Russia is a powerful and happy power in itself; it should never be a threat to other neighboring states or to Europe. But she must have an impressive defensive position, capable of making any attack against her impossible.
Where the Russian flag is raised once, it should not descend there.
Emperor Nicholas I
Where the Russian flag is raised once, it should not descend there.
Emperor Nicholas I
220 years ago, 6 July 1796, the Russian Emperor Nikolai I Pavlovich was born. Nicholas I, together with his father, Emperor Paul I, is one of the most maligned Russian tsars. Russian tsar, the most hated by the liberals of both that time and today. What is the reason for such persistent hatred and such fierce slander, which does not subside until our time?
First, Nicholas is hated for suppressing the conspiracy of the Decembrists, conspirators who were part of the system of Western Freemasonry. The uprising of the so-called "Decembrists" was to destroy the Russian empire, leading to the emergence of weak, semi-colonial state formations dependent on the West. And Nikolai Pavlovich suppressed the rebellion and preserved Russia as a world power.
Secondly, Nikolay cannot be forgiven for the prohibition of freemasonry in Russia. That is, the Russian emperor forbade the then “fifth column”, which worked for the masters of the West.
Thirdly, the king is “guilty” of firm views, where there was no place for masonic and half-masonian (liberal) views. Nikolay clearly stood on the positions of autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality, defended Russian national interests in the world.
Fourth, Nikolay fought against the revolutionary movements organized by the Freemasons (Illuminati) in the monarchical states of Europe. For this, Nikolaev Russia was nicknamed the “gendarme of Europe”. Nikolay understood that revolutions do not lead to the triumph of “freedom, equality and fraternity”, but to the “liberalization” of a person, his “liberation” from the “shackles” of morality and conscience. What this leads to is seen in the example of a modern, tolerant Europe, where bureaucrats, bastards, Satanists, and other misguided evil spirits are considered the “elite” of society. And “lowering” a person in the field of morality to the level of a primitive animal leads to his complete degradation and total slavery. That is, the Masons and the Illuminati, provoking a revolution, simply brought the victory of the New World Order - the global slave-owning civilization headed by the "elect". Nicholas opposed this evil.
Fifthly, Nikolai wanted to end the hobbies of the Russian nobility in Europe, the West. He planned to stop further Europeanization, the westernization of Russia. The Tsar intended to become at the head, as A. S. Pushkin expressed it, “the organizations of the counter-revolution of Peter’s revolution”. Nikolay wanted to return to the political and social precepts of Muscovite Russia, which found its expression in the formula “Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality”.
Thus, myths about the extraordinary despotism and terrible cruelty of Nicholas I were created because he prevented the revolutionary liberal forces from seizing power in Russia and Europe. “He considered himself called upon to suppress the revolution, - he always pursued it and in all forms. And, indeed, there is historical the calling of the Orthodox Tsar, ”noted the maid of honor of Tyutchev in her diary.
Hence the pathological hatred of Nicholas, the accusations of "bad" personal qualities of the emperor. Liberal historiography of the 19th - early 20th centuries, Soviet history, where “tsarism” was presented mainly from a negative point of view, then modern liberal journalism branded Nikolai “despot and tyrant”, “Nikolai Palkin”, because from the first day of his reign, from the moment of suppression of the then “fifth column” - “Decembrists”, and until the last day (organized by the masters of the West Crimean War), he spent in a continuous struggle with the Russian and European Masons and the revolutionary societies created by them. At the same time, Nikolai, in domestic and foreign policy, tried to adhere to Russian national interests, not bending to the desires of Western "partners."
It is clear that such a person was hated and, even during his life, created a series of persistent “black myths”: that “the Decembrists fought for the freedom of the people, and the bloody tyrant shot them and executed them”; that "Nicholas I was a supporter of serfdom and the lack of rights of the peasants"; that "Nicholas I in general was a stupid martinet, a close-minded little-educated person, alien to any progress"; that Russia under Nicholas was a "backward state", which led to the defeat in the Crimean War, etc.
The myth of the Decembrists - "Knights without fear and reproach"
The ascension to the throne of Nicholas I was overshadowed by the attempt of the secret Masonic society of the so-called "Decembrists" to seize power over Russia (The myth of the Decembrists - "knights without fear and reproach"; The myth of the “Knights of Freedom”). Later, the efforts of Western liberals, social democrats, and then Soviet historiography created the myth of "knights without fear and reproach," who decided to destroy the "royal tyranny" and build a society based on the principles of freedom, equality and fraternity. In modern Russia, it is also customary to speak of the Decembrists from a positive point of view. They say that the best part of the Russian society, the nobility, challenged the “royal tyranny”, tried to destroy the “Russian slavery” (serfdom), but was defeated.
However, in reality the truth is that the so-called. “Decembrists”, hiding behind the slogans that were completely humane and understandable to the majority, objectively worked for the then “world community” (the West). In fact, they were the forerunners of the Februarylists of the 1917 model, who destroyed the autocracy and the Russian empire. They planned to complete the physical destruction of the dynasty of the Russian monarchs of the Romanovs, their families, and even to distant relatives. And their plans in the field of state and national construction were guaranteed to lead to a great confusion and disintegration of the state.
It is clear that part of the noble youth simply did not know what they were doing. Young people dreamed of destroying “various injustices and oppressions” and bringing the estates closer together to increase social welfare in Russia. Examples of the dominance of foreigners in the highest administration (just remember the environment of Tsar Alexander), extortion, violation of the legal proceedings, inhuman treatment of soldiers and sailors in the army and on navy, trade in serfs was excited by noble minds, which were inspired by the patriotic upsurge of 1812-1814. The problem was that the “great truths” of freedom, equality and fraternity, supposedly necessary for the good of Russia, were associated in their minds only with European republican institutions and social forms, which in theory they mechanically transferred to Russian soil.
That is, the Decembrists sought to "transplant France to Russia." As later, Russian Westernizers of the early 20th century will dream of remaking Russia into Republican France or the constitutional English monarchy, which will lead to the geopolitical catastrophe of 1917 of the year. The abstraction and frivolity of such transferring lay in the fact that it was carried out without an understanding of the historical past and national traditions, centuries-old spiritual values, and the psychological and everyday structure of Russian civilization. Noble youth, brought up on the ideals of Western culture, was infinitely far from the people. Historical experience shows that in the Russian empire, Soviet Russia and the Russian Federation, all borrowing from the West in the sphere of social and political structure, spiritual and intellectual sphere, even the most useful ones, are distorted on Russian soil, leading to degradation and destruction.
The Decembrists, like the later Westerners, did not understand this. They thought that if the advanced experience of the Western powers in Russia was transplanted, the people were given “freedom”, then the country would take off and prosper. As a result, the Decembrists' sincere hopes of a forced change in the existing system, of the legal order, as a panacea for all ills, led to the turmoil and destruction of the Russian Empire. It turned out that the Decembrists objectively, by default, worked in the interests of the masters of the West.
In addition, in the program documents of the Decembrists you can find a variety of settings and wishes. There was no unity in their ranks; their secret societies were more like the discussion clubs of sophisticated intellectuals, who vigorously discussed pressing political issues. In this regard, they are similar to the Westernizers-liberals of the sample of the late XIX - early XX centuries. and the Februarynists of 1917, as well as the modern Russian liberals, who cannot find a common point of view on almost any important issue. They are ready to endlessly “rebuild” and reform ”, in fact, destroy the legacy of their ancestors, and the burden of their managerial decisions will have to be borne by the people.
Some Decembrists offered to create a republic, others - to establish a constitutional monarchy, with the possibility of introducing the republic. Russia, according to N. Muravyev’s plan, was offered to de-facto dismember the 13 powers and the 2 regions, creating a federation of them. In this case, the powers received the right of separation (self-determination). The manifesto of Prince Sergei Trubetskoy (the prince of Trubetskoy before the uprising was chosen as a dictator) suggested liquidating the “former government” and replacing it with a provisional one before the election of the Constituent Assembly. That is, the Decembrists planned to create an interim government.
The head of the Southern Society of the Decembrists, Colonel and Freemason Pavel Pestel wrote one of the program documents - “Russian Truth”. Pestel planned to abolish serfdom, transferring to the peasants half of the arable land fund, the other half was supposed to be left in the ownership of the landowners, which was to contribute to the bourgeois development of the country. Landowners had to lease land to farmers - "capitalists of the agricultural class", which should have led to the organization in the country of large commodity farms with a broad attraction of hired labor. “Russkaya Pravda” abolished not only the estates, but also the national borders - all the tribes and ethnic groups living in Russia planned to unite into a single Russian people. Thus, Pestel planned, by the example of America, to create a kind of "melting pot" in Russia. To speed up this process, national segregation was actually proposed with the division of the Russian population into groups.
Muravyov was a supporter of the preservation of land holdings of landowners. The liberated peasants received only 2 tithing of land, that is, only a personal plot. This site, at the then low level of agrotechnologies, could not feed a large peasant family. The peasants were forced to bow to the landowners, the landowners, who had all the land, meadows and forests, turned into dependent farm laborers, as in Latin America.
Thus, the Decembrists did not have a single, clear program, which could lead, if they won, to an internal conflict. The victory of the Decembrists guaranteed led to the collapse of statehood, the army, chaos, the conflict of estates and different peoples. For example, the mechanism of the great redistribution of land was not described in detail, which led to a conflict between the multimillion-dollar mass of peasants and the landowners-landowners of that time. Under the conditions of a radical breakdown of the state structure, the transfer of the capital (they planned to transfer it to Nizhny Novgorod), it is obvious that such a “restructuring” led to a civil war and a new unrest. In the field of state-building, the plans of the Decembrists correlate very clearly with the plans of the separatists of the beginning of the 20th century or the 1990-2000. As well as plans of Western politicians and ideologues who dream of dismembering Great Russia into a number of weak and “independent” states. That is, the actions of the Decembrists led to confusion and civil war, to the collapse of the powerful Russian Empire. The Decembrists were the forerunners of the “Februaryists” who were able to destroy Russian statehood in 1917.
Therefore, Nicholas and shed mud in every way. After all, he was able to stop the first major attempt at "perestroika" of Russia, which led to confusion and civil confrontation, to the delight of our Western "partners".
In this case, Nicholas is accused of inhuman treatment of the Decembrists. However, the ruler of the Russian Empire, Nikolai, who was recorded in history as “Palkin”, showed amazing mercy and humanity for the rebels. In any European country for such a rebellion, many hundreds or thousands of people would be executed in the most cruel way so that others would not be discouraged. And the military for revolt were subject to the death penalty. Would reveal all the underground, many have lost their posts. In Russia, everything was different: from 579 people arrested in the case of the Decembrists, almost 300 were acquitted. Only the leaders (and not all) were executed - Pestel, Muravyev-Apostol, Ryleev, Bestuzhev-Rumin, and the murderer of the commander of the Life Guards Grenadier Regiment, Stürler and the Governor of Miloradovich-Kakhovsky. 88 people were sent to penal servitude, 18 to settle, 15 demoted to the soldiers. Corporal punishment was applied to the insurgent soldiers, they were sent to the Caucasus. The "dictator" of the rebels, Prince Trubetskoy did not appear at all on Senate Square, coward, stayed out at the Austrian ambassador, where he was tied up. At first he denied everything, then he confessed and asked for forgiveness from the sovereign. And Nicholas I forgave him!
Tsar Nicholas I was a supporter of serfdom and the lack of rights of the peasants
It is known that Nicholas I was a consistent supporter of the destruction of serfdom. It was under him that a reform of state peasants was carried out with the introduction of self-government in the countryside and a “decree on obligated peasants” was signed, which became the foundation for the abolition of serfdom. The position of state peasants has seriously improved (their number reached about 1850% of the population by the second half of the 50-s), which was connected with the reforms of P. D. Kiselev. During his tenure, the state peasants were allocated their own allotments of land and forest areas, and also subsidiary cash registers and bread shops were established everywhere, which provided peasants with cash loans and grain in case of a bad harvest. As a result of these measures, not only did the well-being of the peasants increase, but the incomes of the treasury from them increased by 15-20%, the tax arrears halved, and there were almost no landless laborers who lived in poverty and dependency. received land from the state.
In addition, under Nicholas I, the practice of distributing peasants with lands as a reward was completely stopped, and the rights of landowners vis-à-vis the peasants were seriously curtailed and the rights of serfs were increased. In particular, it was forbidden to sell peasants without land, it was also forbidden to send peasants to hard labor, since serious crimes were removed from the landowner's competence; serfs received the right to own land, conduct business and received relative freedom of movement. For the first time, the state began to systematically ensure that the rights of the peasants were not violated by the landowners (this was one of the functions of the Third Division), and to punish the landowners for these violations. As a result of the application of punishments towards landowners, by the end of the reign of Nicholas I, about 200 landlord estates were under arrest, which greatly affected the position of the peasants and landlord psychology. As historian V. Klyuchevsky noted, two completely new conclusions followed from the laws adopted under Nicholas I: first, that the peasants are not the property of the landowner, but, above all, the subjects of the state that protects their rights; secondly, that the identity of the peasant is not the private property of the landowner, that they are connected with each other by their relationship to the landlord’s land, with which the peasants cannot be driven away.
Developed, but, unfortunately, were not implemented at that time and reforms to the complete abolition of serfdom, however, the total proportion of serfs in Russian society during his reign was seriously reduced. Thus, their share in the population of Russia, according to various estimates, declined from 57-58% in 1811 — 1817. to 35-45% in 1857 — 1858 and they no longer make up the majority of the population of the empire.
Also under Nicholas, education was booming. For the first time, a mass peasant education program was launched. The number of peasant schools in the country increased from 60 schools where 1500 students studied in 1838 year to 2551 schools where 111 thousand students studied in 1856 year. In the same period, many technical schools and universities were opened - in essence, a system of vocational primary and secondary education in the country was created.
Myth of Nicholas - "king-martinet"
It is believed that the king was "martinet", that is, was interested only in military affairs. Indeed, from early childhood, Nikolai had a particular passion for military affairs. This passion for children instilled father - Paul. Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich received a home education, but the prince did not show much zeal for his studies. He did not recognize the humanities, but he was well versed in the art of war, was fond of fortifications, was well acquainted with engineering. Known hobby of Nikolai Pavlovich painting, which he studied in childhood under the guidance of painter I. A. Akimov and Professor V. K. Shebuev.
Having received in his youth a good engineering education, Nicholas I showed considerable knowledge in the field of construction, including military. Like Peter I himself, he did not disdain to personally participate in the design and construction, focusing on the fortresses, which later literally saved the country from much more sad consequences during the Crimean War. At the same time, under Nicholas, a powerful line of fortresses was created, covering the western strategic direction.
In Russia, there was an active introduction of new technologies. As the historian P.A. Zayonchkovsky wrote, in the reign of Nicholas I, "contemporaries created the idea that the era of reforms had begun in Russia." Nicholas I was actively introducing innovations in the country - for example, the Tsarskoye Selo railway opened in 1837 was only the 6 railway of general use in the world, despite the fact that the first such road was opened shortly before in 1830. Under Nicholas, the railway between St. Petersburg and Moscow was built - at that time the longest in the world, and it should be attributed to the tsar’s personal merits that it was built almost in a straight line, which at that time was still a novelty. In fact, Nicholas was a technocrat emperor.
The myth of the failed foreign policy of Nicholas
On the whole, Nikolai’s foreign policy was successful and reflected the national interests of Russia. Russia has strengthened its position in the Caucasus and Transcaucasia, the Balkans and the Far East. Russian-Persian War 1826 — 1828 ended with a brilliant victory of the Russian Empire. The policy of Britain, which incited Persia to Russia, with the aim of ousting Russia from the Caucasus and preventing the further advancement of the Russians in the South Caucasus, Central Asia and the Middle East, failed. According to the Turkmanchai peace treaty, the territories of the Erivan (on both sides of the Araks river) and the Nakhichevan khanates were ceded to Russia. The Persian government pledged not to hinder the resettlement of Armenians into the Russian borders (the Armenians provided support to the Russian army during the war). A contribution of 20 million rubles was imposed on Iran. Iran confirmed the freedom of navigation in the Caspian Sea for Russian merchant ships and Russia's exclusive right to have a navy here. That is, the Caspian was withdrawing into the sphere of influence of Russia. Russia was given a number of advantages in trade relations with Persia.
Russian-Turkish war 1828 — 1829 ended with a complete victory for Russia. According to the Adrianople Peace Treaty, the mouth of the Danube with the islands, the entire Caucasian Black Sea coast from the mouth of the Kuban River to the northern border of Ajara, as well as the fortresses of Akhalkalaki and Akhaltsikh with the adjacent areas departed to the Russian Empire. Turkey recognized the accession to Russia of Georgia, Imeretia, Megrelia and Guria, as well as the khanates of Erivan and Nakhichevan, who had passed from Iran under the Turkmanchai Treaty. The right of Russian nationals to conduct free trade throughout the territory of the Ottoman Empire, which granted the right to Russian and foreign merchant ships to freely pass through the Bosphorus and the Dardenelles, was confirmed. Russian nationals in Turkish territory were under jurisdiction of the Turkish authorities. Turkey undertook to pay Russia a contribution of 1,5 million Dutch ducats for 1,5 years. Peace provided autonomy to the Danube principalities (Moldavia and Wallachia). Russia assumed the guarantee of the autonomy of the principalities, which were completely out of the power of Porta, paying it only an annual tribute. Also, the Turks confirmed the commitment to respect the autonomy of Serbia. Thus, the World of Adrianople created favorable conditions for the development of Black Sea trade and completed the accession to Russia of the main territories of Transcaucasia. Russia strengthened its influence in the Balkans, which became a factor that accelerated the process of liberation of Moldova, Wallachia, Greece, Serbia from the Ottoman yoke.
At the request of Russia, which declared itself the patroness of all the Christian subjects of the Sultan, the Sultan was forced to recognize the freedom and independence of Greece and the wide autonomy of Serbia (1830). Amur Expedition 1849 — 1855 thanks to the decisive mood of Nicholas I personally, the fact of joining Russia to the whole left bank of the Amur, which was documented under Alexander II, ended. Successfully Russian troops moved in the North Caucasus (Caucasus War). The structure of Russia included Balkaria, the Karachay region, the uprising of Shamil was not successful, the forces of the highlanders, thanks to the methodical pressure of the Russian forces, were undermined. Victory in the Caucasian War drew closer and became inevitable.
The strategic mistakes of the government of Nicholas include the participation of Russian troops in the suppression of the Hungarian uprising, which led to the preservation of the unity of the Austrian Empire, as well as the defeat in the Eastern War. However, the defeat in the Crimean War should not be exaggerated. Russia was forced to confront a whole coalition of opponents, the leading powers of that time — Britain and France. Austria has taken an extremely hostile position. Our enemies were planning to dismember Russia, reject it from the Baltic and the Black Sea, to tear away huge territories - Finland, the Baltic States, the Kingdom of Poland, the Crimea, lands in the Caucasus. But all these plans failed due to the heroic resistance of Russian soldiers and sailors in Sevastopol. In general, the war ended with minimal losses for Russia. England, France and Turkey could not destroy the main achievements of Russia in the Caucasus, the Black Sea region and the Baltic. Russia has resisted. It still remained the main opponent of the West on the planet.
Northern Colossus. French caricature of Nicholas I and the Crimean War
To be continued ...