Military Review

October 17 Manifesto 1905 of the year provoked further confusion

32
October 17 Manifesto 1905 of the year provoked further confusion

110 years ago, 17 (30) in October 1905, was published the manifesto of Emperor Nicholas II "On the improvement of the state order", which declared the talents of political freedoms to the citizens of Russia, the inviolability of the person, the expansion of the electoral qualification in the elections to the State Duma. October 17 Manifesto 1905 was prepared by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire S. Yu. Witte, who considered constitutional concessions the only way to defuse the revolutionary atmosphere in Russia.


The 1905 Manifesto was issued by Emperor Nicholas II under the pressure of an increasing revolutionary situation: mass strikes and armed uprisings. This manifesto satisfied the liberal public, as it was a real step towards the transition to a limited constitutional monarchy. Liberals were given the opportunity to influence power through parliament. This manifesto is considered the beginning of the Russian monarchy and parliamentarism.

The manifesto secured freedom of conscience, speech, assembly, and gatherings; the involvement of the general public in the elections; compulsory procedure for approval by the State Duma of all published laws.

It must be said that the idea of ​​"democratizing" the Russian empire has long been in the community. Constitutional projects that were supposed to reform Russia “from above” were born more than once. Among the Westernizers (the leading part of the Russian educated society) “constitutional dreams” were the leading idea and gradually they became radicalized.

Thus, in the Russian Empire, the period of the XIX - early XX centuries. There were two main ideas of the "democratization" of Russia. "From above", some emperors, representatives of the ruling dynasty and high dignitaries wanted to change the existing system. They wanted to arrange in an evolutionary way a constitutional monarchy in Russia on the model of England. That is, they also followed the example of the West and were Westerners, but did not want unrest and confusion. At the same time, representatives of the pro-Western public dreamed that the main branch of power in Russia would be the legislative branch - the parliament. They wanted to eliminate autocracy. Both the Decembrists and the commoners, as well as the liberals and the socialists of the late XIX - early XX centuries, dreamed of this. This difference in the vision of the future of Russia, and based on Western concepts, eventually led to the catastrophe of the Russian empire and the entire Russian civilization, which was saved only by a new, Soviet project.

The first to think about the reform of Alexander I. Even as heir to the throne, Alexander was critical of the despotic and paternalistic methods of his father's rule. Alexander's reformist attitude was expressed in attracting M. Speransky to state activities, who prepared several of his own political notes: “On the indigenous laws of the state”, “Reflections on the state structure of the empire”, “On the gradual improvement of the public”, etc. In 1803 year on behalf of the emperor Speransky made a "Note on the device of judicial and government institutions in Russia." When developed, he showed himself to be an active supporter of the constitutional monarchy. However, it did not go further. In addition, Alexander abolished serfdom in the Baltic provinces, granted the constitutional structure of the Grand Duchy of Finland, and then the Kingdom of Poland. Alexander took part in the drafting of the Constitutional Charter of France, which turned it into a constitutional monarchy. In Russia itself, except Speransky, Vorontsov and Novosiltsev worked on constitutional projects, but all their projects were laid on cloth.

By the end of his reign, Alexander was clearly disillusioned with the reform work, seeing that it leads to the growth of revolutionary sentiments in society, rather than stabilizing it. Thus, speaking in 1818 in Warsaw at the opening of the first Polish Sejm, Alexander I once again returned to the constitutional drafts and stressed that the rest of Russia was not yet ripe, like Poland, for a constitutional reorganization. Interestingly, Alexander was aware of the emergence of the “Decembrists” movement mixed up in Westernism and Freemasonry. When, in 1821, prince A.V. Vasilchikov introduced the tsar with materials on conspiracy and conspirator’s programs, Alexander I threw the list of conspirators into the fire, noting that he could not punish them, since "in his youth he shared their views." The radical program of the Decembrists (especially Pestel) marked a radical, revolutionary challenge to the government, which fluctuated in its constitutional plans. Moreover, the most educated part of society, the foundation of which was Western culture, challenged the government.

Thus, the advances of the government of Alexander with the liberal public ended poorly. The speech of the Decembrists could lead to bloody distemper and only the decisive actions of Nicholas saved the empire from very serious consequences.

Emperor Nicholas, having suppressed the speech of the Decembrists, was cold to the constitutional drafts and “froze” Russia. The following experience in the constitutional field was undertaken by the reformer Tsar Alexander II and ended no less tragically. 11 April 1880 Mr. M. T. Loris-Melikov, the Kharkov Governor-General appointed by the chairman of the Supreme Administrative Commission of Russia, presented the report “On attracting representatives of the population to legislative advisory activity” to Emperor Alexander II. It was about the establishment in St. Petersburg of two preparatory commissions from representatives of zemstvos and the largest cities of Russia, by analogy with the editorial commissions of 1859, regarding the solution of the peasant question. In essence, the empire was planning to introduce legislative activities of representative institutions. The sovereign imposed on the draft resolution: "Execute." However, the sovereign was mortally wounded by 1. The attack on the tsar was organized by revolutionaries-terrorists, fighters for “people's freedom” and a constitutional republic from “Narodnaya Volya”. The text of the "Constitution" remained on the table of the emperor.

Ascended the throne, Emperor Alexander III, an opponent of transformation and a conservative, instructed to discuss the project in the Council of Ministers. He was again approved. And on April 29, the new emperor issued his famous manifesto proclaiming the inviolability of the principles of autocracy. On the very first page of the report of M. T. Loris-Melikov, the king wrote: "Thank God, this criminal and urgent step towards the constitution was not taken." The new sovereign headed for unlimited autocracy. After the death of his father, Nicholas II continued this line, declaring the inviolability of the principles of autocracy upon assuming the throne in 1894.

Alexander III and Nicholas II, at the beginning of his reign, “froze” the situation again. However, the contradictions in the Russian Empire were fundamental and sooner or later led to the collapse of the empire building. The empire could have been saved by a decisive modernization “from above,” but not along the liberal (western) path, but in its own, original way. In fact, Nicholas II was to do what Stalin and his “iron commissars” did after the collapse of the Russian Empire.

When Nikolai succumbed to the influence of the pro-Western part of the government (Witte was a typical Westerner and an agent of influence on the “backstage of the world”), he only made things worse. The concessions of the liberal public could not save the old Russia. They only provoked the Westernizers and all sorts of revolutionaries, increased their ability to destroy the foundations of the empire. So, most of the press in the Russian Empire, controlled by liberal parties and movements, worked to destroy the empire. Stolypin was able, with incredible efforts, to postpone the collapse of the empire, but when the empire embarked on the war, it was no longer possible to save it.

In the first year (1906), lived in Russia under the conditions of “civil liberty” as a result of terrorist acts, 768 was killed and 820 government officials were injured. 19 August 1906. Stolypin signed a decree introducing military field courts, but presented it to the Duma only in spring 1907. During the eight months of the decree, 1100 people were executed. Trade unions were closed, revolutionary parties were persecuted, repressions against the press began. Prime Minister Peter Stolypin had to dissolve two Dumas before he received a Duma of a composition with which he could cooperate. Stolypin with a tough hand would bring order to the country.

As a result, the October 17 Manifesto cannot be considered a happy acquisition for Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, the opposition used it to intensify the struggle against the autocracy, which led to new blood, and the authorities did not know and did not understand what parliamentarism is opinion in freedom of the press. The Russian Empire entered a qualitatively different state, being absolutely unprepared for this. The bureaucracy, subordinate only to the king, was absolutely incapable of European-style parliamentarism. European ideas on Russian soil led to distortions and only worsened the situation (this is fully confirmed in modern Russia).

Thus, during this period we very clearly observe the peculiarity of the historical development of Russia. As soon as the power in the person of its supreme carrier practically takes on the democratization of the state and society in a Western way and “unscrews the nuts” of the centralized imperial system, liberal society immediately perceives this as evidence of its weakness and uses its new opportunities not for actions for the people, but for to politically (or physically) destroy the supreme power (not enough, in its opinion, democratic), and force unrest.
Author:
32 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. parusnik
    parusnik 30 October 2015 07: 32 New
    +2
    the authorities did not know and did not understand what parliamentarism, political parties and public opinion are in conditions of freedom of the press... What subsequent events have shown ..
    1. Sweles
      Sweles 30 October 2015 09: 32 New
      0
      October 17 Manifesto 1905 of the year provoked further confusion


      All this is not that, the study of history by the traditional method does not give any increase in understanding the essence of historical events, facts.
      Beginning probably from Ivan the Terrible, almost all the rulers of Rus-Russia were attacked by conspirators, who for many ended in deaths or popular uprisings, riots, revolutions were suppressed with great difficulty. There is no more country in the world that would be so prone to attacks on internal power or external. Russia was constantly shocked by wars, unrest, riots, conspiracies, revolutions. The West has always tried in one way or another to influence politics in Russia. This suggests one thing, that Russia is a SPECIAL STATE in the world.
      Research that could clarify this situation in our history has not been carried out by ANYONE of historians, although there is already no. Almost world history tells us that Russia and its Russian people were backward, clogged, incapable of their own statehood. But at the same time, in some incomprehensible way, Russia is the BIGGEST public entity in the world.
      All these historical "studies", like this, absolutely do not provide any clarification in the picture of the revolutionary situation that arose by 1905. The people can take to the streets as much as they like and shout out various seditious things against the authorities, but the AUTHORITIES will remain the authorities until the ARMED PEOPLE come into action. And this is a completely different QUALITY - this is an organization, this is a lot of money, this is a weapon. And all this again comes from abroad.
      . During its development, he proved himself an active supporter of the constitutional monarchy. However, this did not go beyond this. In addition, Alexander abolished serfdom in the Baltic provinces, granted the constitutional order to the Grand Duchy of Finland, and then the Kingdom of Poland


      So, speaking in Warsaw at the opening of the first Polish Sejm in 1818, Alexander I again returned to constitutional projects and emphasized that the rest of Russia had not yet matured, like Poland, for constitutional reconstruction.


      I did not know about this, how can such actions and words of the "Russian Tsar" be regarded? This king gives freedom to other nations, except for the titular-RUSSIAN. Now the speech of the Decembrists becomes clearer. They were clearly outraged by such anti-Russian actions of the tsar. Poland is a country of eternal trouble means it has matured, but Russia has not matured? In those days -19th the processes of CREATION of PEOPLES took place. Until 1826, the Ottoman Empire spoke Russian, before Poland, it seemed that just at the beginning of the 19th century, they also spoke Russian, then new peoples, Romanian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Manchus spoke the same Russian. Therefore, SPECIAL CONDITIONS were created for all these new peoples — they removed slavery — serfdom, for all but Russian.
      1. Your friend
        Your friend 30 October 2015 13: 22 New
        +4
        Quote: Sveles
        The people can take to the streets as much as they like and shout out various seditious things against the authorities, but the AUTHORITIES will remain the authorities until the ARMED PEOPLE come into action. And this is a completely different QUALITY - this is an organization, this is a lot of money, this is a weapon. And all this again comes from abroad.

        So, speaking in Warsaw at the opening of the first Polish Sejm in 1818, Alexander I again returned to constitutional projects and emphasized that the rest of Russia had not yet matured, like Poland, for constitutional reconstruction.


        Nothing “from abroad” will help to start a revolution if the authorities respect the people. Russia has not matured in one before the abolition of serfdom, in the other it is not ready for a constitution, in the third for freedom of speech ... that’s all ended with the Ipatiev house.
        1. Sweles
          Sweles 30 October 2015 14: 58 New
          +1
          Quote: Your friend
          Nothing “from abroad” will help to start a revolution if the authorities respect the people. Russia has not matured in one before the abolition of serfdom, in the other it is not ready for a constitution, in the third for freedom of speech ... that’s all ended with the Ipatiev house.


          power NEVER treats the people “respectfully”, the meaning of power is to create a state in order to engage in the exploitation of the people and live at the expense of the people. Especially when the government and the people are different peoples and different nations, what was in Russia, the Russian people and the German, and now Jewish power ...
          1. Your friend
            Your friend 30 October 2015 18: 00 New
            +3
            Quote: Sveles
            Quote: Your friend
            Nothing “from abroad” will help to start a revolution if the authorities respect the people. Russia has not matured in one before the abolition of serfdom, in the other it is not ready for a constitution, in the third for freedom of speech ... that’s all ended with the Ipatiev house.


            power NEVER treats the people “respectfully”, the meaning of power is to create a state in order to engage in the exploitation of the people and live at the expense of the people. Especially when the government and the people are different peoples and different nations, what was in Russia, the Russian people and the German, and now Jewish power ...

            Yes, quit. In Switzerland, that power greatly exploits the people? Everywhere it is different, where power is a bunch of freaks, and where power is quite an expression of the will of the people.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  2. Boris55
    Boris55 30 October 2015 07: 52 New
    +4
    ... As soon as power in the person of its supreme bearer is practically taken for the democratization of the state and society ...

    Until the idea has mastered the masses - it is dead
    Well, and we scold the United States for the promotion of democracy around the world

    In fact, Nicholas II had to do what Stalin did after the collapse of the Russian Empire ...

    It is impossible for a monkey to give a grenade until it has become a man.
    Stalin put everyone at school desks - this is one of his main achievements. Only increasing the level of understanding of fellow citizens in the processes taking place in the life of society can we transform the country for the better. All attempts to do this without taking into account the measure of understanding of the people - lead to failure. And vice versa (what is happening today) lowering the level of education - leads to the degradation of society, to a return to a primitive communal system both in the elite, which is expressed in the inheritance of public positions, and in the people - who use his work to get to know each other.
    1. Uncle Joe
      Uncle Joe 30 October 2015 21: 14 New
      0
      Quote: Boris55
      Stalin put everyone at school desks
      For school desks all put Lenin.

      Decree on the Establishment of a State Education Commission on November 9 (22), 1917

      Regulation on the organization of public education in the Russian Republic on June 18, 1918

      The position of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars on the Socialist Academy of Social Sciences on June 25, 1918

      Decree on the organization of public education in the Russian Republic on June 26, 1918
  3. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 30 October 2015 08: 25 New
    +3
    Liberasty --- it is under the king of Liberastia, it is at all times Liberastia. Hides hooves --- horns come out. Horns removes --- tail sticks out.
    1. Rastas
      Rastas 30 October 2015 18: 14 New
      +2
      But who were these liberals? Milyukov and Guchkov were real monarchists. Miliukov himself said that they were "not an opposition to His Majesty, but an opposition of His Majesty." These losers simply fled after the revolution, and in order to save the monarchy and their skins, they initiated the manifesto on October 17th. Otherwise, the Russian revolution of 1905, the leader of which was the Soviets (led by different people who did not belong to any party), would simply dare them all.
    2. Morrrow
      Morrrow 31 October 2015 02: 59 New
      +1
      Liberal power is the strongest. From Marcus Aurelius to Disraeli.
  4. vladimirvn
    vladimirvn 30 October 2015 08: 30 New
    0
    When working with a material, it is necessary to take into account its properties, and proceeding from this, select a tool with which the material will change. In Russia at that time, the conditions for reform were ripe. However, it was necessary to take into account the mentality of the Russian people and select the tools for such reforms. The mechanical transfer of the Western patterns of democratization does more harm than good. An example of this is the current Americans rushing around the world with their patterns.
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow 31 October 2015 03: 00 New
      0
      Those. Do you think Russian = Arabs? Maybe even compare with African tribes?
  5. Mangel olys
    Mangel olys 30 October 2015 08: 35 New
    0
    What is this "further turmoil"?
    "October 20 (old style - October 7) October 1905 of the year began the October All-Russian political strike - the first general strike in Russia, one of the most important stages of the First Russian Revolution, the beginning of its highest rise ....
    The tsarist government made an attempt to disrupt the political strike by repression, but was forced to cede and issue the 17 Manifesto of October 1905, in which Nicholas II announced the “granting” of civil liberties to the people and promised to recognize legislative rights for the Duma. Having received the support of the liberal bourgeoisie, who took the manifesto as a turn in the development of Russia along the constitutional path, the government began a decisive offensive against the revolution. Repression and pogroms began throughout the country. The Black Hundreds were brutally murdered by the Bolsheviks N.E. Bauman, F.A. Afanasyev, O.M. Genkin and others. In 110 settlements, up to 4 thousand people were killed, more than 10 thousand people were injured. In most parts of the country and on the railroads, the October All-Russian political strike stopped by October 25. At individual enterprises, it lasted longer and closed with revolutionary actions in November 1905 of the year ...
    It’s also worth noting that the legacy of this general strike is still alive, since the current State Duma has its roots in that very first representative body, the creation of which was a consequence of the workers ’speech and the fear of the autocracy against the growing political consciousness of the proletariat."
    Source: http://www.great-country.ru/articles/sssr/revoljucija/00018.html
  6. strannik1985
    strannik1985 30 October 2015 09: 18 New
    0
    I wonder why such an ode to Stolypin? His reforms only brought the revolution closer.
    1. Army soldier2
      Army soldier2 30 October 2015 11: 13 New
      +1
      The revolution was brought closer by the fact that Stolypin did not have time to carry out his reforms. Remember from the course of political science "the ratio of basis and superstructure"?
      As Catherine the Great said, "Russia is not even a state. It is a universe."
      All attempts to mechanically transfer foreign political ideas to our land ended in failure.
      Historically, Russia needs a strong power vertical. Apparently, this is due to historical, social, and geographical factors.
      1. MrK
        MrK 30 October 2015 11: 53 New
        +4
        Quote: Army 2
        The revolution was brought closer by the fact that Stolypin did not have time to carry out his reforms. Remember from the course of political science "the ratio of basis and superstructure"?


        In European Russia, by 1905, 76 million acres of land belonged to 25 000 landlords, and 70 million acres belonged to 12 000 000 peasant households. Such a proportion. Siberia is not California. You won’t survive there alone.
        In the West, the peasant community was broken for 200 years, and Stolypin suggested breaking for 20. It was an attempt to artificially introduce capitalism in the countryside. So do not la la.
        Can Stolypin’s reform be called progressive? After all, this reform did not affect the vast landowner fund.

        But there was a project of another reform. I quote the book by A. Kurlandchik. Damned Soviet power ... on Prose. RU
        The merciless peasants in the destruction and fires then kept the landlords in such tension that General D.F., one of the main expressors of the landlord interests, was the commandant of the Tsar’s court. Trepov resolutely spoke out: “I myself am not a poor landowner,” he said, “but I will be very glad to give away half of my land for free, being convinced that only under this condition will I save the other half.” In 1905, the project of land alienation began to be developed. NN Kutler, a lawyer by training, was engaged in it.
        Lenin, being in exile, wrote then that success in alienating land in favor of the peasants would mean the victory of the protracted “Prussian path” of the development of capitalism in agriculture and would lead to a radical change in the balance of class forces in the country. In fact, this meant that the peasantry in Russia would not support the revolution !!! But Lenin understood that a revolution in Russia, without the support of its peasants, was impossible.
        And, despite the fact that a huge ransom was envisaged from the peasants, Nikolai rejected the project. On which, by the way, there was a remarkable resolution of Witte, who was still heading the government: “It seems preferable for the landlords to give up part of the land and secure ownership of the rest of the land rather than lose everything.”
        But the Emperor deigned to write with his own hand on the report: "Private property must remain inviolable." And below: "Kutler from his post to dismiss."


        So who brought the revolution in Russia closer is Nikolashka.
        1. Morrrow
          Morrrow 31 October 2015 03: 03 New
          0
          Alexander the First made the revolution inevitable when he dismissed Speransky
      2. strannik1985
        strannik1985 30 October 2015 12: 47 New
        +1
        The essence of the reform is to increase the land allotment of "reference" peasants at the expense of the community (5% of farms went up as a result of the reform), the rest welcome the proletariat (only the tsarist government could not carry out industrialization of comparable scale) or get an allotment in the outskirts of the Empire (here only few settlers should be taken out, investments in infrastructure, “lifting”, inventory, seed, livestock, and much more are needed (for example, the Bolsheviks invested 4,3 billion rubles in the first five-year plan in agriculture, more than in industry and transport) —about half of the migrants returned home). What do you think, millions of “superfluous” will agree to die voluntarily (according to various estimates, from 20 to 32 million people have an extra population in the village)?
        And this is not touching on the issue of creating a sickly bread lobby, the grassroots element of which is the kulaks (namely, rural money-lenders / speculators / shopkeepers) who are completely not interested in improving the living standards of their social base (debtors).
      3. Rastas
        Rastas 30 October 2015 17: 58 New
        +1
        Reforms of Stolypin ended with a complete suture. And the myths of incompleteness were born already in the 90s. His reforms could not organically take root in Russia, because the village hated kulaks.
        1. Down House
          Down House 31 October 2015 01: 31 New
          0
          Quote: Rastas
          the village hated fists.

          And she dreamed of becoming them - your speculations are exaggerated))
      4. Morrrow
        Morrrow 31 October 2015 03: 02 New
        0
        Russia is no different from France in terms of mentality or development logic.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  7. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 30 October 2015 11: 21 New
    +6
    There is still no constitution in England. This is not to say that everything is bad in the country because of this. T.ch. the point is apparently not in the manifestos and freedoms, but in the weak opposition to external and internal subversive forces. I think in England all these Protestants and guardians for justice would be quickly and orderly outweighed. In any quantities, even in commodity. In the process, it would become clear that at least 2/3 of the "freedom fighters" were foreign nationals who impersonated the British, and the remaining 1/3 were recruited by them.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 30 October 2015 17: 49 New
      +5
      Quote: chunga-changa
      I think in England all these Protestants and guardians for justice would be quickly and orderly outweighed. In any quantities, even in commodity.

      Outweighed, say ...
      Once the English king tried to limit the Parliament. And this is what happened to him:
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 31 October 2015 01: 37 New
        +1
        So on behalf of parliament and would hang.
    2. Rastas
      Rastas 30 October 2015 18: 06 New
      +2
      Firstly, you forget about the English revolution of the 17th century, which put an end to feudalism in England. Secondly, after England there was still a “glorious revolution”, which ended with the expulsion of the Stuarts completely. Thirdly, in England there were quite strong movements aimed at transformation, for example, the Chartists in the middle of the 19th century, whose opinion the authorities had to reckon with. Fourth, England at that time was a locomotive for economic development, which smoothed out all the country's internal problems. Fifthly, kings and queens perfectly remembered Karl’s fate, therefore they made changes without using cannons.
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 31 October 2015 01: 46 New
        +2
        I don’t forget anything. The point is that in England the “driving force of the revolution” could not utter a word, because it instantly found itself in a loop. Not to mention the different "arrived in a sealed wagon." In my opinion, in the entire history of England, there were only a couple of such clever people, and they, too, quickly and exponentially ended.
        The British, in spite of any squabbles and democratisms within the country, did not allow and do not allow influencing the situation to anyone from outside, or to foreign groups of influence. You need to be able to become and be a “locomotive for economic development”, reflections on the “special Eurasian path” and “unbelievable spirituality”, under which everyone and everyone who climb and plunder, will never lead to such a result.
        1. Morrrow
          Morrrow 31 October 2015 03: 06 New
          0
          In France, too. The Jacobins even returned the term "enemy of the people"
    3. Morrrow
      Morrrow 31 October 2015 03: 05 New
      +1
      In England there was Parliament - one of the greatest achievements of the Anglo-Saxons.
  8. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 30 October 2015 16: 11 New
    +1
    The then politicians did not want to work for the good of the country. They needed power, preferably all at once.
  9. Nubia2
    Nubia2 30 October 2015 18: 09 New
    +2
    Quote: Sveles
    The Ottoman Empire until 1826, before the Janissary suppression spoke Russian

    Chic "historical" discovery))
    1. Your friend
      Your friend 30 October 2015 18: 23 New
      0
      Quote: Nubia2
      Quote: Sveles
      The Ottoman Empire until 1826, before the Janissary suppression spoke Russian

      Chic "historical" discovery))

      There, as it were, the rest is just as chic. Especially about the new nations ... (((
      In those days -19th the processes of CREATION of PEOPLES took place. Until 1826, the Ottoman Empire spoke Russian, before Poland, it seemed that just at the beginning of the 19th century, they also spoke Russian, then new peoples, Romanian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Manchus spoke the same Russian.
      1. Morrrow
        Morrrow 31 October 2015 03: 07 New
        0
        Acheret. In general, Bulgarians and Serbs are older than Russians.
        1. venaya
          venaya 31 October 2015 04: 47 New
          0
          Quote: Morrrow
          In general, Bulgarians and Serbs are older than Russians.

          Proof to the studio! Only according to the latest Russian calendar we have 7524th summer in our yard. The term "Serbia" is a pure newspeak, the previous name is "Raska", but there is still a city in Serbia with that name. Please, on the Russian site, and even on the Russian-speaking one, try a little more detailed study of the past of Russia, the Russian people, or at least the Russian calendars, and there are many of them. And remember that the Bulgarians are still immigrants from the Volga, direct relatives of the Volga Tatars, formerly called "Bulgars (Volgars)", the current Bulgarians are referred to as "non-Volga Bulgars (Volgas)".
          1. Morrrow
            Morrrow 31 October 2015 13: 56 New
            0
            Cyril and Methodius are also Tatars ??? Do not carry nonsense. Bulgarians are Illyrian Slavs who, due to ties with Byzantium, overtook any other Slavic peoples.
            1. venaya
              venaya 31 October 2015 16: 12 New
              0
              Quote: Morrrow
              Bulgarians are Illyrian Slavs who, due to ties with Byzantium, overtook any other Slavic peoples.

              About Kirml please specify. The first printed data about it appears only starting from 1901. You probably haven’t learned how to believe in fairy tales since childhood, sorry, check the information about him. The first information about the Slavs comes before the 315th century. In the territory of present-day Serbia during the Tripoli culture period, in the territory of the excavation of the Vinca culture, near Belgrade, a sarcophagus with a clear inscription was found that even I read: Zhivina Rus. The name of the tribe "non-Volga Bulgars" is on the maps. So I don’t think it is worth confusing the origin of the name of the tribe and the tribe mixed with the autochthons itself. To use the term “Slavs” of Latin origin, I think it’s not quite correct, it confuses people thoroughly. Take an interest in the origin of the terms, and do not blame other people for having such incomplete data. By the way, why don’t you mention the Russian calendar, because in our country it was no longer exclusively used only XNUMX years ago. Does people really have such a short memory, or is it just a form of such zombies in the NLP style? Try to explain this to yourself.
  10. Above_name
    Above_name 30 October 2015 22: 40 New
    0
    ... The manifesto of 1905 was published by Emperor Nicholas II under the pressure of the growing revolutionary situation ..... This manifesto is considered the beginning of the Russian monarchy..

    Strong! CONSIDERED by whom and among whom?
  11. Down House
    Down House 31 October 2015 01: 25 New
    +1
    The concessions of the liberal public could not save old Russia. They only enraged Westerners and all kinds of revolutionaries, increased their ability to destroy the foundations of the empire.

    Brilliant and true! Give this little finger a lick, it will bite off the floor of the body!
    And it was precisely the emperor’s spinelessness, precisely his inability to rigorously carry out the correct reforms (reforms primarily economic, military, educational reforms, etc.) that finished off the Russian Empire.
    And it’s not at all the absence of any freedoms there, and even more so among the “broad sections of the population”.
    Here, on the contrary, it was precisely flirting with this liberal gang-watering can that became the catalyst for the future collapse of the country, which was only miraculously avoided and already with the help of the Bolsheviks and simply at a monstrous price!
    1. Lord blacwood
      Lord blacwood 23 October 2016 22: 50 New
      0
      Quote: Down House
      And it was precisely the emperor’s spinelessness, precisely his inability to rigorously carry out the correct reforms (reforms primarily economic, military, educational reforms, etc.) that finished off the Russian Empire.

      Absolutely.
      It was thanks to the weakness of the emperor that the Russian Empire lost the Russo-Japanese war, because of the mediocrity of the emperor and his ministers, the 1905 revolution took place, and it was thanks to the weakness of the emperor that a civil war broke out in the country.