strove for full unification with all its suburbs with the indigenous territory of Russia. Therefore, the Caucasian governorship was abolished, the privileges of the Baltic Germans were destroyed. Foreigners, including Poles, were forbidden to acquire land in Western Russia, including in Belarus. In general, it should be noted the great role of the emperor in the "Russification" of the empire. He personally, by his example, imparted “Russianness” to the top of the state, which was struck by the virus of Westernism. The internal strengthening of Russia simultaneously led to the strengthening of its position on the world stage.

The emperor paid much attention to music, art, stories, was one of the founders of the Russian Historical Society and its chairman, was engaged in collecting collections of old objects and the restoration of historical monuments. Much attention was paid to the growth of education of ordinary people: the number of parochial schools on its board grew from 4 thousand to 31 thousand, more than 1 million children enrolled in them. The emperor was flawless in his personal life.

Application. Manifest text

We declare to all our faithful subjects:
God, in His inscrutable destinies, was pleased to complete the glorious Reign of our Beloved Parent with our martyr's death, and to entrust us with the Sacred Duty of the Autocratic Rule.
Obeying the will of Providence and the Law of the State's Heritage, We took this burden at the terrible hour of nationwide grief and horror, before the Face of the Most High God, believing that having predetermined the Power for us in such a difficult and difficult time, He would not leave us with His All-powerful Help. We also believe that the fervent prayers of a pious people, known throughout the world for their love and devotion to their Sovereigns, will attract the blessing of God upon Us and the work of the Government before us.
In the Bose, our late Parent, having received the autocratic power from God for the benefit of the people entrusted to Him, remained faithful to death by the vow He made and sealed His great ministry. Not so much by the strict dictates of the authorities, but by her goodness and meekness, He accomplished the greatest work of His Reign - the liberation of the serfs, having managed to attract the noble owners always obedient to the voice of kindness and honor; approved the Court in the Kingdom, and His subjects, of which he made all without distinction forever free, called for the administration of the affairs of the local government and the public economy. May his memory be blessed forever!
The low and evil murder of the Russian Sovereign, in the midst of the faithful people, ready to lay down his life for him, unworthy monsters of the people, is a terrible, shameful thing, unheard of in Russia, and darkened the whole earth with our sorrow and horror.
But in the midst of our great sorrow, the Voice of God commands us to become vigorously in the cause of the Board in relying on Divine Providence, with faith in the power and truth of the Autocratic Power, which We are called to assert and protect for the good of the people from all encroachments on it.
May the hearts of the faithful Our subjects, all those who love the Fatherland and the devotees from the clan to the Hereditary Royal Power, be emboldened and confused and confused and horrified. Under her companion and in her inseparable union, our land experienced more than once great troubles and came into force and glory in the midst of severe trials and disasters, with faith in God arranging its destinies.
Devoting Himself to Our great ministry, We call upon all our faithful subjects to serve Us and the State faithfully and faithfully, to eradicate the vile seditions that dishonor the Russian land, to assert faith and morality, to the good education of children, to the destruction of untruth and theft, to the establishment of order and truth in the action of institutions bestowed on Russia by its Benefactor, Our Beloved Parent.
It is given in St. Petersburg, on the 29-th day of April, in the summer of the Nativity one thousand eight hundred and eighty-first, Our Reign in the first.
Author:
80 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 11 May 2013 08: 39 New
    +6
    ... In 1875, the deficit reached its record - 35% of the volume of exports (162 million rubles). This led to a drain of gold from the country and the depreciation of the ruble ...
    This made Russia dependent on the financial structures of the West. Loans were taken on extremely unfavorable conditions: the commission to banks amounted to 10% of the amount for borrowing. In addition, loans were placed, as a rule, at a price of 63-67% of its face value ...
    ... There was an absolutely outrageous picture when the railways actually built with state money belonged to private firms, and the state also compensated them for losses, often overstated. Predation and deception flourished ...

    Yes, nothing new under the moon negative
  2. politruk419
    politruk419 11 May 2013 09: 03 New
    +6
    Yes, it is the reign of Alexander III that is the most revealing example of the Orthodox Autocrat, an eternal ideal for supporters of the ideas of monarchism.

    The emperor was impeccable in his personal life.(C)
    Of all the Romanovs, only Mikhail Fedorovich can boast of this (most likely due to the fact that then the discussion of the Tsar’s personal (very closed) life led straight to the block). Well, Nicholas II, the son of Alexander III (if you do not read the disgusting yellow-page letters for the money of the General Staff of Germany) .Personal life (as well as the reign) of Pavel Petrovich, alas, was crowned by a plot involving his own son.
    1. vladimirZ
      vladimirZ 11 May 2013 10: 52 New
      -12
      There are no good kings. These are the first robbers of the people. Caring only about their autocracy and believing that Russia was subordinated to them by God, for centuries they kept the people in serfdom, in direct slavery. It was the kings who gave people, like cattle, to their yard, that is, the nobles, as themselves, they nobly called.
      This parasitic nobility, together with tsarism, gave rise to the mass anger of the people, and in the end the Revolution destroyed the king and nobles as an unnecessary unnecessary class of society.
      Therefore, do not sing praise to tsarism. There are no good kings.
      1. omsbon
        omsbon 11 May 2013 14: 16 New
        +6
        Quote: vladimirZ
        There are no good kings.

        And I love Alexander III, at least for his phrase "While the Russian Tsar is catching fish, European ambassadors can wait"
        The European ambassadors stood and waited, not one of them dared to buck up and blather something!
        1. antidote
          antidote 11 May 2013 15: 06 New
          +7
          And I still like another phrase. At a dinner with the Emperor, the Austro-Hungarian ambassador said that if Russia continued to interfere in the affairs of Bulgaria, then Austria-Hungary would enter its corps there. Then the Emperor took the fork, tied it with a knot (he was very strong) and threw this squiggle to the ambassador and said: "This is what I will do with your corps."
          It is believed that the Emperor was poisoned. He was an ardent opponent of our original Anglo-Saxon enemies.
        2. Petrospek
          Petrospek 11 May 2013 17: 08 New
          0
          Well, he is still the first person in the state, and they are ambassadors!
          Or do you think that if, for example, Putin would say such a phrase, then, what if the ambassadors would swear at him and spit in the back ??
      2. antidote
        antidote 11 May 2013 14: 48 New
        +5
        The revolution in Russia was not born by tsars and political opponents of the Russian state. Always look for who benefits from it. The brick itself does not fall, Woland said in "The Master and Margarita." Try to think for yourself, and not repeat different cliches. Moreover, these cliches are already some old ones from the speeches of Trotsky comrade
      3. d.gksueyjd
        d.gksueyjd 11 May 2013 15: 37 New
        +5
        Quote: vladimirZ
        Therefore, do not sing praise to tsarism. There are no good kings.

        Now you will be given a lot of examples of "good" kings. One of the first will be Peter 1, who raised the country, but everyone forgets at what cost (the population of Russia fell by almost a third, the peasants were finally legitimized by slaves) and only one justifies it - the revival of Russia as an empire. Now they are not too lazy, they are reproaching Stalin for their poor folly, but he did the same for Peter as Peter 1. But for the sake of what now the "liberals" are ruining Russia, there is no war, there are no catastrophes, there are no epidemics, and the population and education of Russia has decreased by official . data at 27 mil.
      4. Andrew-001
        Andrew-001 11 May 2013 17: 33 New
        +8
        The king is the personification of the state.
        Good for the state - good for the king, bad for the state - bad for the king.
        In theory, the tsar has nothing personal - all of him is his, and taking care of Russia, he takes care of himself, and vice versa - taking care of himself - takes care of Russia.
        This is ideal. But in practice - it depends on the identity of the autocrat.
        1. Andrew-001
          Andrew-001 11 May 2013 21: 17 New
          +2
          I did not please the liberals.
          So said the truth yes
        2. AntonR7
          AntonR7 12 May 2013 18: 19 New
          0
          In, bravo you will not tell more precisely! The king, as a father, is responsible for God to the people, and the president was just a temporary worker and he stole and secured himself immunity from criminal prosecution after the presidency and retirement.
      5. Alekseev
        Alekseev 12 May 2013 14: 55 New
        0
        [quote = vladimirZ] This parasitic noble estate along with tsarism ... / quote] [quote = vladimirZ] gave rise to the mass anger of the people, [/ quote]
        And which ruling class is not parasitic? And didn’t cause “the wrath of the people”?
        Stalin and the "patricians" are guilty party members?
        EBN and its familiar "shit"?
        Caused, aroused anger!
        And you know perfectly well what you did with particularly “lively” angry. wassat
    2. smile
      smile 11 May 2013 23: 15 New
      +2
      politruk419
      Unfortunately, the most disgusting yellow-page letters about Nicholas 2, he wrote his own personal diaries, written with his own hands, read them and see for yourself the insignificance of this little man who drove the empire into a ditch ...
      1. politruk419
        politruk419 12 May 2013 04: 29 New
        +6
        And I read them. Imagine. Kuraev has a good book based on the memoirs of the great-grandfather, a military doctor in the Russian-Japanese war and the diaries of Nicholas. And I am really driven into a stupor by detailed descriptions of the Emperor’s walks, with precise indications of the number of quail shots. And this is during Tsushima!
        And I do not see in your thesis any contradictions to my words.
        Indeed, Nicholas II was an insignificant and narrow-minded king. But I did not write about his state talents. So be fair to him - the last Russian Emperor was a zealous Orthodox Christian, patriot, an exemplary family man, an honest man, simple in life and true to this word. Unfortunately, all these qualities did not contribute to the prosperity of the Power entrusted to him. For the Monarch is required the gift of foresight and the ability to distinguish kinship (Uncle Willie, Uncle Georg) from the interests of his own power. What Nicholas was completely deprived of.
        But, again, his insignificance as a statesman is largely washed away by his blood. And by the blood of his son and daughters innocently killed by his wife.
        Paid for everything.
        1. AntonR7
          AntonR7 12 May 2013 18: 24 New
          +1
          Well, maybe the information about tsushima did not reach him, do not judge Nicholas so strictly. I read that it was thanks to the king that we made a relatively profitable world. Yes, half of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands are sorry but not a ruble of indemnity i.e. the war didn’t pay for itself, which made the Japanese angry and this world was unpopular in their society, a victory was shorter than the Pyrrhic, and Witte wanted the Japanese to surrender the “pie” to the world more.
  3. fenix57
    fenix57 11 May 2013 09: 20 New
    11
    " Devoting Himself to our great ministry, We urge all our faithful subjects to serve Us and the State faithfully, to eradicate the vile sedition that dishonors the Russian land, to affirm faith and morality, to kindly educate children, and to exterminate unrighteousness and theft, - to the establishment of order and truth"- but it’s not time to revive this manifesto now. As amended for the present time ... The vertical of power is registered, so it’s time to give a fight to all enemies of the Fatherland. The Liberals SHOULD AT ALL! hi
  4. kmike
    kmike 11 May 2013 09: 31 New
    +7
    It was the right choice. It should be noted that the virus of liberalism has always weakened the strength of Russia. The Russian state, due to its historical development, strategic location and territory, has almost always been an empire that requires strong, centralized power. The reign of the “liberator” tsar seriously undermined the foundations of the empire. The liberal economic policy, which was characterized by the refusal of the government of Alexander II from industrial protectionism, active foreign loans, led to an economic crisis.
    good
    1. svp67
      svp67 11 May 2013 09: 34 New
      +3
      Quote: fenix57
      It should be noted that the virus of liberalism has always weakened the strength of Russia

      Yes, because this process must be managed, and not just "prohibit and not let go"
  5. pinecone
    pinecone 11 May 2013 09: 32 New
    +4
    The great was a sovereign. A true national leader. It’s only a pity that he broke up with Germany and headed for rapprochement with France, got in touch with the Paris Rothschilds and built a bridge in Paris for their loans.
  6. tttttt
    tttttt 11 May 2013 09: 48 New
    +7
    The Jews in the world introduced a very cunning electoral system, the main feature of which is the rise to power for no more than 2 terms of the ruling country. That is, elections every 4-5 years and if the manager (supervisor) somehow got out of control and began to pursue an independent national policy, they simply re-elect him, if it doesn’t work right away, then after 2 terms exactly. Before the revolution, there was a tsar in Russia, and tsars did not die by their death, and the West constantly tried to replace tsars, sometimes it worked. A heavy share was with the Russian tsars. That is, the king was fully and completely responsible for his country, since the country is an inseparable part of himself, and the king is part of the country, together an indivisible whole-power. A hired manager (president) does not answer for anything and to no one - this is an elected position (well, I couldn’t ...) therefore, due to the limited term of the board, it resolves far-fetched issues, plus it is under the direct influence of its proteges who paid for it elections. The king should be imprisoned by the will of the people, and not political strategists and agents of influence in the form of TV and media controlled by Jews. This can only be done by holding the Council of All the Earth, that is, the Zemsky Sobor of Russia. (We do not need the princes of English blood!) The Tsar gets the opportunity to conduct a fair trial (not written by the Jews, with all the red tape) and quick reprisals. Only the king can establish the core of power on the basis of the aristocracy of the Spirit, and not on kinship of clans or property rights.
    On the basic principles:
    - power is higher than property,
    - service above possession,
    - justice is above the law,
    -general above private,
    -spiritual above material.
  7. avt
    avt 11 May 2013 09: 51 New
    +6
    The funny thing is that our liberoids are put on a par with Stalin in Alexander III, that they’ll be touched by the dad, and they barely remember the teeth of the Peacemaker.
    Quote: pinecone
    It’s only a pity that he broke up with Germany and headed for rapprochement with France,

    And radish horseradish is not sweeter. Here we need to take a good look at the events of the time in the complex, maybe there is a significant one that influenced the decision of the tsar. But in general, it fits into his pragmatic attitude towards the Europeans.
  8. individual
    individual 11 May 2013 10: 05 New
    10
    The theme raised by Alexander Samsonov is not an ongoing pain and an unresolved problem in the history of the past, present, and I am afraid of the future of Russia. The cyclicity of liberal and statist power in Russia was broken by the EBN reforms, when a tough tyrant was in power, but he relied on Western liberals. This conglomerate of power arose because of the fear of the then rulers of Russia restoration of communist ideas in the air. The liberal idea shot the parliament, carried out voucher privatization (the guarantee of capitalist arrangement), wrote a new constitution and a lot of everything that is now being used unlimitedly. Since the cyclicity is broken, the patriots-statesmen are assigned the role of extras in the public life of Russia.
    The task of all healthy forces is to swing the pendulum of history towards natural development.
    BECOMING A RUSSIA WHERE ITS CITIZENS OF PATRIOTS!
    1. lars
      lars 11 May 2013 12: 19 New
      +8
      Quote: individ
      when a tough tyrant was in power

      stood drunk brains, conscience, faith and the country itself drunk
  9. AntonR7
    AntonR7 11 May 2013 10: 17 New
    +6
    The autocratic monarchy in Russia is really a necessity, this is also confirmed by the fact that our enemies in the person of Churchill said that it would be more profitable if Russia was organized according to the federal principle with autonomy of the regions, such Russia is weaker, and therefore preferable, than a single monarchist Russia. But I do not agree that the Russian-Turkish war was useless to Russia. It is necessary, and not only to assert its authority in the Balkans, but also economic and political benefits, of course, at least some of the fruits of victory were really stolen.
    1. d.gksueyjd
      d.gksueyjd 11 May 2013 15: 48 New
      +2
      One great "martyr" Nicholas 2 prosr * l Russia and plunged into the abyss of the civil war, the modern Tsar - an alcoholic contributed to the collapse of the USSR and also plunged into an almost civil war. I do not want to be a slave in my homeland. Those who want autocracy are welcome to countries with autocracy, though there is an opportunity to be served with the pineapples at the tsar’s table, but what an honor.
      1. politruk419
        politruk419 12 May 2013 04: 55 New
        +2
        Quote: d.gksueyjd
        I do not want to be a slave in my homeland. Those who want autocracy are welcome to countries with autocracy, though there is an opportunity to be served with the pineapples at the tsar’s table, but what an honor.

        And tell me, O Great Free White Man with an Unpronounceable Name, which of the Russian sovereigns ate your ancestors at the dinner table? Or are you a poor Negro from the Central African Republic?
        My ancestors (slaves, miserable, insignificant slaves, of course ....) may have gone with Sovereign Peter Alekseevich to boarding an attack on a Swedish frigate. , built the Cathedral of Christ the Savior and painted on the walls of the Reichstag.
        And your? Apparently they were the mute slaves of the House of Romanov, who were oppressed and humiliated by the landowners seven days a week starting from 1613, right after the Poles were expelled from Moscow?
  10. fenix57
    fenix57 11 May 2013 10: 20 New
    -5
    Quote: tttttt
    A very sophisticated electoral system has been introduced by the Jews in the world, the main feature of which is the administration of the country for no more than 2 terms

    Please be kind to where this statement comes from ... Link ... address .. Please!
  11. Uhe
    Uhe 11 May 2013 10: 30 New
    +1
    Autocracy is not a guarantee of rejection of the pro-Western course, harmful to Russia. The son of Alexander 3, Nikolai Bloody, carried out pro-Western reforms, which in part can also be called liberalistic in relation to some areas of the state. lives and lives of citizens. As a result, his reforms resulted in the export of capital abroad, as a result of which the USA called Witte the best prime minister of the world. Grain was sold abroad, while their citizens were dying of hunger, rural communities were ruined all against the background of the same hunger. In general, the situation was one on one with the current board. Bottom line: two lost wars, three revolutions, millions of dead and dead Russian people. And autocracy against the background of the construction of liberal capitalism.

    Autocracy is not a guarantee of the preservation of Russia. The guarantee is the power of the Russian people, headed by a statesman, and the socialist economy in Stalinist style.
    1. AntonR7
      AntonR7 11 May 2013 10: 40 New
      -2
      Autocracy is the guarantee. The monarch is a symbol of unification, and Stalin is the same troublemaker as bulk, only the 1st was lucky to destroy the great empire, and the 2nd while the horns were broken off. Nicholas 2 is a normal king, the time was difficult, reliable people were not around, I don’t understand why you love the thieves in law who devote their lives to destruction and revolution, and not to guardians of traditions and serving the army and homeland ?!
      1. avt
        avt 11 May 2013 11: 23 New
        +3
        Quote: AntonR7
        Autocracy is the guarantee. Monarch is a symbol of unification,

        It’s when the monarch becomes a symbol, when everyone who gets to the pole is dragging him as a gonf, then the country’s corek comes to itself quite concrete. Alexander III was no symbol, he was the real leader and Head of State of the Russian Empire. But his son was just a symbol, therefore he ended up with the whole family. And this, which is characteristic, inherent in ANY social system, always as soon as the leader-head of state begins to consider himself God’s chosen untouchable anointed of God, loses touch with reality and, as a result, the levers of governing the country ends in its liquidation (at best, from the post} and very often a terrible trouble in the state.
        1. AntonR7
          AntonR7 11 May 2013 12: 07 New
          +3
          I agree that Alex3 is a real leader, but whether he wanted it or not, as anointed of God, he was a symbol.
    2. AntonR7
      AntonR7 11 May 2013 10: 41 New
      -10
      It was under your beloved Stalin that they sold grain, from which they died in 30 in alliance from hunger
      1. avt
        avt 11 May 2013 11: 53 New
        +2
        Quote: AntonR7
        It was under your beloved Stalin that they sold grain, from which they died in 30 in alliance from hunger

        They sold bread, bought factories. But how did Niki, at the time of the nicest, during the times of no less famine in the Volga region, deliveries to the starving were given to a native of Sweden, a supplier of water closets and a casino owner? Ah, yes, the king is good, times are hard, there are no people. laughing Well, there are no people, so Nicky straight from the bed tears and screams - where is this people laughing and in response - silence! Good king, oh yes - no luck with associates request laughing
        1. AntonR7
          AntonR7 11 May 2013 12: 11 New
          -6
          With the dearest Nicky, as you say, we were the first in agriculture, and did not starve, and in other sectors we were in the top five world economic leaders, we also developed aviation and much more, and all that the USSR had was achieved on the basis of the Russian . Empire empire in the form of scientists nurtured in the empire was prepared and industry developed.
          1. avt
            avt 11 May 2013 12: 53 New
            +4
            Quote: AntonR7
            With the dearest Nicky, as you say, we were the first in agriculture, and did not starve, and in other sectors we were in the top five world economic leaders, we also developed aviation and much more, and all that the USSR had was achieved on the basis of the Russian . Empire empire in the form of scientists nurtured in the empire was prepared and industry developed.

            laughing Yeah, Nikolashka even had to eliminate the common illiteracy. Here is a clownery with the industry inherited, especially after the Civil one, well, it really touches me laughing No, I understand that everyone has their own passions, well, when you create idols for yourself, reality recedes, facts are not perceived, and now historical glitches begin. You look next writes that Nikolashka and Dneproges laid and the Stalingrad tractor with Magnitogorsk, well, and further on the list. laughing
            Quote: AntonR7
            do you like thieves in law who have dedicated their lives to destruction and revolution, and not to guardians of traditions and serving the army and homeland ?!

            Speaking of guardians, did you read telegrams sent to the 17th Tsar Nikolka from the commanders of ALL fronts? This is a question of service and oath. How much did Kornilov take to the Ice Camp from the Don? We recovered and remembered traditions immediately when dashing commissars began to lean against the wall. Well, about the present time, you should really like it if you read Gilyarovsky’s example, Moscow and Muscovites "at least, I’m not talking about all his reports about the country. So if you change the cabs geldings "of today, so one to one, Russia that you lost." Chegozh again groan? They wanted a king on the neck? Well, read Nekrasov, it seems that he has - ,, .. people of servile rank, real dogs sometimes, the heavier the punishment the more gentlemen gentlemen are for them .. "Just keep in mind - the places of nobles and potential kings are already taken, only lackeys are needed.
            1. AntonR7
              AntonR7 11 May 2013 13: 21 New
              -6
              and who provoked the civilian, your Bolsheviks did not want fair elections through the constituent assembly
              1. avt
                avt 11 May 2013 14: 49 New
                +2
                Quote: AntonR7
                and who provoked the civilian, your Bolsheviks did not want fair elections through the constituent assembly

                They didn’t provoke the civil one, as they promised, they transferred it from the unleashed imperialist into which Nicky dragged me on a poor mind, and long before Lenin promised to do it. But here the monarchists, all these Rodzian women, Shulgins and other bearers of nobleness and traditions, together with the generals of the Russian army, for some reason did not believe, staged a hunger riot in St. Petersburg and replaced the supreme commander in chief. Well, they did not believe the folk wisdom that they did not change the horses at the crossing. Well, and then, with a squabble for power, the arrival of the Bolsheviks and the fulfillment of their promise about the civil, was only a matter of time.
                1. AntonR7
                  AntonR7 11 May 2013 15: 49 New
                  -2
                  It was precisely they who transferred and missed the victory in World War II spat in the back to the dead soldiers
                  1. avt
                    avt 11 May 2013 17: 43 New
                    0
                    Quote: AntonR7
                    It was precisely they who transferred and missed the victory in World War II spat in the back to the dead soldiers

                    The soldiers spat on the back and missed the victory of all the front commanders when they betrayed Nikolka at the Dno station, just in case he was their commander in chief. They spat and betrayed when they followed the Provisional Government and ordered him to abolish discipline in the army. Or do you want to say that gentlemen, the bearers of honor and nobility are all stupefied and did not know how it will all end? But Lenin and the Bolsheviks didn’t take any obligations, besides carrying out the revolution and initially called themselves “defeatists”, they had a different goal and morality was also in line with ideas. And they clearly fulfilled it. And you have to be very limited or mlechin to demand Revolutionary expediency and purpose justifies the means from the Bolsheviks of fulfilling the wishes of some kind of constituent assembly. Here and the whole moral of any carbonarius and there’s nothing to invent, groan and gasp. That’s where the betrayal of the oath came back, it was not possible to live quietly, to build some kind of Cossack — quickly to hell have flown and come to the brick wall.
                2. AntonR7
                  AntonR7 12 May 2013 18: 37 New
                  +1
                  Well, curiously, you therefore approve of the Bolsheviks of this Lenin and Co. ?! And if in the 2nd World War they called for fratricidal war, how would you react to such a person? And than the 1st World War is worse there, too, Russian soldiers were dying for the interests of their country for its freedom, so as not to be subordinate to Germany, which claimed to be the hegemon in Europe. So that Lenin and all this Bolshevik shushera dirt. A normal person will not call for the defeat of his homeland, and even his own to tear for parts for the sake of his ideas.
            2. AntonR7
              AntonR7 12 May 2013 18: 33 New
              0
              Yes, the traitors forgot about the oath, they are missing everywhere, what should I do ?! And about the king on the neck, so now with shit democracy, no one is on our neck ?! You are not given to understand what the Orthodox Russian idea is that the autocratic monster fits into as a caring father for the people.
            3. AntonR7
              AntonR7 14 May 2013 08: 15 New
              0
              A lot was destroyed, but not everything, and as for agriculture
              The facts:

              On the eve of the revolution, Russian agriculture was in full bloom. During the two decades leading up to the 1914-18 war, grain harvesting doubled. In 1913, in Russia, the crop of the main cereals was 1/3 higher than that of Argentina, Canada and Soed. States combined. During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, Russia was the main nurse of Western Europe.
              Read the story
          2. avt
            avt 11 May 2013 13: 18 New
            +3
            Quote: AntonR7
            With the sweetest Nicky, as you say, we were the first in agriculture,

            request It seems you are not going to leave the astral. Even when there was REALLY hunger and, as already indicated to you, even Nikolashka understood this and at the budgetary expense tried to arrange supplies to the starving areas, through the supplier of water closets, you got facts on the drum. request Well then, free will is a saved paradise.
            1. AntonR7
              AntonR7 11 May 2013 13: 22 New
              -5
              yes it’s you in the astral, believe Soviet textbooks in which it was customary not to notice the achievement of the previous authorities but only to blame
      2. omsbon
        omsbon 11 May 2013 13: 20 New
        0
        Quote: AntonR7
        It was under your beloved Stalin that they sold grain, from which they died in 30 in alliance from hunger

        You say dead, are you talking about your fellow citizens? you, with a gay liberal ducky!
        1. AntonR7
          AntonR7 11 May 2013 15: 48 New
          -2
          Stupid you, I respect my citizens, and with these words I expressed the attitude of our government towards people
          1. omsbon
            omsbon 11 May 2013 18: 11 New
            -1
            Quote: AntonR7
            Stupid you, I respect my citizens, and with these words I expressed the attitude of our government towards people

            As I understand it, I’m taught by a “very clever”, though he is not able to express his near-thought in words.
            1. AntonR7
              AntonR7 11 May 2013 21: 28 New
              -3
              Everyone understands how convenient it is.
      3. antidote
        antidote 11 May 2013 15: 21 New
        +2
        In addition to Stalin, in those years there were many fiery revolutionaries who led the country. We also had a collective leadership, which Stalin had completed by the end of the 30s
    3. antidote
      antidote 11 May 2013 15: 15 New
      +4
      All this is a lie, look at the facts. An increase in the national product, an increase in population, the development of industry, and an increase in the standard of living of people. It is not in vain that under the reign of Nicholas II, two wars were launched against Russia: the Japanese and the European. The USA and England were very afraid of the rapid development of our country. No wonder at the beginning of the century, like hell, various pro-Western parties began to be created from the box. And they get theirs.
      Be a Patriot, do not black Russian History!
    4. antidote
      antidote 11 May 2013 15: 19 New
      +3
      And Stalin, by the way, recreated the Russian Empire and surpassed its former power! Only before that he had handed over all the reptiles (Khrushchev didn’t feel sorry for crushing him, he pretended to be a fool). It is a pity that Nicholas II was more tolerant of enemies than his father.
  12. fenix57
    fenix57 11 May 2013 11: 38 New
    +1
    And no one bothered about the tricky system of ELECTIONS FOR ANY TIME to specify a reference ...
    So, not seeing the QUESTION does not mean his ABSENCE ...
    A MINUS YOU, - UNKNOWN ON THE FORUM FOR EDUCATION, - THERE ARE SCORES MORE ACCEPTABLE! For the "deuces" did not cry ... crying
  13. pinecone
    pinecone 11 May 2013 11: 50 New
    +3
    [quote = tttttt] That is, the elections are held every 4-5 years and if the manager (supervisor) somehow got out of control and began to pursue an independent national policy, they simply re-elect him, if it doesn’t work right away, then after 2 terms exactly. [/ quote


    It should be added that even a well-functioning "democratic" appointment system under the guise of elections for senior positions of proteges of financial capital sometimes fails, after which you have to shoot them, as in the case of Kennedy, or expel them in shame, as was the case with Nixon.
  14. aszzz888
    aszzz888 11 May 2013 12: 41 New
    +2
    A fundamental, timely and vital document. For many years the Emperor looked ahead!
    Our government will learn a lot in many ways. Oh a lot!
  15. misham
    misham 11 May 2013 13: 12 New
    0
    Article is complete nonsense. What a good king was not like the current ones. Reforms were needed on time. The whole horror of revolution and civil war is a consequence of the conservation of the regime. You can talk as much as you like about the liberals and the Zhidomasons, the treacherous British and other comrades. Any preservation of the regime and tightening the nuts are the way to nowhere. Productive forces correspond to production relations. Liberal reforms were simply necessary. In general, history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. Everything should have been as it was
  16. vkrav
    vkrav 11 May 2013 14: 27 New
    +4
    “Throughout the world, we have only two faithful allies - our army and navy. Everyone else, at the earliest opportunity, will gang up on us. ”

    The truth, unfortunately, does not lose relevance.
  17. avt
    avt 11 May 2013 14: 59 New
    +3
    Quote: AntonR7
    yes it’s you in the astral, believe Soviet textbooks in which it was customary not to notice the achievement of the previous authorities but only to blame

    Dear! Yes, where does the Soviet textbooks !? Well, he told you - read a contemporary of those events Gilyarovsky, quite a normal reporter and not a Bolshevik. Well, from the current democrats, the St. Petersburg historian wrote about these events. This is if you don’t want to look at more serious sources. And the point is that the supplier of sorting in cutting the allocated funds for the starving in the Empire was quite loud, there was an appointed guard officer appointed The “bearer” of traditions also warmed his hands well. Yes, Nikolashka did not give the court a resolution that he knew him as a good officer and that they couldn’t be. Well, exactly like you laughing Read the primary sources and do not take seriously agitations such as the series about Kolchak. Well, I can only advise you to take a closer look at the commandment DO NOT MAKE YOURSELF an idol, it concerns any era and personalities.
    1. AntonR7
      AntonR7 11 May 2013 15: 56 New
      0
      And here is the series, how much can I know literature, I have read the memoirs more than you, I have a clear view on the people and events of those times, I like more people who have dedicated themselves as we say Drozdovsky to serving the country and not to revolutions like the Bolsheviks and others. A lot of useful things was done with the union, who argues, but all this was created on the basis of the Republic of Ingushetia and not so suddenly thanks to Uncle Stalin. And I also condemn those who ruined the USSR as well as those who are guilty of the collapse of the Republic of Ingushetia, because I believe that a bad revolution is evil and brings people troubles, tragic destinies.
      1. avt
        avt 11 May 2013 16: 10 New
        0
        [quote = AntonR7] And here the series, how much can I know the literature, I read the memoirs more than you, [/ quote] ------------
        Well, analyze the FACTS and not the emotions that even the authors of the memoirs are subject to ----------------. [Quote = AntonR7] A lot of useful things have been done with the union, who argues, but all this was created on the basis of the Republic of Ingushetia and not so suddenly thanks to Uncle Stalin. ------------- Again, emotions prevail over the facts, after the civilian there simply were not even those 2% of workers that were under the Empire, in relation to the population. I’m not talking about the ruined industry. One can relate to Stalin and the All-Union Communist Party of the Bolsheviks in any way, but to deny the fact that it was under the leadership, and not contrary to what Svanidze and the company say, that the industry and the army were recreated, yes, with the involvement of the tsarist officers. But understand, there was a FULL ideological replacement of the system and the prevailing religion [Stalin, by the way, spoke about building a party like the Order of the Sword-bearers - church education had an effect} And if we compare specific personalities, then the comparison is clearly not in Nika’s favor. On the one hand, a real Leader with a clear statement of the problem and achieving results by almost any means, well, on the other hand, a good regiment, by chance accidentally falling on the throne and completely failing to fulfill his duties and no anointing of God could save him, I already wrote earlier why. And by the way, the completely Stalin period can be considered a continuation of the imperial period of Russia both in terms of the scale of the tasks being solved and the results of their solution, which by the way completely deny liberoids.
        1. politruk419
          politruk419 12 May 2013 06: 37 New
          +1
          Quote: avt
          And by the way, the completely Stalin period can be considered a continuation of the imperial period of Russia both in terms of the scale of the tasks being solved and the results of their solution, which, by the way, completely deny liberoids.

          And by the way, this is the most sensible comment on this thread.
          And therefore, the best minds of Russia are trying today at the Izborsk Cosmos Club to reconcile and unite the history of the Empire and the USSR into a single whole, to find harmony in both of these incarnations of Russia.
    2. AntonR7
      AntonR7 12 May 2013 18: 38 New
      0
      I have no idols darling)))
  18. d.gksueyjd
    d.gksueyjd 11 May 2013 15: 56 New
    -2
    I did not understand that there was a desire to restore the monarchy? Now there is no problem appointing Medvedev (or the like) as hereditary president, as in the "DPRK", what will you do - again in the feudal system?
  19. Horde
    Horde 11 May 2013 17: 28 New
    -1
    So KING OR STALIN? Monarchy or democracy? The election of leaders or the transfer of power by inheritance? How to make rulers serve the people? Now that we have before our eyes the historical examples of RUSI-RUSSIA for many centuries and we can say that our country has not found a clear path of development.
    In most cases, the German-Romanov tsars were interested in only one thing in seizing power in the world, in tearing away territories from the old Horde dynasty (according to TI Rurikovich the Great Tartar in Russian - Moscow kingdom). Alexander2 practically for SO transferred the Russian land to Alaska, as well as the lands of Oregon, now we don’t even remember how these lands of the United States were called, and Nikolay2 personally ordered the completion of hostilities against Japan in the Russo-Japanese war, as a result of which Russia lost its original Russian lands of Chinese Tartaria, presumably in the first half of 19 in the subsequently named Manchuria - the Mongolia variant - these are the most vivid examples of the anti-Russian, treacherous position of the top Russian leaders. Alexander3 understood the importance of Russia in the world and showed examples of patriotism and service to the Fatherland, but was eliminated allegedly killed.
    The most striking example of a patriotic leader, a statesman, is the example of Stalin. Stalin not only rebuilt and launched thousands of industries, and not only was able to win the most bloody war in the entire history of the world, but Stalin was able to find, felt for the most EFFECTIVE WAYS of government. But even he could not avoid mistakes, Stalin could not finish the INTERNAL ENEMY, because the false principles of equality, fraternity, freedom, democracy could captivate him and as a result, the continuity of power and the Stalinist course did not happen, the Trotskyists came to power.
    I see Russia in this form, a MONOLITOUS state without national regions, an ORTHODOX (although I myself do not believe in God) and the MOST IMPORTANT, ruled only by RUSSIAN PEOPLE, no non-Russians, no foreigners, then all the principles that the respected ttttt wrote about will be implemented.
    1. AntonR7
      AntonR7 11 May 2013 21: 22 New
      -2
      Of course, Nicholas 2 gave the order to stop hostilities, but how else when the revolution in the country is blazing, but this world can be seen as a respite and only
      1. Horde
        Horde 12 May 2013 00: 03 New
        -1
        Quote: AntonR7
        Of course, Nicholas 2 gave the order to stop hostilities, but how else when the revolution in the country is blazing, but this world can be seen as a respite and only


        you don’t even understand what happened, the machuria was populated by Russians especially on the CER after the shameful world, the Russian population had to leave these lands Harbin, Port Arthur and a large number of Russian villages were abandoned. Before the war, intensive, profitable trade with China was built IRON ROAD, PORT. Nicholas all destroyed it.
        1. AntonR7
          AntonR7 12 May 2013 09: 58 New
          0
          I didn’t destroy it, I repeat, it’s hard to strangle the revolution and wage war. Yes, we had a huge army against Japan gathered, but the world was forced to conclude in order to suppress the revolution. Not revolution b and the war with Japan would be won.
          1. Horde
            Horde 12 May 2013 16: 22 New
            -1
            Quote: AntonR7
            I didn’t destroy it, I repeat, it’s hard to strangle the revolution and wage war. Yes, we had a huge army against Japan gathered, but the world was forced to conclude in order to suppress the revolution. Not revolution b and the war with Japan would be won.


            I recall that the number of workers on strike in Moscow is about 100 h. of which 2 were weapons. The performance was doomed to failure. The suppression of the Moscow events was carried out by almost one Semenovsky regiment ruthlessly shooting their own people. A similar scenario was in St. Petersburg, the soldiers shot almost unarmed people. The number of troops thrown to suppress the demonstrations was not excessive, to stop hostilities against Japan. Russia could easily put under a gun more than a million soldiers, but Nikolai chose to lose the war. Nikolashka simply passed the Far Eastern lands, like his grandfather Alexander2 of Alaska and Oregon.
            1. AntonR7
              AntonR7 12 May 2013 18: 09 New
              +1
              NOT Nicholas, but Nicholas, and besides, not only Moscow rebelled, but half of Russia and the revolution went on for two years, I recall from 1905-1907, and only thanks to harsh and maybe even cruel measures managed to calm the rebels, and it was not the people who were shot and the troublemakers, normal people they didn’t go to the police to shoot, but you think the army and the police should be silent when they shoot from a crowd of supposedly peaceful demonstrators ?!
              1. Horde
                Horde 12 May 2013 21: 13 New
                -3
                Quote: AntonR7
                NOT Nicholas, but Nicholas,


                nnn how much respect, still tell St. Nicholas the martyr. I am more like that with the people I am of the opinion that after all Nikolai is bloody.

                in addition, not only Moscow but the half of Russia rebelled and the revolution went on for two years, I will remind you from 1905-1907


                simple workers were not involved in the overthrow of the autocracy, the demands of the working people were mostly moderate and peaceful, to reduce working hours, increase wages, and improve living conditions.
                The political demands for the overthrow of the tsar and the government were put forward by the Bolsheviks, Essers, Mensheviks, i.e. professional revolutionaries. Mostly this audience was from the Jewish environment. Armed riots, violent resistance to the forces of law and order, and then the troops were planned in advance with the money of the Rothschilds weapons were purchased and delivered to Russia. No hard workers did such things, they simply fell under the demagogic propaganda of the revolutionaries. The tsarist government was too far from the people to deal with the proceedings, and most likely they themselves were interested in a military solution to the problem. e. in executions of the people. And the order was given to the commanders of the Semenovsky regiment, which were mostly Germans.
                1. AntonR7
                  AntonR7 12 May 2013 21: 17 New
                  +1
                  It’s a martyr, by the way, I recall that he was canonized. However, weapons were procured and shot at the army and police, and those who were peaceful who went to the demonstration became hostages of this situation, posited by revolutionaries.
                  1. AK44
                    AK44 12 May 2013 21: 53 New
                    +1
                    Quote: AntonR7
                    It’s a martyr, by the way, I recall that he was canonized.

                    I read all your comments on the article. In general, I agree with you, my point of view coincides with yours. But I strongly disagree with the canonization of Nicholas 2. Due to his personal qualities, he could not take control of the situation, could not suppress the Bolshevik infection, although there were opportunities! Everyone knows the result. The death of the royal family, the defeat of Russia in World War I, the civil war, etc. Those. the whole country paid for the lack of will and indecision of the emperor. And the board was scary!
                    1. AntonR7
                      AntonR7 12 May 2013 22: 57 New
                      0
                      It's nice to meet a person who shares the views, although not in everything, thanks, but what about canonization, well, he received a terrible death and without trial, maybe he has such a right as canonization. Of course, he as a leader bears some responsibility for the collapse of the country, but he is not alone, as they say, "the king is played by the retinue." So many ministers and officials who are no less guilty of what happened.
  20. Pablo_K
    Pablo_K 11 May 2013 17: 44 New
    +3
    There has always been a monarchy in Russia. Stalin and Putin than not kings?
    The trouble is that periodically tsars are such figures as Nicholas No. 2,
    Gorbachev, Yeltsin.
  21. Gamal
    Gamal 11 May 2013 17: 50 New
    +4
    During the short reign of Alexander III, much positive was laid for the subsequent development of Russia, and in many respects the tsar relied on the original Russian traditions, for example, the same cap with ear flaps was introduced into the uniform of the Russian army under him. No wonder Emperor Alexander III is often and rightly called the "most Russian Tsar" in the entire 20th century. According to some estimates, if Alexander III had ruled at least 25-1917 years, then the revolution of 450 and the ensuing collectivization, repression, civil war, etc., would hardly have happened, and then the population of Russia would have amounted to at least XNUMX million people.
    1. AntonR7
      AntonR7 11 May 2013 21: 23 New
      0
      I agree completely, fairly and reasonably
  22. Pablo_K
    Pablo_K 11 May 2013 18: 09 New
    +7
    What would happen to our country in the 20th century without TransSib? But it was built under Alexander III. Timing is even impressive by modern standards.
    The greatest labor feat of our people!
  23. Gadfly
    Gadfly 12 May 2013 00: 07 New
    -2
    the article says: "The Russian fleet was second only to the British and French" ...

    And why did he lose then to the Japanese in 1904-1905? Indeed, it was under Alexander III that the fleet management and combat training system (qualification command, pile of command structures, excessive bureaucracy and inability to quickly implement the latest technical achievements, etc.) was formed, which led the Russian fleet to the heroic death of Port Arthur, the shame of Tsushima and Portsmouth Peace, to the death of 4/5 naval forces of the Empire ...

    Do not really admire this monarch. An ordinary emperor, not bad, and not good. It’s another matter that this routine makes him better in comparison with other tsars who delayed mother Russia
    1. AntonR7
      AntonR7 12 May 2013 09: 59 New
      0
      Who knows, if a man like Nakhimov or Ushakov commanded in tsushima, maybe there would have been a different war at sea.
    2. AK44
      AK44 12 May 2013 21: 33 New
      +1
      Quote: Gadfly
      And why did he lose then to the Japanese in 1904-1905?

      And the fleet was not bad, and the personnel were excellent! Why did you lose? All for the same reasons - gouging, sloppiness and cap-slandering! Japan was not considered a serious rival; they were not properly preparing for war. And cross-eyed, with the help of Britain and the United States, created a first-class fleet and army.
      1. Gadfly
        Gadfly 13 May 2013 10: 18 New
        -2
        Quote: AK44
        And cross-eyed, with the help of Britain and the United States, created a first-class fleet and army.


        It does not matter who, what, and with whose help he created. The important thing is that we lost then. Thank God, Stalin was able to learn from this and in 1945 showed the Japanese who power is.
        You have to be prepared for any situation, even if the whole world is against you. And to justify ourselves to the descendants in the style of "we were crushed, but we fought heroically" is the last thing ..
        1. AK44
          AK44 13 May 2013 11: 45 New
          +1
          Again the same thing. Stalin could, Stalin managed, Stalin a genius, etc. Change the plate already. People won. They won because they did not have time to rot in the camps of Zhukov, Rokosovsky, Konev. And they did not fight for Comrade Stalin and not for whom. the party. We fought for the homeland!
  24. illidar
    illidar 12 May 2013 01: 32 New
    0
    Speak correctly, Alexander III did? The collapse of the Russian Empire is associated primarily with the delay in the ongoing reforms. Conservatism is a good thing, but only taking into account the nuances of the era
  25. Revolver
    Revolver 12 May 2013 03: 08 New
    +4
    But Alexander III made one mistake, and neither history nor the country will forgive him for this. He did not understand in time which of the Ulyanov brothers should have been hanged.
    Alexashka what is he? So, petty terrorist. Theorists and founders did not claim. If he had gone away to sunny Siberia under supervision, or even left the country, he would have drunk too much from idleness. But the smaller one, Volodya, then not yet Lenin, already had in mind "we will go the other way." Hang it Sovereign, and maybe in 1917 everything would be wrong.
    Yes, here is no in the history of the subjunctive mood. It's a pity.
    1. AK44
      AK44 13 May 2013 07: 13 New
      0
      [quote = Nagan] He did not understand in time which of the Ulyanov brothers should have been hanged. [/ q
      If I knew where you would fall, I would lay a straw!
  26. politruk419
    politruk419 12 May 2013 06: 29 New
    +4
    Quote: AntonR7
    The monarch is a symbol of unification, and Stalin is the same troublemaker as bulk,

    Anton, for example, I am also an idealist monarchist, but I am sincerely convinced that the names are capitalized.
    Stalin was not a troublemaker. And having accepted Russia, if not with plow, then at least with cavalry, he left it with you with an atomic bomb. But Navalny, having accepted the money from Givi Torgomadze and other similar "friends" of the Russian State, left Nikita Belykh with x ... rum in the ass of his sidekick. Who is now blown away for him and his brother in the UK (the case of theft of Kirovles). What did Stalin steal from his people? Three service jackets and five pipes, two boxes of linen and notebooks?
    1. AntonR7
      AntonR7 12 May 2013 10: 11 New
      +1
      Perhaps you’re right about the last names. Regarding Stalin, yes, of course, he was an intelligent leader, not only Khrushchev, and better than Stalin in the era of the 2nd World War, but internally I don’t like this person, of course the story, as they say, has no subjunctive mood, but it’s just like Stalin and those conspirators are generals, deputies are to blame for each measure to the collapse of a great power, which is actually insulting. What he did good then is a plus, but you know to destroy one great thing, to create another and break destinies and traditions, is it worth it? as they say sewed on soap ... For me, of course, RI, the USSR, the Russian Federation is one thing, the sign is different, but that's what Chercell wanted the West to achieve about this, I wrote here about the Fed. devices. It was good if there were no revolutions, but only evolution)))
  27. Goldmitro
    Goldmitro 12 May 2013 15: 50 New
    +1
    <<< It should be noted that the virus of liberalism has always weakened the strength of Russia. Due to its historical development, strategic position and territory, the Russian state has almost always been an empire that requires a strong, centralized power. The rule of the “liberator” king seriously shook the foundations of the empire. The liberal economic policy, which was characterized by the refusal of the government of Alexander II of industrial protectionism, by active foreign loans, led to an economic crisis. >>>
    Unfortunately, history is not studied, so it does not teach anything. Again, with the filing of home-grown liberals-Westernizers, Russia stepped on the rake of a liberal chimera and got the same result and now floundering in this liberal swamp, trying to find ways for economic growth and reduction of raw materials dependence!
  28. radio operator
    radio operator 13 May 2013 08: 20 New
    0
    If Alexander III had lived 20 for another years, we would not have heard of any revolution.
    But alas, what happened happened.
    I respect this king more than others. He deserved it with his deeds and his very appearance.