History lesson "Russia's foreign policy at the beginning of the 20th century". Foreign and domestic policy of the autocracy at the beginning of the 20th century

Domestic politics

Protection of "foundations". Nicholas II, who ascended the throne in 1894, tried to follow his father's reactionary course. However, apart from the fact that he did not inherit strong will and firm character from Alexander III, the socio-economic and political crisis that hit Russia at the beginning of the 20th century greatly complicated the problems facing the tsarist government. It was no longer possible to solve them by purely reactionary measures. As a result, the new tsar involuntarily pursued a dual policy: in a number of cases, Nicholas II had to maneuver, to make concessions to the "spirit of the times."

The desire of the young king to rule according to his father's precepts was most clearly manifested in his defense of the existing system. The death of Alexander III, whose name has become a symbol of unlimited, autocratic power, aroused timid hopes for change in liberal circles. These hopes were reflected in some of the addresses of greeting addressed to the tsar's name, drawn up at the end of 1894 in zemstvo assemblies on the occasion of the marriage of Nicholas II. They very cautiously, in the most vague terms, carried out the idea of ​​the desirability of involving public figures in the administration of the state. The reaction from Nicholas II followed immediately. In January 1895, while receiving deputations from the nobility, zemstvos, and towns in the Winter Palace, the tsar in a short speech called hopes for a change in the political system "meaningless dreams," declaring that he would "guard the principles of autocracy just as firmly and unswervingly" as he had guarded their late Alexander III.

Having thus determined the general course of his reign, Nicholas II waged a decisive struggle against the opponents of the autocracy. For these purposes, he, above all, used the mechanism of the state of emergency, thoroughly developed under his father. At the very beginning of the reign of Alexander III, in the midst of the struggle against the "Narodnaya Volya", the famous Regulations were issued on August 14, 1881 on measures to protect state order and public security. In accordance with this Regulation, the heads of the local administration - the governor-general, governors and mayors - received emergency powers. They were granted the right of administrative exile for a period of 5 years, without trial or investigation, on one suspicion of political unreliability. They could forbid all public gatherings, close any commercial, industrial and educational institutions. Finally, local authorities could interfere in the activities of zemstvo and city public bodies, dismissing those employees with whom they were for some reason dissatisfied.

This so-called enhanced security regime was initially introduced temporarily, for three years. However, then the government of Alexander III carefully confirmed it at the beginning of each new triennium. Nicholas II followed the same path. As a result, a number of the most important Russian provinces: St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv, Kharkov, etc. - were in a similar regime continuously for 24 years - until 1905. In 1901, at the first signs of an impending revolution, Nicholas II introduced enhanced security almost on throughout the rest of Russia.

Nicholas II paid extraordinary attention to the improvement of the political police. Here he also fully continued the traditions of the previous reign. Those few security departments - in Moscow, Warsaw and St. Petersburg, which were established as an experiment under Alexander III, now served as the basis for creating a whole network of political investigation bodies. In 1902, departments for the protection of public order and security - simply the Okhrana - were created in all the provincial cities of Russia. The leading figures of the secret police - S.V. Zubatov, A.V. Gerasimov, P.I. opponents of the autocracy, etc. But at the same time they did not disdain frankly illegal actions - there would be results. Provocation became the main means of combating the revolution and the opposition: the Okhrana widely introduced its secret agents into various public circles and underground organizations, who, supplying valuable information, at the same time, willy-nilly, had to take part in the most diverse anti-government activities - from the publication of opposition magazines before organizing the assassinations of tsarist ministers.

Thanks to the tireless activity of the Okhrana, as well as in connection with the constant growth of public discontent, the tsarist courts also had to work at full capacity. The number of cases on state crimes, considered in 1903, increased in comparison with 1894 by 12 times. Political cases, as a rule, were considered by military courts, although this was contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Judicial Charters of 1864, i.e., it was a violation of the laws of the Russian Empire. On the other hand, having taken away political cases from the jury, the autocratic government could be sure that its opponents would be punished with maximum cruelty. Unlike jurors, military judges, specially selected, disciplined officers, never allowed themselves to be "liberal" in sentencing.

The most common occurrence under Nicholas II was the involvement of not only the police and gendarmerie, but also troops - Cossacks, dragoons, soldiers, to combat riots, which was undoubtedly an emergency measure. The inability to govern the country by conventional means, observing its laws, the constant use of emergency measures were clear evidence of a crisis of power. The system that Nicholas II so consistently defended has clearly outlived its usefulness; it could be preserved and maintained only with the help of administrative and police arbitrariness, relying on a bayonet and a whip.

autocracy and nobility. For centuries, the only reliable support of autocratic power was the local nobility. Nicholas II, like his predecessors, understood this well. In speeches and official documents, the tsar constantly emphasized his especially benevolent attitude towards the "noble estate", his readiness to meet their wishes.

The matter, however, was not limited to words. Throughout his reign, Nicholas II strongly opposed any attempts to confiscate the landlords' lands. At the same time, the government provided constant financial support to the local nobility, which was clearly manifested in the ever-expanding activities of the Noble Bank: by the beginning of the 20th century. the amount of loans issued by them to landlords on favorable terms exceeded 1 billion rubles. The same goal was pursued by other measures of a financial nature: lowering interest on loans to landowners-debtors, the establishment of noble mutual assistance funds.

All this led to the fact that most of the local nobility saw the autocratic power as a protector and patroness and, in turn, was ready to provide her with all possible support. However, by the beginning of the 20th century. the nobility had already ceased to be homogeneous socially and politically. A relatively small but extremely active part of the landlords, who managed to adapt to the new conditions, to reorganize their economy on a capitalist footing, increasingly accepted the liberal ideology. These landowners, who played a leading role in some zemstvos, advocated strict observance of the rule of law, the rejection of emergency measures, the expansion of the rights of local self-government and, accordingly, the limitation of the omnipotence of the bureaucracy. Constitutional ideas also gained more and more popularity in this environment. Thus, part of the local nobility went into opposition to the autocratic power, drawing closer to the liberal bourgeoisie.

autocracy and the bourgeoisie. With any claims of this class to state power, the autocracy fought uncompromisingly, while in the economic sphere it easily found a common language with it. State loans and tax incentives, a patronizing customs policy and the desire to seize new sources of raw materials and markets - in these matters, the reign of Nicholas II fully met the interests of the Russian bourgeoisie. For a long time, S. Yu. Witte, who had taken this post under his father, remained the Minister of Finance under Nicholas for a long time. This brilliant statesman, closely associated with commercial and industrial circles, took a number of serious measures that contributed to the development of capitalist relations in Russia. The main one was the monetary reform: in 1897, a gold currency was put into circulation, which stabilized the ruble exchange rate and provided stable profits to entrepreneurs. Witte was one of the main organizers of the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway, which contributed to the intensification of Russian policy in the Far East. On his initiative, Russia began economic penetration into Northern China.

All this led to the fact that the bourgeoisie in Russia for a long time did not represent any serious organized opposition to the autocracy. The constant growth of the labor movement also played a significant role in her restrained attitude towards the tsarist government: the factory owners needed police protection, a force capable of restoring order. Only during the years of the first Russian revolution, when it became increasingly clear that it was no longer possible to govern Russia with the help of emergency measures, did constitutional sentiments begin to appear among the industrial bourgeoisie.

Peasant question. The name of S. Yu. Witte is also associated with the attempts of a new approach by the ruling bureaucracy to the peasant question. The famine years, which were becoming commonplace in Russia, the fall in the solvency of the peasantry, a noticeable increase in peasant unrest - all this forced the government to look for a way out of the situation. According to Witte and his supporters, the Russian countryside needed a strong, enterprising owner. Such a master could appear here only if the peasants were equalized in rights with representatives of other strata, destroying their class isolation. And above all, it was necessary to destroy the community: to allow the peasants to leave it at their own will, securing their allotments in private property.

However, this point of view had serious opponents in the ruling spheres, who were grouped around the Minister of the Interior V. K. Plehve. In their opinion, such transformations were not only unnecessary, but also harmful. This grouping expressed in the best possible way the interests of the landlords of the old, feudal temper, for whom the inert, semi-impoverished existence of the Russian countryside was beneficial; in the person of peasant proprietors, these landlords were afraid to meet dangerous competitors. Plehve and his supporters intended to solve the peasant problem by traditional, tried and tested methods: to preserve the class isolation of the peasants, artificially supporting the community, and at the same time strengthen administrative and political supervision over the countryside in every possible way.

After a short struggle, the Plehve group won: in 1903, the tsar's manifesto announced that the preservation of the class isolation of the peasantry and the inviolability of the community should remain the guiding principles in any revision of peasant legislation. Such an approach to business ruled out the possibility of any serious transformations and inevitably led to the growth of revolutionary sentiment among the peasants, who constituted the bulk of the population of Russia.

Questions and tasks

1. Tell us about the most characteristic features of the domestic policy pursued by Nicholas II at the end of the 19th century. Why do you think repressive features prevailed in it? Were other approaches to solving urgent socio-economic and political problems possible under those conditions? 2. What was the attitude of the autocratic power towards various segments of the Russian population? How was it determined?

Zubatovshchina"

S. V. Zubatov and "Zubatovism". AT early 20th century in the center of attention of the tsarist government is the labor question. The most far-sighted representatives of the authorities come to the conclusion that the labor movement is beginning to pose the most serious danger to the existing system. It becomes just as obvious to them that the traditional, police-administrative means of combating this movement - mass arrests, exile, etc. - not only do not pacify it, but inflame it even more. In search of a way out of this situation, some statesmen begin to support that peculiar policy in the labor issue, which soon became known as "Zubatovism" - after its main inspirer and guide, the head of the Moscow security department S. V. Zubatov.

Zubatov, a professional and very outstanding figure in political investigation, was well versed in the Russian revolutionary movement. He quickly assessed what a terrible, explosive force the working-class movement under the leadership of revolutionary intellectuals, who tried to give it a political coloring, to direct it against the autocracy, was capable of transforming. At the same time, Zubatov considered the workers' struggle to improve their financial situation to be quite natural and not at all dangerous for the government. He saw the main task of the government precisely in keeping the working-class movement within the framework of this purely economic struggle, diverting it from politics, and neutralizing the influence of the revolutionaries. And for this, Zubatov believed, the representatives of the authorities needed to take control of the labor movement, skillfully lead it and, if necessary, provide the workers with some support in the fight against the entrepreneurs. under whose patronage a peaceful solution of all problems is possible.

The implementation of "Zubatovism" in practice. Some representatives of the ruling bureaucracy treated "Zubatovism" with understanding and sympathy. At one time, Zubatov was supported by Plehve, he was patronized by the Moscow governor-general, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, the uncle of the tsar, who had a great influence on his nephew. With his permission, in 1901 Zubatov began to carry out his unusual experiment in Moscow.

"Societies for the Mutual Aid of Workers" began to spring up at various industrial enterprises. They were headed by the workers themselves, promoted by Zubatov and his collaborators. Such leaders (M. A. Afanasiev, F. A. Sleptsov, and others) formed a kind of council that led the Zubatov movement under the control of Zubatov himself. In various parts of Moscow, the council organized district meetings of workers, opened tea houses - original workers' clubs, sought to give unity and integrity to the movement. Most importantly, Zubatov's societies, and if necessary Zubatov himself, began to intervene in conflicts between workers and entrepreneurs, forcing the latter to make some concessions.

In parallel with such actions, the Zubatovites launched an active propaganda work. The Historical Museum began to hold regular Sunday meetings of workers, nicknamed the "Zubatov Parliament". At these meetings, serious economists - V. E. Den, I. Kh. Ozerov - gave lectures related to the life of workers: on cooperation, mutual aid funds, and the housing issue. The lectures were followed by discussions. In 1901-1902. Sunday meetings were very popular - it was difficult to break into the auditorium of the Historical Museum, which accommodated about 700 people.

Well-staged propaganda and individual, small handouts at first did their job. "Zubatovshchina" was an undoubted success among the workers, a significant part of whom were by no means alien to faith in the "good tsar". When at the beginning of 1902 Zubatov decided to hold a kind of review of forces and staged a grandiose patriotic demonstration in the Kremlin in front of the monument to Alexander II (February 19, in memory of the abolition of serfdom), about 50 thousand people took part in it. At the same time, exemplary order was provided; Zubatov himself regarded the manifestation as "a dress rehearsal for the management of the people's communities."

In addition to Moscow, Zubatov, with the help of his employees, launched an active activity in the western outskirts of Russia, where, on his initiative, the Independent Jewish Labor Party was created. Zubatov promised the "Independents" - Jewish workers and artisans - a quick and fair solution from above not only of the workers, but also of the national question - on the condition that the Jewish population of the outskirts refuse from the political, revolutionary struggle.

It seemed that Zubatov could triumph - he achieved undoubted success. Both in Moscow and on the western outskirts, the influence of the "Zubatovshchina" was great and constantly growing. The revolutionaries operating in these regions began to experience serious difficulties - the labor movement gradually slipped out of their control. Attempts to resist "Zubatovism" with the help of counter-propaganda - leaflets, speeches at rallies, etc. - did not bring noticeable results.

The collapse of "Zubatovism". However, the successes of the "Zubatovshchina" were of a temporary, transient nature. Zubatov's activity caused more and more dissatisfaction among Moscow entrepreneurs. Already at the beginning of 1902, a sharp conflict arose between the owner of a large textile factory, Yu. P. Guzhon, and the Zubatov organizations. Goujon, supported by other industrialists, filed a complaint against Zubatov with the Ministry of Finance. S.Yu. Witte treated the troubles of the Moscow capitalists with complete understanding: from the very beginning, the Minister of Finance perceived it as illegal and dangerous demagoguery, not reassuring, but revolutionizing the workers.

At that time, Zubatov still had influential patrons, although they were already beginning to be frightened by the scope of "Zubatovism"; more and more doubts arose about the final results of this movement. Meanwhile, the conflicts between employers and workers not only did not stop, but began to take on ever sharper forms. Attempts by Zubatov himself to find a common language with the manufacturers, having entered into personal contact with them and convincing them to make some concessions to the workers, ended in complete failure. The complaints of entrepreneurs became more and more insistent, and in the bureaucratic elite they began to listen more and more attentively, and not only Witte, Zubatov's principled opponent, but also his recent patron Plehve.

Fatal for the "Zubatovshchina" was 1903. In the conditions of a general strike in the south of Russia, the Zubatov "Independent Labor Party" failed to keep the workers within the framework of the economic struggle. Moreover, in order to maintain their influence over the workers, some leaders of the "independents" were themselves forced to take an active part in the political struggle. Having found out this, Plehve was finally disappointed in the “Zubatovism”. He dismissed Zubatov and dissolved the Independent Labor Party. In Moscow, the Zubatov organizations still survived for some time, but their activities were limited to ideological, educational work - lectures and tea parties. As soon as the workers became convinced that the legal opposition organizations were powerless to change their situation for the better, they immediately refused to support them.

Thus, in conditions when the government did not want to take real measures aimed at improving the situation of the Russian proletariat, "Zubatovism" quickly turned into pure demagoguery. And as a result, instead of solving the labor question in favor of the autocracy, it aggravated it even more: the mass of workers, disillusioned with the legal, economic struggle, begins to pin all their hopes precisely on the revolutionary movement.

Questions and tasks

1. What caused "Zubatovshchina"? What were the ideas behind "police socialism"? 2. What was the implementation of "Zubatovism" in practice? 3. Explain the reasons for the failure of this policy. Do you think Zubatov had a chance of success?

Foreign policy

The main directions of foreign policy. AT late 19th century the formation of opposing blocs of European powers began. In 1882, the Triple Alliance was created, uniting Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy. The block was aggressive. The powers that were part of it - especially Germany, sought to maximize their political and economic influence in various regions: in South-Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. In 1894, shortly before the death of Alexander III, a Russian-French alliance was created - the Entente 1, which opposed the Triple, trying to contain its expansion.

_____________________

1 From French. Entente cordiale - cordial agreement.

Under Nicholas II, the Russo-French alliance continued to play a similar role. In the first years of his reign, the young king in foreign policy adhered to the traditions of the previous reign. In almost all regions that were in the sphere of Russia's foreign policy interests, its government sought to maintain stability, maintaining the existing balance of power. To this end, along with other measures, Nicholas II issued a call for gradual disarmament. In 1899, on his initiative, an international conference was held in The Hague, at which Russia proposed to all states to freeze their armaments and military budget; in the future, it was meant to begin a serious reduction in them. However, these proposals were rejected, and Germany and its allies came out most actively against them.

It is Germany that becomes the most dangerous enemy of Russia, actively pushing it into the region, which throughout the 19th century. was considered the most important in Russian foreign policy. In the last decades of this century, Germany unfolds a powerful political and economic expansion in the Middle East. By the beginning of the XX century. most of the railways of the Ottoman Empire is in the hands of German bankers. In 1899, they received the right to build the grand railway Berlin - Baghdad, which was to become the main pillar of the economic influence of this power in the Middle East. At the same time, the political dependence of the Turkish government on Germany is also growing. Thus, the danger that the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits, on which both the economic well-being and the defense capability of Russia largely depended, would fall under the control of a state hostile to it, increased more and more.

With Austria-Hungary, Russia waged a long-standing struggle for dominance in the Balkans. However, in the late XIX - early XX century. these powers manage to find a common language here - however, for a very short time. By a series of treaties, they secured for themselves the spheres of influence that had developed by that time.

The situation in the Middle East, in Iran, where Russian economic and political interests clashed with English ones, also more or less stabilized. By the end of the XIX century. they came to a state of relative equilibrium: Russia had a noticeable predominance in the north of Iran, England - in the south. In addition, England, which was increasingly frightened by the expansionist aspirations of Germany, began to take the first steps towards rapprochement with its eternal rival, offering Russia to conclude a rather favorable agreement on Iran. However, at the end of the XIX century. The Russian government took a wait-and-see position on this issue.

Far East policy. In the last decades of the XIX century. Russia has pursued an increasingly active foreign policy in the Far East, a region that has never before received much attention from Russian diplomats. However, in a new era, when Russia was faced with more and more definite questions about the export of capital and the expansion of foreign markets, when competition between the great powers for political and economic predominance became more and more acute, in these conditions the Far East comes to the fore. The Far Eastern countries - rich in various raw materials and at the same time extremely weak politically and militarily, China, as well as Korea dependent on it, were relatively difficult to access for other European states - they had a common border with Russia.

However, in the Far East, Russia faced an unexpected enemy - Japan. In this very recently backward, feudal country in the 1860s. almost simultaneously with Russia, bourgeois reforms were carried out, which brought it to a new level of development both politically, economically, and militarily. Feeling the strength, Japan begins to expand its territories, to create a grandiose Pacific empire. The capture of a significant part of China and Korea was to be the most important step along this path.

At first, Russia pursued a rather cautious and restrained policy in the Far East, inspired by S. Yu. Witte. When, in 1894-1895, having defeated China, Japan imposed a predatory peace treaty on it, it was Russia who achieved its revision, forcing the aggressor to return most of the occupied territories. Following this, Russia concluded a defensive alliance with China and received the right to build the Trans-Siberian Railway, not bypassing Chinese territory, but straight across, through Manchuria - the northern part of China. This so-called Chinese Eastern Railway (CER) was to become the basis of Russian economic influence in northern China.

Witte hoped that such a policy of guardianship and protection of China would allow Russia to gradually take over the entire country. However, the rest of the European powers, Japan and the United States, in turn, are beginning to increasingly actively penetrate into China, imposing enslaving treaties on it, taking away strategically important territories. Russia hastened to get involved in this process: in 1898, it received ice-free Port Arthur on lease from China with the right to turn it into a naval base. Since that time, Russia's policy in the Far East has become increasingly adventurous. A fatal role in the aggravation of the foreign policy situation was played by the joint-stock company for the exploitation of the natural resources of Manchuria and Korea. This society, which brought together dark businessmen and representatives of the court circles, had powerful political connections and enjoyed great influence in the highest spheres. By the name of its most active figure, A. M. Bezobrazov, it received the nickname "bezobrazovskaya clique." Pushing the Russian government to defiant, thoughtless actions in the Far East region, persuading it to put an end to the policy of "concessions", the Bezobrazovtsy led the way to war. Witte's attempts to resist the "cabal" only led to the fact that he had to resign.

Meanwhile, Japan in 1903 demanded that Russia stop interfering in Korean affairs, recognizing this territory as a sphere of Japanese influence. The Russian government made concessions, but the Japanese telegraph delayed her official response. Japan, striving to unleash a war at all costs, used this delay for its own purposes. Diplomatic relations with Russia were severed; on the night of January 26, 1904, Japanese warships attacked the Russian squadron in Port Arthur.

Russo-Japanese War. The war turned out to be a serious test for Russia. She had to fight in an atmosphere of foreign policy isolation. At the same time, if France and Germany took a neutral position, then England and the United States, who considered Russia their most dangerous adversary in the Far East, openly provided Japan with generous military and economic assistance. In general, to a complete surprise for the Russian government, Japan was technically excellently prepared for war, which largely predetermined its superiority on land and at sea. Japan also had a serious advantage in relation to the command staff, who acted very thoughtfully, decisively and energetically. The Russian command, on the contrary, was distinguished by passivity and lack of initiative; similar features, in particular, were inherent in A. N. Kuropatkin, who was placed at the head of the Manchurian army. To this it should be added that the meaning and goals of the war were completely incomprehensible to either soldiers or officers.

Military operations were reduced to the fact that the 3rd Japanese army besieged Port Arthur, and the 1st, 2nd and 4th actively acted against the Russian army, pushing it deep into Manchuria. In August 1904, near Liaoyang, the Japanese tried to encircle and defeat the Russian army. In the course of heavy fighting, Russian troops showed amazing stamina; the Japanese lost 24 thousand people against 15 thousand for the Russians. The Japanese armies were unable to fulfill their task. Moreover, the Russian army received a real opportunity for a counteroffensive. However, Kuropatkin did not use this opportunity: he retreated, leading the army further north. The attempt by the commander of the Russian army to reverse the course of the military campaign in his favor, undertaken later, in September 1904, turned out to be ill-prepared and did not bring success. It only led to the fact that the Russian troops took up reliable defensive positions on the Shahe River, forcing the Japanese to stop the offensive. The "Shahei sitting" began, which lasted several months.

Meanwhile, Port Arthur heroically resisted. In the autumn of 1904, the Japanese launched three assaults on the fortress, suffering heavy losses and achieving no result. Then their main forces were sent to capture the High Mountain, which dominated the fortress. The battle for Vysokaya lasted 9 days and cost the Japanese army 7,500 soldiers and officers. And yet, on November 22, the Japanese captured the mountain. A terrible blow for the defenders of the fortress was the death of the head of the land forces of Port Arthur, General V. I. Kondratenko. Shortly thereafter, the head of the Kwantung Fortified Region, General A. M. Stessel, surrendered Port Arthur. In February 1905, the Manchurian army also suffered a serious defeat near Mukden.

Military operations at sea developed just as bleakly for Russia. On March 31, 1904, on the battleship Petropavlovsk, which was blown up by a Japanese mine, the commander of the Pacific squadron, a talented naval commander, Admiral S. O. Makarov, died. The squadron was locked in the roadstead of Port Arthur, its attempt to break through to Vladivostok ended in failure. In the autumn of 1904, the 2nd Pacific squadron was sent from the Baltic Sea to the rescue of Port Arthur, and then the 3rd. They arrived in the Far East only five months after the surrender of the fortress. The 2nd squadron was defeated in the Tsushima Strait, and the 3rd, surrounded by the Japanese fleet, surrendered without a fight.

The war, so unfortunate for Russia, cost huge losses to its opponent. In addition, the excessive strengthening of Japan in the Far East was in no way included in the plans of its allies, especially the United States. It was the American government that played the role of mediator in the peace talks that took place in Portsmouth (USA). From the Russian side, they were masterfully led by S. Yu. Witte, who achieved good results in this difficult situation. According to the Treaty of Portsmouth (August 1905), Russia got off with minimal territorial losses - the southern part of Sakhalin Island. In addition, she lost Port Arthur to the Japanese. Witte managed to get the Japanese side to waive the requirement to pay military indemnity. But, despite the relatively favorable results of the peace talks, the war with Japan played a serious role in destabilizing the domestic political situation in the country. Both society and the people perceived it as a national disgrace. The entire course of hostilities convinced of the mediocrity and irresponsibility of the tops, unable to defend the interests of Russia. The surrender of Port Arthur, Mukden, Tsushima - all these events completely undermined the prestige of autocratic power.

Questions and tasks

1. Describe the general foreign policy of Russia in the early years of the reign of Nicholas II 2. What caused the tsarist government's interest in the Far East region? Why did Japan turn out to be Russia's main adversary here? 3. Tell us about the course of hostilities in the Russo-Japanese War. Why did Russia lose this war?

in the 80s - early 90s. 19th century

The political situation at the turn of the 70-80s. 19th century The crisis of autocratic power and attempts at political maneuvering. The Supreme Administrative Commission chaired by M.T. Loris-Melikova. Abolition of Section III and its replacement by the Ministry of Police.

Alexander III and his entourage. Turn to reaction. K.P. Pobedonostsev and M.N. Katkov - ideologists and inspirers of political reaction. "Holy Squad".

Counter-reforms of the 80s - early 90s. 19th century Legislative acts in the field of public education and the press. The peasant question: the transfer of peasants to compulsory redemption, laws on the regulation of peasant family divisions and on the strengthening of the community. Measures to support the landlord economy, the establishment of the Noble Land Bank and the "Regulations on hiring for agricultural work." The introduction of the institution of zemstvo chiefs and the abolition of the world court.

Zemstvo and city counter-reforms. Measures to prepare for judicial counter-reform. National policy of autocracy.

Financial and economic policy. Measures of the Ministers of Finance A.A. Abaza, N.Kh. Bunge and I.A. Vyshnegradsky on strengthening finance and economic recovery.

The results of the internal policy of the autocracy in 1881-1894.

Russia in the late XIX - early XX century.

Russian Society at the Turn of the 19th–20th Centuries. Territory of the Russian Empire. Administrative division and management. Population, its ethnic and confessional composition. Urban and rural population. Changes in the social structure of society. Cultural and educational level of the population. Life change. Features of the modernization process in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.

Socio-economic development of Russia. The level of socio-economic development. Diversity of the Russian economy. The role of the state in the economic life of the country. The value of foreign capital in the development of the economy. Monopoly capitalism in Russia and its features. The emergence of new industries and technologies (oil refining, electrical industry, chemical industry, etc.). Russian merchants and industrialists. Growth of the working class. Agriculture. The predominance of backward methods of management. agricultural resettlement. The main problems of socio-economic modernization of Russia. The impact of the global economic crisis at the beginning of the 20th century. on the economic life of Russia.

Domestic policy of Nicholas II in 1894–1904 Personality of Nicholas II. Continuity of the political course. Struggle between conservative and liberal forces in the highest echelons of power: S.Yu. Witte and V.K. Plehve. Growing influence of the Ministry of the Interior. The aggravation of the political situation in the country at the beginning of the 20th century. Zubatovsky socialism. Liberal projects of P.D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky.

National Policy. Continuation of the process of Russification of the national outskirts. Exacerbation of the Jewish question, anti-Semitism. national movements.

Foreign policy of Russia in 1894–1914 The main directions of Russia's foreign policy at the turn of the 19th–20th centuries. Peace initiatives of Russia. The Hague Conference (1899). Far Eastern policy of Nicholas II. Relations with China and Japan. Russo-Japanese War: Causes, Course, Significance. Reasons for the defeat of Russia. Portsmouth world. Russia and the Entente.

Socio-political movements at the beginning of the 20th century. Growing confrontation between government and society. Radicalization of the social movement.

Organizational design of political trends, the beginning of the formation of the Russian multi-party system. Formation of the Socialist Revolutionary Party (AKP). V.M. Chernov. Formation of the Bolshevik and Menshevik wing in the RSDLP. IN AND. Lenin and Yu.O. Martov.

The impact of the Russo-Japanese war on the domestic political situation.

Beginning of the first Russian revolution. 1905 Causes of the revolution. Bloody Sunday. Revolutionary actions of workers, peasants and intelligentsia. Union of Unions. The role of trade unions in revolutionary events. Uprising on the battleship Potemkin. All-Russian Peasants' Union. Bulyginskaya thought. Soviet activities.

All-Russian October political strike. Manifesto of October 17 and the attitude of various political forces towards it. Formation of conservative and liberal political parties.

December armed uprising.

Political reforms 1906–1907"Basic Laws" 1906 Elections to the I and II State Duma. Parties and Duma factions. Activities of the I and II State Duma. Relations between the Duma and the government. Activities of factions, legislative projects. Features of Russian parliamentarism. national movements. Workers' and peasants' movement 1906–1907 and its meaning. Peasant orders. Unrest in the army. The appointment of P.A. Stolypin as prime minister. The dissolution of the Second State Duma is the end of the revolution. Results of the first Russian revolution.

Socio-economic development of Russia in 1907–1914 Reforms P.A. Stolypin. Creation of privately owned peasant farms. school reform. Exit of peasants from the community. resettlement policy. Community destruction. Changes in the life of peasants and noble life. The first results of reforms and their inconsistency.

Growth of the domestic market. Development of cooperation. Industrial rise. The emergence of new industries (aircraft, automotive, etc.). Transport development. Growth in exports of raw materials and agricultural products.

Strengthening the process of urbanization and development of urban planning. Changes in the appearance of cities, in the composition and size of their population. The lifestyle and customs of various strata of the urban population (employees, freelancers, industrialists, merchants, workers).

Political life of Russia in 1907–1914. The impact of changes in socio-economic life on public consciousness. New electoral law. III and IV State Duma. Strengthening the role of liberal factions. Octobrists as a government party.

Murder of P.A. Stolypin. Change in government policy. The decline in the political activity of the masses in the first post-revolutionary years. Ideological searches among socialists and liberals. "Milestones". Political provocation: E.F. Azef and R.V. Malinovsky.

The growth of revolutionary sentiment in 1912–1914 Lena shooting. Tightening the government's national policy. Liquidation of the autonomy of Finland. Contradictions of political modernization.

General characteristics of the foreign policy of the Russian autocracy

The autocratic form of government was a characteristic feature of state administration in Russia from the end of the 15th century until the establishment and establishment of Soviet power. At the same time, when characterizing the foreign policy of Russian tsars and emperors, it should be emphasized that the relevant activities, in the most general form, were implemented in three main areas:

• establishment and development of external relations;
• maintaining territorial integrity and repelling external aggression;
• expansion of the territory of the Russian state.

Of course, activities within each of these areas were characterized by many features in the process of leadership of each of the Russian rulers. At the same time, the corresponding differences were both subjective in nature, associated with the characteristics of the autocrat's personality, and objective, not dependent on him - most often, they were predetermined by manifestations of external aggression.

Foreign policy of the first autocrat of Russia Ivan III

Remark 1

Within the framework of the presented article, in the process of analyzing the foreign policy of the autocracy, it seems appropriate to consider the main directions and features of the foreign policy of the first Russian autocrat, Ivan III.

The historical literature emphasizes that throughout the entire period of Ivan III's reign (from 1462 to 1505), the main goal of foreign policy was the unification of the territory of northeastern Rus' into a single state. In addition, great importance was attached to achieving the independence of Rus' from the Mongol-Tatars, as well as the resolution of foreign policy contradictions. In particular, during the reign of Ivan III, relations between Rus' and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were especially acute, for which Ivan III's desire to unite the Russian lands was unprofitable, which, coupled with frequent border skirmishes, did not contribute to the reconciliation of states.

Let us consider the above directions of the foreign policy of the first Russian autocrat in more detail.

As noted above, from the very beginning of his reign, Ivan III demonstrated his own desire to unite the Russian lands and expand their territories. The main activities that contributed to the implementation of this task can be named:

• Confirmation of previously valid agreements with neighboring principalities (for example, with Tver, Belozersky, Ryazan);
• Accession of the Yaroslavl principality, which lost its independence in 1471;
• Transfer of the Dmitrovsky principality in 1472;
• The end of the process of accession to the Moscow Principality of the Rostov Principality, which was actually part of it;
• The transition of the Vologda Principality, after the death of Prince Andrei in 1481;
• Establishment of the status of Tver as a specific principality of Moscow, as a result of an open armed confrontation, which ended in the conclusion of a peace treaty in 1484.

Remark 2

However, it seems fair to note that the process of unification and expansion of the territory of the Moscow Principality was not completely peaceful and recognized by all. In particular, active opposition to the foreign policy measures carried out by Ivan III was provided by the Novgorod principality, since the actions of the Moscow prince openly posed a threat to the independence of Novgorod.

The result of lengthy confrontations, including those expressed in open military clashes, was the decision of the Novgorodians to give in at the beginning of 1478 to the demands of Moscow.

In addition, significant changes in the foreign policy arena during the reign of Ivan III occurred in relations with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Once friendly relations, in the conditions of Ivan III's indicated desire to subjugate all Russian lands under the rule of Moscow, caused direct opposition from Lithuania. There were numerous border disputes, armed skirmishes and open confrontation ended only in 1494, as a result of the conclusion of an appropriate peace treaty.

Thus, one of the main results of the foreign policy activities of the first Russian autocrat, and, at the same time, one of the prerequisites for establishing his absolute power, is the unification around Moscow of most of the Russian lands, including as a result of open military conflicts with the Principality of Lithuania. However, in many respects this became possible precisely due to the overthrow of more than two hundred years of the Mongol-Tatar yoke.

The foreign policy of the autocracy in the era of the reign of Peter I

A significant stage in the development of the foreign policy of the Russian autocracy is the period of the reign of Peter I. In many respects, the relevant aspects were predetermined by the fact that Peter I sought to turn Russia into a great European power with access to the seas, etc.

Among the most important measures of the foreign policy of Peter I, carried out in order to achieve the task, can be named:

1. Azov campaigns - military campaigns of Russia against the Ottoman Empire, committed in 1695.1696, ending with the capture of the Turkish fortress of Azov;
2. Great Embassy - the diplomatic mission of Peter I to Western Europe in 1697-1698, for the purpose of establishing diplomatic relations in Europe and familiarizing the tsar with the life and orders of foreigners, as well as inviting foreign specialists to the Russian service;
3. The Northern War with Sweden (1700-1721) for the possession of the Baltic lands, which ended in the defeat of Sweden, etc.

At the same time, the result of the considered and many other foreign policy measures was the formation of the Russian Empire, which has access to the Baltic Sea and has a powerful army and navy with its capital in St. Petersburg.

Having ascended the throne in 1894, Tsar Nicholas II chose the reactionary course of his father, Alexander III, to conduct domestic politics. However, the growing socio-economic crises and the intensification of national liberation movements during this period did not allow the tsar to use those methods that were effective during the reign of Alexander III.

Moreover, the new king did not have the rigidity and willpower that was inherent in his father, which also made it impossible to continue following the old course. The result was a dual domestic policy. Very often, Nicholas II was forced to make significant liberal concessions, as required by the new time.

Protection of autocratic foundations

The desire to govern the state, according to the precepts of his father, Nicholas II was able to implement in the first period of his reign, directing a reactionary course towards strengthening the autocracy. Already in 1895, the tsar declared that the adoption of a new constitution was a waste of time, since the previous law had not yet lost its effectiveness.

It was in this year that a period of tough struggle with opponents of the monarchy began. In addition to the revolutionary-minded masses, and the peasants, who expressed their dissatisfaction with the imperial policy, the subjects were persecuted and the liberals, the tsar saw in them hidden admirers of the opposition forces.

The emperor considered the nobility to be the main support of the autocracy. So in 1897, Nicholas II issued a decree according to which representatives of noble families had the right to receive a loan from the Noble Bank without interest charges. During the year, the amount that was paid to the Petersburg aristocracy reached 1 billion rubles.

Autocracy and the bourgeoisie

With the development of industry, a new bourgeois class appeared in the Russian Empire. By the time of the accession to the throne of Nicholas II, the bourgeois class had grown significantly stronger and for the first time began to put forward claims to participate in state administration.

Fearing a seizure of power by wealthy entrepreneurs, the tsar severely limited the political possibilities of this class. At the same time, the authorities found a common language with the bourgeoisie in matters relating to economic development.

Large entrepreneurs were provided with state benefits, new sources of raw materials, and interest-free loans. The interests of the Russian bourgeoisie were also defended by the famous statesman S. Witte, who took many measures to strengthen capitalist relations in the state.

On the initiative of S. Witte, a monetary reform was carried out in the state in 1897, thanks to which the ruble exchange rate stabilized. Also during this period, as part of the economic reform, the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway began, which allowed Russian entrepreneurs to enter the Chinese market.

Peasant question

Since 1894, serious changes began in the policy towards the peasantry. Witte actively advocated the equalization of peasant rights with representatives of other classes, to introduce permission for free exit from the community and provide the opportunity for private ownership of land.

However, such views were not supported in the ruling circles. The most vehement opponent of such reforms was the Minister of the Interior V. Plehve. Tsar Nicholas II also did not seek to change the historical ways of peasant life. Despite Witte's efforts, by 1903 the peasant question had been removed from the agenda without changes.

The reign of Nicholas II (1894 -1917) Political course: "I ... will protect the beginning of autocracy as firmly and steadily as my unforgettable deceased parent guarded it" Use of emergency measures (security departments, gendarmerie, army, military courts) to restore order and fight against revolutionary organizations

Extraordinary measures to restore order 1. 2. 3. 4. Political investigation, infiltration of agents, provocations Consideration of political cases by military courts and the imposition of death sentences and long terms of imprisonment In each of the 97 provinces, a gendarme department operated To suppress riots, troops were attracted

Autocracy and nobility Particularly benevolent attitude towards the “noble estate”, readiness to meet its wishes Issuance of preferential loans by the Noble Bank Appointment to high government positions Legal, political, military protection BUT: some of the nobles went to liberal positions, becoming opposition to the royal power

Autocracy and the bourgeoisie An uncompromising struggle against the claims of the bourgeoisie to power, but help and support in the economic sphere S. Yu. Witte, Minister of Finance of Russia

The Peasant Question of 1903, the tsar's manifesto declared that the preservation of the class isolation of the peasants and the inviolability of the community should remain the guiding principles in any revision of the peasant legislation

The labor issue The plight of workers, low wages, lack of pensions and medical care The Russian proletariat lacks legal rights to protect its interests (the right to form trade unions, hold strikes, etc.) The absence of a “working aristocracy” capable of organizing a civilized struggle Growth of revolutionary sentiments among the proletariat

"Zubatovshchina" 1901-1903 An attempt to create in Moscow police-controlled societies of “mutual assistance to workers”, holding events for workers, helping in conflicts with factory owners

Foreign policy Main directions European 1894 alliance of Russia and France (“Entente” – heartfelt consent) to counter the aggressive German-Austrian bloc. Hungary and Italy (1882) Far Eastern: The desire to expand the sphere of influence to China and Korea, the clash with the interests of Japan