Russia is a powerful and happy country in itself; it should never be a threat either to other neighboring states or to Europe. But it must occupy an imposing defensive position capable of making any attack on it impossible.
Where the Russian flag is once raised, it should not go down there.
Emperor Nicholas I
220 years ago, on July 6, 1796, the Russian Emperor Nicholas I Pavlovich was born. Nicholas I, together with his father Emperor Paul I, is one of the most maligned Russian tsars. The Russian tsar, the most hated by the liberals of both that time and today. What is the reason for such stubborn hatred and such fierce slander, which has not subsided to this day?
Firstly, 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 supposed to destroy the Russian Empire, lead 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, Nicholas cannot be forgiven for prohibiting Freemasonry in Russia. That is, the Russian emperor banned the then "fifth column", which worked for the masters of the West.
Thirdly, the tsar is "to blame" for firm views, where there was no place for Masonic and semi-Masonic (liberal) views. Nicholas clearly stood on the positions of autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality, defended Russian national interests in the world.
Fourthly, Nicholas fought against the revolutionary movements organized by the Freemasons (Illuminati) in the monarchical states of Europe. For this, Nikolaev's Russia was nicknamed "the gendarme of Europe." Nikolai understood that revolutions do not lead to the triumph of "freedom, equality and brotherhood," but to the "liberalization" of a person, to "liberate" him from the "fetters" of morality and conscience. What this leads to we see on the example of modern tolerant Europe, where sodomy, bestiality, Satanists and other devastated evil spirits are considered the "elite" of society. And the "lowering" of 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 Freemasons and Illuminati, provoking revolutions, simply brought closer the victory of the New World Order - a global slave-owning civilization led by the “chosen ones”. Nicholas resisted this evil.
Fifth, Nikolai wanted to end the hobbies of the Russian nobility in Europe and the West. He planned to stop further Europeanization, Westernization of Russia. The tsar intended to become the head of, as A. Pushkin put it, "the organization of the counter-revolution of Peter's revolution." Nicholas wanted to return to the political and social precepts of Muscovite Rus, which found expression in the formula "Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality."
Thus, the 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 persecuted it always and in all forms. And, indeed, this is the historical vocation of the Orthodox tsar,”the lady-in-waiting Tyutcheva noted in her diary.
Hence the pathological hatred of Nicholas, 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", for the fact that 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, the Crimean War), he spent in a continuous struggle with Russian and European Freemasons and the revolutionary societies created by them. At the same time, Nicholas in domestic and foreign policy tried to adhere to Russian national interests, not bending over to the wishes of Western "partners".
It is clear that such a person was hated and even during his lifetime they created a number of stable “black myths”: that “the Decembrists fought for the freedom of the people, and the bloody tyrant shot and executed them”; that "Nicholas I was a supporter of serfdom and the lack of rights of the peasants"; that “Nicholas I was generally a stupid soldier, a narrow-minded, poorly educated person, alien to any progress”; that Russia under Nicholas was a "backward state", which led to defeat in the Crimean War, etc.
The myth of the Decembrists - "knights without fear and reproach"
The accession to the throne of Nicholas I was overshadowed by the attempt of a 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, through the efforts of Westerners-liberals, social democrats, and then Soviet historiography, a myth was created about "knights without fear and reproach" who decided to destroy the "tsarist tyranny" and build a society on the principles of freedom, equality and brotherhood. In modern Russia, it is also customary to talk about the Decembrists from a positive point of view. They say that the best part of Russian society, the nobility challenged the "tsarist tyranny", tried to destroy "Russian slavery" (serfdom), but was defeated.
However, in reality, the truth is that the so-called. The "Decembrists", hiding behind slogans that were quite humane and understandable to most, objectively worked for the then "world community" (the West). In fact, these were the forerunners of the "Februaryists" of 1917, who destroyed the autocracy and the Russian Empire. They planned the complete physical destruction of the dynasty of Russian monarchs Romanovs, members of their families and up to distant relatives. And their plans in the field of state and nation-building were guaranteed to lead to great confusion and the collapse of the state.
It is clear that some of the noble youth simply did not know what they were doing. Young people dreamed of eliminating "various injustices and oppression" and bringing together the estates for the growth of social welfare in Russia. Examples of the dominance of foreigners in the higher administration (just remember the entourage of Tsar Alexander), extortion, violation of legal proceedings, inhuman treatment of soldiers and sailors in the army and navy, trade in serfs worried noble minds who were inspired by the patriotic upsurge of 1812-1814. The problem was that the “great truths” of freedom, equality and brotherhood, 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." How later, Russian Westernizers of the early 20th century will dream of remaking Russia into a republican France or a constitutional English monarchy, which will lead to the geopolitical catastrophe of 1917. The abstraction and frivolity of such a transfer was that it was carried out without understanding the historical past and national traditions, spiritual values, psychological and everyday life of Russian civilization that had been formed for centuries. Young people of nobility, brought up on the ideals of Western culture, were infinitely far from the people. As historical experience shows, in the Russian Empire, Soviet Russia and the Russian Federation, all borrowings from the West in the field of the socio-political structure, the spiritual and intellectual sphere, even the most useful ones, are ultimately distorted on Russian soil, leading to degradation and destruction.
The Decembrists, like the later Westernizers, did not understand this. They thought that if we transplant the advanced experience of the Western powers in Russia, give the people “freedom”, then the country will take off and prosper. As a result, the sincere hopes of the Decembrists for a forced change in the existing system, for a legal order, as a panacea for all ills, led to confusion 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 attitudes and wishes. There was no unity in their ranks, their secret societies were more like discussion clubs of sophisticated intellectuals who heatedly discussed pressing political issues. In this respect, they are similar to Westernizers-liberals of the late XIX - early XX centuries. both the Februaryists of 1917 and 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 heritage of their ancestors, and the people will have to bear the burden of their managerial decisions.
Some Decembrists proposed to create a republic, others - to establish a constitutional monarchy, with the possibility of introducing a republic. Russia, according to N. Muravyov's plan, was proposed de facto to be divided into 13 powers and 2 regions, creating a federation of them. At the same time, the powers received the right of secession (self-determination). The manifesto of Prince Sergei Trubetskoy (Prince Trubetskoy was elected dictator before the uprising) proposed to liquidate the "former government" and replace it with a temporary one, until the elections to the Constituent Assembly. That is, the Decembrists planned to create a Provisional Government.
The head of the Southern Society of Decembrists, Colonel and Freemason Pavel Pestel wrote one of the program documents - "Russian Truth". Pestel planned to abolish serfdom, transferring half of the arable land to the peasants, the other half was supposed to be left in the ownership of the landowners, which was supposed to contribute to the bourgeois development of the country. The landlords had to lease the land to farmers - "capitalists of the agricultural class", which was supposed to lead to the organization of large commodity farms in the country with the wide involvement of hired labor. "Russkaya Pravda" abolished not only estates, but also national borders - all the tribes and nationalities living in Russia planned to unite into a single Russian people. Thus, Pestel planned, following the example of America, to create a kind of "melting pot" in Russia. To speed up this process, a de facto national segregation was 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 tithes of land, that is, only a personal plot. This site, with the then low level of agricultural technologies, 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 laborers, as in Latin America.
Thus, the Decembrists did not have a single, clear program, which could lead, in the event of their victory, to an internal conflict. The victory of the Decembrists was guaranteed to lead to the collapse of statehood, the army, chaos, conflict of estates and different peoples. For example, the mechanism of the great land redistribution was not described in detail, which led to a conflict between the multimillion-dollar mass of peasants and the then landowners-landowners. Under the conditions of a radical breakdown of the state structure, the transfer of the capital (it was planned to move it to Nizhny Novgorod), it is obvious that such a "restructuring" led to a civil war and a new unrest. In the sphere of state building, the plans of the Decembrists are very clearly correlated with the plans of the separatists of the early 20th century or 1990-2000. As well as the plans of Western politicians and ideologists who dream of dividing Great Russia into a number of weak and "independent" states. That is, the actions of the Decembrists led to unrest and civil war, to the collapse of the powerful Russian Empire. The Decembrists were the forerunners of the "Februaryists" who were able to destroy the Russian statehood in 1917.
Therefore, Nicholas and watered in every way with mud. After all, he was able to stop the first major attempt at "perestroika" in Russia, which led to unrest and civil confrontation, to the delight of our Western "partners".
At the same time, Nikolai is accused of an inhuman attitude towards the Decembrists. However, the ruler of the Russian Empire, Nikolai, who was recorded in history as "Palkin", showed amazing mercy and philanthropy towards 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 be discouraged. And the military for the mutiny was subject to the death penalty. They would have opened the entire underground, many would have lost their posts. In Russia, everything was different: out of 579 people arrested in the case of the Decembrists, almost 300 were acquitted. and Governor Miloradovich - Kakhovsky. 88 people were exiled to hard labor, 18 to a settlement, 15 were demoted to soldiers. Corporal punishment was applied to the insurgent soldiers and sent to the Caucasus. The "dictator" of the rebels, Prince Trubetskoy, did not appear at the Senate Square at all, he chickened out, sat 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 abolition of serfdom. It was under him that the reform of the state peasants was carried out with the introduction of self-government in the countryside and the "decree on obliged peasants" was signed, which became the foundation for the abolition of serfdom. The position of the state peasants significantly improved (their number reached about 50% of the population by the second half of the 1850s), which was associated with the reforms of PD Kiselev. Under him, the state peasants were allocated their own allotments of land and plots of forest, and auxiliary cash desks and bread shops were established everywhere, which provided assistance to peasants with cash loans and grain in case of a crop failure. As a result of these measures, not only the well-being of the peasants increased, but also the treasury incomes from them increased by 15-20%, tax arrears were halved, and by the mid-1850s there were practically no landless laborers who eked out a beggarly and dependent existence. received land from the state.
In addition, under Nicholas I, the practice of distributing peasants with land as a reward was completely stopped, and the rights of landowners in relation to 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 competence of the landowner; serfs received the right to own land, conduct business and received relative freedom of movement. For the first time, the state began to systematically monitor that the rights of the peasants were not violated by the landowners (this was one of the functions of the Third Section), and to punish the landowners for these violations. As a result of the application of punishments to the 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 the landlord psychology. As noted by the historian V. Klyuchevsky, 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, subjects of the state, which protects their rights; secondly, that the personality of the peasant is not the private property of the landowner, that they are linked by their relationship to the landowners' land, from which the peasants cannot be driven.
Reforms on the complete abolition of serfdom were also developed, but, unfortunately, were not implemented at that time, but the total share of serfs in Russian society during his reign was seriously reduced. So, their share in the population of Russia, according to various estimates, decreased from 57-58% in 1811-1817. up to 35-45% in 1857-1858 and they ceased to constitute the majority of the population of the empire.
Education also developed rapidly under Nicholas. For the first time, a program of mass peasant education was launched. The number of peasant schools in the country increased from 60 schools with 1,500 students in 1838 to 2,551 schools with 111,000 students in 1856. During the same period, many technical schools and universities were opened - in fact, a system of professional primary and secondary education was created in the country.
The myth of Nicholas - "tsar-soldaphon"
It is believed that the tsar was a "soldier", that is, he was only interested in military affairs. Indeed, Nicholas from early childhood had a special predilection for military affairs. This passion was instilled in children by their father, Pavel. Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich was educated at home, 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 fortification, and was well acquainted with engineering. Nikolai Pavlovich's hobby for painting is known, which he studied in childhood under the guidance of the painter I. A. Akimov and Professor V. K. Shebuev.
Having received a good engineering education in his youth, Nicholas I showed considerable knowledge in the field of construction, including military. He himself, like Peter I, did not hesitate to personally participate in the design and construction, focusing his attention 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.
The introduction of new technologies was actively carried out in Russia. As the historian P. A. Zayonchkovsky wrote, during the reign of Nicholas I “contemporaries had an idea that an era of reforms had begun in Russia”. Nicholas I actively introduced innovations in the country - for example, the Tsarskoye Selo railway opened in 1837 became only the 6th public railway in the world, despite the fact that the first such railway was opened shortly before that in 1830. Under Nicholas, a railway was built between St. Petersburg and Moscow - at that time the longest in the world, and it is to the personal merit of the tsar that it was built almost in a straight line, which was still an innovation in those days. In fact, Nicholas was a technocrat emperor.
The myth of Nikolai's failed foreign policy
On the whole, Nikolai's foreign policy was successful and reflected the national interests of Russia. Russia strengthened its position in the Caucasus and Transcaucasia, the Balkans and the Far East. Russian-Persian War of 1826-1828 ended with a brilliant victory for the Russian Empire. The British policy, which pitted Persia against Russia, with the aim of ousting Russia from the Caucasus and preventing the further advance of Russians in the Transcaucasia, Central Asia and the Near and Middle East, failed. According to the Turkmanchay peace treaty, the territories of the Erivan (on both sides of the Araks river) and the Nakhichevan khanates ceded to Russia. The Persian government pledged not to interfere with the resettlement of Armenians to the Russian borders (the Armenians supported the Russian army during the war). An indemnity of 20 million rubles was imposed on Iran. Iran confirmed the freedom of navigation in the Caspian Sea for Russian merchant ships and the exclusive right of Russia to have a navy here. That is, the Caspian Sea fell into the sphere of influence of Russia. Russia was given a number of advantages in trade relations with Persia.
Russian-Turkish war of 1828-1829 ended with the complete victory of Russia. According to the Adrianople Peace Treaty, the estuary of the Danube with the islands, the entire Caucasian coast of the Black Sea from the mouth of the Kuban River to the northern border of Adjara, as well as the fortresses of Akhalkalaki and Akhaltsikh with the adjacent areas, retreated to the Russian Empire. Turkey recognized the annexation of Georgia, Imereti, Samegrelo and Guria to Russia, as well as the khanates of Erivan and Nakhichevan, transferred from Iran under the Turkmanchay agreement. The right of Russian subjects to conduct free trade throughout the entire territory of the Ottoman Empire was confirmed, which granted the right to Russian and foreign merchant ships to freely pass through the Bosphorus and Dardenelles. Russian subjects on Turkish territory were not under the jurisdiction of the Turkish authorities. Turkey undertook to pay Russia an indemnity in the amount of 1.5 million Dutch chervonets within 1.5 years. The world ensured the autonomy of the Danube principalities (Moldavia and Wallachia). Russia assumed the guarantee of the autonomy of the principalities, which were completely out of the control of the Porte, paying her only an annual tribute. The Turks also reaffirmed their obligations to respect the autonomy of Serbia. Thus, the Adrianople Peace created favorable conditions for the development of the Black Sea trade and completed the annexation of the main territories of Transcaucasia to Russia. Russia increased 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 Christian subjects of the Sultan, the Sultan was forced to recognize the freedom and independence of Greece and the broad autonomy of Serbia (1830). Amur expedition 1849-1855 thanks to the decisive attitude of Nicholas I personally, it ended with the actual annexation of the entire left bank of the Amur to Russia, which was documented already under Alexander II. Successfully Russian troops advanced in the North Caucasus (Caucasian War). Balkaria, the Karachayevskaya oblast became part of Russia, Shamil's uprising was not successful, the forces of the mountaineers, thanks to the methodical pressure of the Russian forces, were undermined. Victory in the Caucasian War was approaching 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 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 - England and France. Austria has taken an extremely hostile position. Our enemies planned to dismember Russia, to throw it away from the Baltic and the Black Sea, to tear away huge territories - Finland, the Baltic States, the Kingdom of Poland, Crimea, and lands in the Caucasus. But all these plans failed thanks to the heroic resistance of Russian soldiers and sailors in Sevastopol. On the whole, the war ended with minimal losses for Russia. England, France and Turkey were unable to destroy the main achievements of Russia in the Caucasus, the Black Sea and the Baltic. Russia has resisted. She still remained the main enemy of the West on the planet.
"Northern Colossus". French caricature of Nicholas I and the Crimean War
