Why PAStolypin was killed and the family of the last emperor of the Russian Empire was brutally massacred

In a rather short period of time, from 1905 to 1911 a year, Peter Arkadyevich Stolypin had planned and committed 11 attempts, the last of which reached its goal. 1 (14) September 1911 of the year in Kiev in the city theater at the play "The Tale of Tsar Saltan" this really great man received two bullets, one wound became fatal. Emperor Nicholas II and his family attended the performance. It was the strongest blow to Russia and the emperor personally, removed the smartest man who saved the empire and was against Russia's participation in the world war.


Although P.Stolypin’s agrarian reform cannot be called positively positive (like collectivization in the USSR), so from 1905 to 1910 a year per 100 of inhabitants in the European part of Russia the number of horses decreased from 23 to 18, the number of cattle from 36 to 26 heads; average grain yield fell from 37,9 pounds from tithing to 1900 - 1905 years before 35,2 pounds to 1906-1910. Grain production per capita in the empire fell from 25 pounds in 1901-1905 to 22 pounds in 1905-1910. And in 1911, the famine began, engulfing the provinces with a population of millions of people in 30.

But this reform was necessary for Russia, as a country that required industrialization, in the 20 century the Russian Empire entered as a predominantly peasant country, with almost 80% of the rural population, and many provincial cities, towns did not differ from the villages. The Russian peasantry largely preserved the traditions of a thousand years ago, being the most traditional part of the Russian world. And the state had to transfer it to the "new rails" of management. For this it was necessary to deprive a significant part of the peasantry of their land plot, they moved to the cities and became workers, increasing the economic possibilities of the country.

Pyotr Stolypin, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire and head of the key Ministry of the Interior, decided to reform the peasant class by destroying the communal mode of farming in favor of the middle and large landowner (“strong owners”). Peasants who could not “stand up” in the new conditions, went bankrupt, sold their land plot and became farm laborers, moved into the city, looking for a new share. There, part of the former farmers still became lumpen, who never accepted the urban way of life. The process of industrialization of the empire demanded an increasing number of workers from state power, and there was nowhere to take them, except from the peasants. Therefore, constantly strengthening capitalist relations among the peasants, the state actually consciously went to the destruction of part of the peasantry, so that they became workers in the cities. Moreover, in the Russian Empire, this process took place in a relatively "gentle" mode, for example, unlike England, where the so-called “Enclosing” virtually eliminated the peasant class (with “bloody legislation”, forcing people from their land, without any alternatives, except for vagrancy and slave labor in “working houses”). It was started by the 1861 reform of the year and was delayed until the beginning of the 20 century. In 1908, compulsory free universal primary education was introduced, more than 10 thousand public schools were opened every year, their number increased to 1913 thousand by 130.

It is clear that the peasantry did not care for the high thoughts of the state people, it resisted and sabotaged these undertakings. If in the first revolution of 1905-1907, the peasantry, in its overwhelming majority, became the mainstay of the empire - joining thousands in the so-called “Black-Hundred Organizations”, speaking for the stability of the state, then after the start of the agrarian reform, the mood changed, since 1911, the peasants are more and more imbued with the ideas of revolutionaries - mainly Social Revolutionaries (socialist revolutionaries). Their land socialization program (the abolition of private ownership of land, its transformation into national wealth without the right to buy and sell, the land passed to local government, the use of land was supposed to be equalizing-labor) largely corresponded to the aspirations of most of the peasantry. Then they supported the slogan “Land to the peasants, factories to the workers.”

Is Stolypin to blame for the revolution and the death of the empire, which means the Romanov family? No, Stolypin was a true statesman and a patriot of his homeland, understanding what threatens the "world backstage", operating in Russia through its periphery in the form of freemasonry and "professional revolutionaries." It could not be broken or intimidated: “Do not intimidate!” Transferring the peasantry to new forms of management (with a predominance of medium and large farms), industrialization was necessary for the empire as air. The leading world powers already had a huge industrial potential (like the British Empire, the USA, the German Empire), some powers were rapidly increasing their industrial and military power (Germany, Japan), the arms race was on the planet, everything went to a world war. Russia had to prepare for it. In fact, Stolypin, with the support of the emperor, did what Stalin later did with his collectivization and industrialization. Only Stalin had worse starting conditions - the consequences of the First World War, the Civil War, the elimination or expulsion of most of the old managerial and scientific elite, plus counteraction, sabotage by the "Trotskyists." Stolypin and Nicholas II had no experience of Stalin in the field of "behind the scenes" underground activities, therefore, they could not correctly estimate the scale of the threat from the revolutionary and Masonic "underground". This also killed them - when Stolypin was removed, the emperor could not complete what he had begun, Russia was dragged into the war. They literally lacked several years, in this sense, Stolypin’s famous words are quite correct: “The state’s roots will be healthy and strong, believe me, and the words of the Russian Government will sound completely different to Europe and the whole world ... Friendly, common, based on mutual trust - this is the motto for us all, Russians. Give the 20 State years of peace, internal and external, and you will not recognize today's Poccia. ”

True, Stalin went further and made the matter wiser than Stolypin: the community was actually reviving on a new technical base, by creating machine-tractor stations (MTS) and introducing new agro-technical achievements. The backward peasant labor, rural life turned into urban production in the village, with the creation of associations and complexes, it was completely impossible with the Western, capitalist way of doing business, but only with state ownership of the means of production and land, plus the development of creative, scientific and technical capabilities villagers - all kinds of creative houses, clubs, etc. But Stolypin was deprived of such an opportunity, he believed that the large owner in the village would be interested in the mechanization of agricultural production, in the increase of crop yields and in the increase in livestock heads. Unfortunately, this did not happen, large and medium owners went by obtaining super-profits by minimizing the labor remuneration of farm laborers, as well as a significant increase in prices for agricultural products. This made the so-called. “Kulaks” by merchants, new capitalists (“new Russians” of that time), who despised that peasant environment (“cattle”), from which they themselves came out. As a result, a real new class of exploiters was formed, which the majority of peasants hated, this eventually led a significant part of the peasantry to the revolutionary camp.

Therefore, Stalin actually continued the work of Stolypin and the sovereigns of the Russian Empire, not only in the field of foreign policy, but in domestic policy, in the creation of the world Russian state. Having carefully studied the inheritance of the empire he inherited (Stalin read a lot), he implemented many projects of the Russian Empire. As a result, the death of the Russian Empire did not become fatal for the people and the Russian statehood, Stalin was able to create the great USSR.

For all his weaknesses and shortcomings, Nicholas II, like Stolypin, was not a traitor to Russia and the Russian people, therefore, unlike a number of other representatives of the Romanov dynasty and the elite of the Russian Empire, he was not allowed to finish his century in luxury, in Europe. Nicholas and his family were brutally murdered, as the enemy of the "world behind the scenes."

Why PAStolypin was killed and the family of the last emperor of the Russian Empire was brutally massacred


Sources of:
Borodin A.P. Stolypin. Reforms in the name of Russia. 2004.
Dorofeev V.E. Stalinism: people's monarchy. M., 2006.
http://www.stolypin.ru/publications/?ELEMENT_ID=485
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

9 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. remez
    remez 8 August 2011 12: 47 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    a good article, but I do not agree with the author about the results of Stolypin's agrarian reform, it was more positive than negative.
  2. Glory
    Glory 8 August 2011 16: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The title is somehow strange, why the family of the Russian emperor, if the whole article is about Stolypin, and the name of Nicholas II is only mentioned several times in passing?
    Moreover, if in principle I can agree with the article as a whole, then I strongly disagree with the last paragraph! Tsar Nikolashka 2nd is a real traitor to Russia and the Russian people, for he dragged Russia into a world war contrary to the interests of his country and people! And millions of ruined souls on his conscience. So he got what he deserved.
    1. remez
      remez 8 August 2011 22: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Glory,
      Quote: Glory
      Tsar Nikolashka 2nd is a real traitor to Russia and the Russian people, for he dragged Russia into a world war contrary to the interests of his country

      it’s not so simple to understand the true causes of the war, and whoever got involved, you have to delve deeply, and not agree with the arguments of the first "historian" that came across
      and then say, "but I heard somewhere."
      1. Glory
        Glory 9 August 2011 17: 20 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        My opinion is not based on the statements of the "first historian encountered" or even on the statements of several "authoritative" historians. It is based on facts and elementary logic. And the facts are such that in reality Russia did not have serious conflicts requiring a military solution with the countries of future opponents on MV1, except for Turkey, of course. And the fact that Russia eventually became embroiled in a war with Germany and Austria-Hungary did not at all correspond to our interests.
        Regarding who and how exactly pulled Russia into the Entente and the World War in the future ... I do not argue that this was not the idea of ​​Nicholas 2 himself, but the gray cardinals in his retinue, but! The emperor of Russia had all the power to make individual decisions, both thanks to and contrary to the opinion of anyone. And the fact that the tsar went on the subject of external forces (for he was a rag) does not in any way justify him, but even on the contrary, taking into account his "position" is an aggravating circumstance.
  3. zczczc
    zczczc 9 August 2011 16: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I could not stand it - I specially registered to write here.

    Do not you understand why the comparison of Stalin and Stolypin obviously far-fetched? This article is not about Stolypin at all, and especially not about Stalin - this is Putin's hidden advertisement, nothing more. Looks like the author subconsciously plays along with him. Putin puts Stolypin as an example to all, the deputy publicly offered to chip in a monument, he associates his domestic policy with Stolypin, considers himself a successor to his work. I will not judge Putin, but the author said what he said - the author here advertises GDP, this is hyper-obvious.

    I’ll just add about Nicholas II - he set us all up, you don’t need to feel sorry for him. I could not cope with the problems, the mood of the people and the internal enemy. But Stalin raked it all later, though not very cleanly. But who would have done purely? I do not justify anyone, but the article is incorrect.
    1. Skills 10 August 2011 08: 56 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And then Putin is? The article that Stolypin and Nikolai were not traitors to the Russian people, and even as much as they tried to increase the well-being of the people, for this they eliminated them. In accordance with the rule: the best of Russians - who can not be intimidated, broken, must be killed.
      1. zczczc
        zczczc 10 August 2011 14: 17 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Because the article reminds me of those that copywriters write for website promotion - they drag something by the ears (in this case, about Stalin continuing the Stolypin case), dilute it with water and give a catchy name (there is almost no text in the article about Nikolai) .

        One involuntarily begs the question, why did the author even remember about Stolypin suddenly? And what made Stolypin-Stalin compare? And the answer to me personally is obvious - a series in the eyes of the layman will soon be like Stolypin-Stalin-Putin. And the article, voluntarily or involuntarily, works precisely on the latter.

        Inability to see further than they show you does not mean the absence of "further" of what is there. Remember how Gauss proved to the police that the baker didn’t weigh the bread even in a situation when he (Gauss) sold only enough bread - he built a distribution (which will later be called the Gauss distribution) and proved that other customers got smaller bread. Paradoxically, the police of the early 19th century realized all this and indicted the baker. So, once again - the article is an advertisement for Putin. This will become apparent after the opening of the monument to Stolypin on April 17, 2012. near the White House, and the Stolypin-Stalin-Putin series will be more obvious.
    2. Dovmont
      Dovmont 27 August 2011 19: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      It is incorrect to compare Putin with Stolypin! Stolypin was a patriot of Russia, worked on its strengthening. Putin defends the interests of the oligarchs - he does not care about strengthening Russia.
  4. Molot1979 28 June 2017 07: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Again, someone from the outside is to blame? Stolypin from two paths - Prussian and American - chose reform along the Prussian path. For peasants, it is worse, but very good for landowners who do not need to give land. It destroyed the community, although it was the community that allowed the peasantry to survive in conditions of low agricultural crops and risky farming. Oh yes, he was an opponent of war and revolution. I managed on both points. War was inevitable, it was almost impossible to avoid it. Obviously it was not Stolypin who decided whether to participate in it or not. Only, it seems that Pyotr Arkadyevich did not understand that in real politics one should not be guided by stupid dreams, how cool it would be if history turns exactly onto this narrow lane, but proceed from reality. As for the revolution, it was his village policy that led to the revolution. Even worse - his policy forever made the name of the kings hateful to the peasants.
    And they banged him with the tacit approval of that very king. Or, what, Bagrov was a genius and by himself penetrated with weapons into the hall where Nikolai was shy? Yeah, I believe, I believe. The tsar’s guard is well known, it’s always slurped soup cabbage ...
    And Mikolka himself received the bullet not at all because he had prevented some Freemasons. At that time, there were all Masons - there was such a fashion since the 18th century, so that every educated person would certainly be some kind of Freemason, the benefit of different Masonic lodges was more than hair on your head - choose a taste. And Mikola was not shot at all by Masons. At the same time, he honestly earned his pool, brutally suppressing workers' strikes and peasant uprisings, and he demanded more blood in order to catch up with fear. The “excellent” conduct of the First World War is also his merit. The aggregate turned out quite rightly. Moreover, the destruction of the overthrown dynasty is a normal occurrence in politics. Leave this alive and new troubles not to be avoided. And White, too, understood everything well. While Nikolai was alive, the whites did not storm the city. And as soon as the Tsar slammed the red ones, the white gentlemen woke up right there and immediately led an assault. In general, they removed the king and his family with the wrong hands. Because the White Guard, the king, was also a completely superfluous figure. Like it or not, but as the Angles refused him refuge, it became clear that everything. Year if extended, consider lucky.