6. Ancient to pre-Soviet Russian History
The Reform of 1861 was a result of a compromise, but the peasant landlessness remained, and the peasants were burdened with the redemption payments. Much history until the 1917 overthrow of the Tsar.
Here we take it to the first World War. There is nothing of the overthrow of the Tsar. This book is more of a social and political commentary, and not an analysis of the wars. Of course the are all mentioned but recounted synthetically. There is a lot of ground covered, therefore it is lively and moves quickly. (That is why I posted all sections in such a short time.) I was totally interested to review what comes next. I had originally worked with this book 2-3 years ago.
Table of Contents
(no page numbers in here, but to get an idea.)
1860-90s Modernization .................................................. 258
(1855 - 1881) Alexander II...................................….............259
(1881 - 1894) Alexander III ....................................….........268
Further Socio-economic - political development …..…..287
1894 Nicholas II ascended the throne. ................….........291
Some Themes:
The course and peculiarities of Russian modernization
Main directions of Russian foreign policy in the second half of the 19th century.
Ideological and political movements and organizations in the second half of XIX century.
Process and peculiarities of Russian modernization in the post-reform period.
1860-90s Modernization
Theme VI. Russia on the paths of the bourgeoisie.
Materialist historians consider the reforms of the 1860s and 1870s to be a time when feudalism was replaced by capitalism. In their opinion, the reforms were carried out belatedly, half-heartedly, without taking into account the interests of the majority of the country's population. It subsequently led to the revolutionary events in Russia in the early twentieth century.
Liberal historians generally evaluate positively the reforms of the second half of the 19th century. They point out the high efficiency of the serf system of management in Russia in the mid-19th century and speak primarily of the political reasons for abolishing serfdom. They also note the ill-considered and violent nature of the reforms and the unpreparedness of the main mass of the Russian population for them.
According to the modernization concept, in the middle of the 19th century Russia was going through another stage of modernization. The specifics of Russian modernization processes consisted in the coexistence of elements of industrial and traditional societies. Socio-economic transformation was not supported by political reforms, which led to the subsequent revolutionary explosion in Russia.
Based on the civilizational approach, Russia was developing in a special way and had the opportunity to move to socialism, bypassing the lane of capitalist development.
Thus, we can identify a number of reasons that led to the reforms: 1) the urgent need for Russia's transition from a traditional, agrarian type of society to an industrial one, the elimination of the emerging lag from the advanced countries of Western Europe; 2) the presence of crisis phenomena in the serf economy, which suffered from little land, 3) low agriculture, which led to frequent crop failures and lack of provision of peasants with bread (grain); 4) Russia's defeat in the Crimean War, which drew a line under the attempts of the ruling elite to avoid or delay the overdue modernization of the agrarian society.
(1855 – 1881) Alexander II
The reform of 1861 was carried out "from above". Three main groups can be distinguished within the bureaucratic stratum with respect to reform and participation in it: 1) opponents of reform, who tried to drown it in bureaucratic red tape, and when it became inevitable, tried to carry it out in the interests of the landlords; 2) executing bureaucrats, who were used to doing in good faith what the emperor wanted; 3) liberal bureaucracy, active and convinced supporters of reform.
A Secret Committee was created in early 1857 to prepare a reform. The nobility was invited to form provincial committees in the provinces to discuss the terms of emancipation of the peasants. In his reforms Alexander II could rely only on representatives of the higher bureaucracy, known as supporters of reforms. Prominent role in the preparation of the reforms was played by the tsar's younger brother, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich (Minister of the Navy), N.A. Milyutin (Assistant Minister of the Interior), D. A. Milyutin (Military Minister). They opposed the conservative-minded Counts P. A. Shuvalov, V. N. Panin and the majority of the provincial representatives, who came to St. Petersburg. During the discussion of proposals to abolish serfdom, they were supported by only 3-4 of the 46 governors.
Among the supporters of changes, there were several points of view on abolishing serfdom: 1) most of the nobility wanted to declare peasants free, with civil and property rights, but deprived of any allotment, while leaving all the land in the ownership and full disposal of private owners (the Baltic version); 2) to free peasants with land, but with a significantly reduced allotment; 3) to preserve the existing allotment for peasants; 4) not to make peasants owners of land, and exactly ration the allotments.
"The Manifesto of February 19, 1861 and the General Statute of the peasants freed from serfdom proclaimed the abolition of serfdom and the general conditions of this abolition. In February 1861 all serfs were granted personal freedom. Landlords were obliged to allot a peasant a plot of land for indefinite permanent use. The size of the allotments was determined by a voluntary agreement between the landlord and the former serfs. If this kind of agreement could not be achieved, the conciliators defined the size of the allotments on the basis of the norms elaborated for every region, taking into consideration the fertility of the soil and the density of the population (the lower and the higher sizes for the allotments were established, from 1 to 7 dessiatinas; 1 government dessiatina equaled 1.09 ha). Excess land was referred to as allotments and was seized. The land could become the property of the peasants only if they made a redemption deal with the landlord. They paid 20 percent of the value of the allotment, and the state paid the rest for the peasants. It was a redemption loan, which the peasants had to repay over a period of 49 years in annual redemption payments of 6 percent 6% per annum on the amount of the loan. Such a complicated solution to the land question could not satisfy the peasants. They hoped to receive land for free and in large quantities, but their hopes were not realized.
The peasants formed a village society (communes), the body of self-government of which was the village assembly. They resolved various economic issues and elected headmen. The charter, which determined the size of allotments and obligations, was signed by the landlord with the village community, not with individual peasants. It was very difficult for the peasants to leave the community even with their land, and the community restrained the stratification of the peasants. In this way the government artificially preserved the social and property homogeneity of the peasantry.
The Reform of 1861 was a result of a compromise, difficult coordination of interests of the state, landlords and peasants. After it the peasant landlessness remained, the peasants were burdened with the redemption payments. This gave rise to new conflicts and contradictions both between peasants and landlords, and within society. Nevertheless, the abolition of serfdom created the objective prerequisites for the industrial modernization of Russia. As a result, landlords began to take the path of modernization. Among the peasants, began to emerge a wealthy layer, engaged in commodity production. The numerous peasants (35% of the population was serfs) joined the ranks of workers and thus contributed to the industrial progress in Russia.
Other reforms conducted in the 1860s-70s were also of tremendous importance to the country's development.
The most important of them from the political point of view was the reform, which introduced new self-government bodies in the countryside and towns (zemstvo reform). In 1864 was approved "Regulations on the provincial and district zemstvo institutions". Zemstvos were elective bodies, elections were held on the basis of the property census. Zemstvos were elected for 3 years, and consisted of administrative (meetings) and executive (boards) bodies. The competence of zemstvos included issues of education, medical care, social welfare, improvement, food supply of the counties. Political issues were not included in the scope of the zemstvo bodies. The central and local authorities, such as the Minister of Internal Affairs and governors, had the right to reject any decision of a zemstvo assembly. Zemstvos did not have the right to all-Russian association, the publicity of zemstvo activities was limited to the local. Zemstvo institutions were created in 34 provinces and the Don Army's Oblast. Their creation did not apply to the non-Russian outskirts.
The next step in changing the local administration was the town reform. In 1870 a town regulation was approved, under which all-people bodies of self-government - town Dumas - were established in 509 Russian cities. They were elected for 4 years, the elections were based on the property qualification. The right to elect and be elected to the town Duma was granted only to taxpayers. The mayor, elected by the Duma, was approved by the governor or the Minister of Internal Affairs. In 1892 the self-government was introduced in 621 cities out of 707. City Dumas were engaged in improvement of cities, development of health care and public education. Like zemstvos, dumas operated under the control of government officials, who could suspend any decision of the city government.
Zemstvos and city dumas caused a revival in liberal circles. Liberals saw in them an opportunity to eliminate social discord between the estates, dangerous to the state. Especially high hopes were pinned on zemstvos, because it was there that landlords and peasants (despite the predominance of landlords, could jointly solve urgent problems, learning tolerance and gaining political experience). Despite the preservation of the leading position of the nobility in local government, it was forced to share power with merchants, peasants, raznochinets. The constant control of the authorities over zemstvos and attacks on them proved their importance as elected and, in the bud, as constitutional bodies. It is no coincidence that one of the largest parties of the liberal bourgeoisie (the Cadets) had as its source in the Union of Zemstvos and cities. Work in self-government bodies contributed to the formation of civic consciousness.
No less important was the judicial reform of 1864. It was the most coherent, innovative and technically successful of all the reforms of the 1860-70's. The structure of the pre-reform judicial system included a huge number of instances which could conduct trials for decades. The judicial process was dominated by the individual, which was characterized by secrecy and written procedure. The prosecutors were "exactors of punishment" and at the same time "protectors of innocence." The judicial investigation was closed, the public was absent. The court had no right to examine the evidence directly. On the basis of the submitted written documents, which contained the "extract" of the testimony obtained during the investigation, the court rendered its verdict. The court did not see or question witnesses, and there was no defense for the defendants.
In addition, the pre-reform courts were class-based: there were special courts for peasants, townspeople, and the nobility. Judicial functions were also performed by administrative bodies: provincial boards and police agencies. The educational qualifications for judges were not established. Even at the highest level (for example, in the Senate) in the second quarter of the XIX century only a few had special legal training. This led to the fact that the real power in the courts belonged to secretaries. Their mastery of paperwork and knowledge of procedure made everyone who went to court completely dependent on them. The failure of courts and justice led to an unusually low prestige of justice, legal nihilism, and disrespect for the law in all social circles. The need to change the state-legal system was long overdue, and its reform was to contribute to the modernization of the country. Well-known lawyers, such as D. A. Rovinsky, S. I. Zarudny, N. A. Butskovsky, etc., were involved in the development of the judicial reform.
The judicial reform of 1864 replaced the old class court with the new one based upon the principles of bourgeois law: equality of all citizens before the law and independence of the court from the government, irrevocability of judges, publicity of the court and adversarial proceedings with the prosecutor and the lawyer.
Three types of courts were established: the Magistrates' Court, the District Court and the Judicial Chamber. The magistrates' court considered minor misdemeanors and civil suits, damages for which did not exceed 500 rubles. The district court dealt with criminal and civil offenses with the participation of jurors. The judicial chamber heard cases of state and political crimes. The highest court instance was the Senate, which could overturn the decisions of the courts. The judicial reform was a decisive step towards creation in the country of elementary standards of law and order.
An unconditional court with elected lay judges (the lowest instance) was forming a new citizenship for Russia. This was especially true of the trial by jury, in which the public took part in the process, not as a spectator. Jurors generally reflected the social composition of the population. In 1883 this composition of jurors included: nobility and civil servants - 15%, petty bourgeoisie - 18%, peasants - 57%. The introduction of a public court without a vote restricted the autocracy.
The defeat in the Crimean War urgently required the reorganization of the army and equipping it with new weapons. In 1861 D. A. Milyutin was appointed Minister of War, who led the transformation of the army. The Military Reform dragged on for 15 years. In the course of it the army was rearmed: a steam-powered navy was created, the artillery was renovated, smooth-bore arms were replaced by rifled ones, and railroads to the borders were built. The system of military educational institutions was reformed: military gymnasiums, junker schools and military academies were founded. The country was divided into 15 military districts, the military administration was centralized. New regulations, focusing on combat and physical training of soldiers, appeared in the army. However, the core of the reform was the decree of January 1, 1874 on military duty. Instead of conscription, there was introduced a universal conscription for males, aged 20 years at the time of enlistment. The term of service in the army was reduced: the 25-years term of draft was replaced by 6-years in the land forces and 7-years in the navy. Mushtra and corporal punishment were excluded from the army service, but literacy training was introduced. The access to the officers' schools was opened not only for the nobility, but also for the representatives of other estates. As a result of these measures the state had an opportunity to have a mobile cadre army.
The reform in the field of education provided schooling for children of all estates. In classical gymnasiums more attention was given to humanities, and in real ones - to natural subjects. The university charter of 1863 restored the autonomy and democracy of higher schools. The universities had four main faculties: History and Philology, Law, Medicine and Physics and Mathematics. Education in them (like in gymnasiums) was paid. Enlightenment reforms allowed the country to have an intellectual elite, but there was no universal education yet.
The financial sector was reformed. In 1860 the State Bank was established. The only manager of the budget was the Minister of Finance. The income and expenditure statement began to be published for public scrutiny. The system of pay-offs in wine trade, which caused huge corruption, was replaced by the excise system (excise - tax on producers of alcohol and tobacco). From the mid-60s, commercial banks began to open.
Thus, the reforms of the 60s - 70s of the 19th century contributed to the creation of conditions for the industrial modernization of Russia. But they did not affect the autocratic government, and preserved the remnants of the serf system.
(1881 – 1894) Alexander III
One of the controversial questions remains about the reasons that determined the transition from a policy of reforms to a policy of counter-reforms. In 1881, after the assassination of Alexander II, Alexander III, who announced a policy of counter-reforms, came to power. As early as March 8, 1881 at the Council of Ministers meeting the chief procurator of the Synod K.P. Pobedonostsev severely criticized the draft of the so-called "Constitution of M.T. Loris-Melikov" which called for convocation of society representatives to discuss the introduction of representative institutions, and said that with the introduction of the Constitution Russia would die. On April 29, 1881 was published the Coronation Manifesto, which declared the firmness of the autocratic power and initiated the transition to the counter-reforms. On August 14, 1881 under the decree of the Emperor was authorized to declare a partial or complete state of emergency and to bring to trial those guilty of political crimes.
In the same year of 1881 the Ministry of Internal Affairs introduced temporary rules for the press. According to them after the third warning the publication was suspended and then the next issue had to be submitted to censorship. On first demand the publisher was obliged to disclose the pseudonyms of the authors of articles. The results of the press rules were soon to come: two years after their introduction there was not a single radical magazine left in Russia.
The counter-reform policy reached its peak with the introduction of the institution of zemstvo governors in 1889, who were the absolute masters of the village and could override any decision of the village assembly. The zemstvo bosses were appointed by the governors from the nobility and were accountable only to them. In the following year, new rules for the election of zemstvo authorities appeared, which nullified the peasant representation in zemstvos.
The counter-reforms also affected the education system. In 1884 the autonomy of the universities was abolished and a special inspection was established to control the classes of the students. In addition, the government undertook a number of measures for the russification of the national outskirts. Thus the Russian Empire, in contrast to European countries, where the state power developed in the direction of parliamentarism, was an autocratic state.
Modern historiography characterizes Tsarism as a regime that was forced to start modernizing the country, but failed to cope with its consequences. The counter-reformers "forgot" that the country could no longer return to the same point of historical development that it had left 20 years earlier. The desire of the autocratic government to preserve the political system intact prevailed, which, however, did not prevent the economic modernization of the country.
Two trends were observed in the development of agriculture. On the one hand, its productivity and marketability were growing, and the gross yield of grain crops was increasing. Characteristic was the specialization of individual areas in the cultivation of agricultural products.
On the other hand, the peasant reform did not eliminate the backwardness of the agrarian sector. Only a small proportion of the landed estates restructured on the basis of market relations and commodity production. Many landlords went bankrupt and sold their estates. Most continued to use semi-serfdom methods of management - they rented out part of their land to peasants for a piece of work or half of the harvest.
After the abolition of serfdom the processes of differentiation within the peasantry intensified (division into the rural proletariat - hired laborers and the rural bourgeoisie - the kulaks). However, the existence of the peasant community restrained the natural processes of social development of the village. The peasant was not the owner of the land, but only its user. The kulaks could only use land additionally leased from the landlord, and often brought themselves into the commercial or industrial sphere.
The bulk of the peasants had a half-subsistence economy, using outdated techniques and methods of work. More than a quarter of peasant plots at average yields could not feed one family. This forced the peasants to look for additional earnings or to rent land from landlords on unfavorable terms, because the community did not allow them to sell their allotments and go to town. The surplus of workers who had no use in the countryside, even with low productivity, was more than 5 million people.
Redemption payments remained a heavy burden. Most rural societies were not able to pay them. The deficits increased every year. Bad harvests in 1868, 1873, 1880 and especially in 1891 made the situation of peasants even worse and led to the mass mortality and ruin of small and medium-sized farms.
Things were much better in the industrial sector of the economy. New industrial centers emerged - the Donbas (coal production), Krivoy Rog - metal, Baku and Grozny - oil. New industries emerged in the country - machine-building, oil, etc. The first place was occupied by the textile industry, which largely met the needs of the market. In the post-reform period the industrial revolution was largely completed, and machine production won, which contributed to the growth of the industry. From 1861 to 1895 iron smelting increased from 20 million to 87 million poods, steel and iron production from 12 to 62 million poods, and oil production from 0.6 million to 384 million poods. Whereas in the first post-reform decade (1861 - 1870) the growth of enterprises was only 8% of its number, in the last decade it increased by 40% of the total. The growth of the railroad network was staggering. In 1861 the length of the railroad network was 1,488 versts, and by 1895 it was 34,088 versts (verst = 1.080 m.). The volume of industrial production during the post-reform period had increased 7 times.
An important role in the government policy was played by the concepts of economic development of the country proposed by M.Kh. Reitern, N.Kh. Bunge, I.A. Vyshnegradsky, S.Y. Witte, who succeeded each other in the post of Minister of Finance during the post-reform decades.
The main goal pursued by M.H. Reitern (Minister of Finance in 1862 - 1878, 1881 - 1886) was to improve the country's financial situation. It was hindered by low productivity of Russian economy and consequences of the Crimean War. To solve the main problem - the development of productive forces of the country and the rise of the ruble rate - it was necessary to conduct an extensive railway construction, which would have contributed to the development of grain exports. The basis for financial stabilization, M.H. Reitern believed, should be the consistent implementation of the reforms initiated in 1861 in order to "eliminate the dilapidated and entrenched abuses". The result of this policy was the growth of Russian railroads from 1865 to 1875 by 12 thousand versts. Export of bread from Russia which before the reform was about 70 millions poods per year, in 1861 - 1865 rose to 76 millions poods, in 1876 - 1880 - 257 millions poods per year. - up to 257 million poods annually. Thanks to the significant growth of Russian exports by the mid 70's of the nineteenth century, the budget deficit was eliminated and the position of the ruble became strong. With the support of the state private banks and other financial institutions were established, which also contributed to the revitalization of economic life. Only during 1866 - 1870 104 joint-stock companies with the capital of 700 million rubles were established. (during the period 1851 - 1855 there were only 18 societies with the capital of 16 million rubles).
N.Kh. Bunge (in 1881 - 1886. - Minister of Finance, in 1887 - 1895 - Chairman of the Committee of Ministers. - As a liberal reformer, he attached great importance to social policy. He understood the economic process as a proportional growth of all cells and organs of the national economic organism. He pursued a protectionist course; he balanced expenditures with revenues through austerity and prudent economy; he changed the tax system through a more equitable distribution of taxes. The redemption payments from the peasants were abolished by 12 million rubles, peasant taxes by 53 million rubles were removed, but a part of these funds were returned through the drinking tax. The factory legislation (1882) appeared. It somewhat restricted abuses and hard working conditions (children under 12 were forbidden to work in factories, the working day of children from 12 to 15 years old was not to exceed 8 hours, payment of wages was to be made at least once or twice a month, and it was forbidden to pay workers with bread, goods, coupons and other things instead of money).
I. A. Vyshnegradsky (Minister of Finance in 1888 - 1892) acted selectively, from the position of narrow "financialism", concentrating his efforts in those spheres where the return was the most rapid and tangible. He increased the tax pressure, which undermined the welfare of broad masses of peasants and was reflected in the growth of arrears and disasters in bad harvest years, but since 1888 he managed to get rid of state budget deficit. The import of raw materials and equipment was limited to the maximum and protectionism was intensified in order to increase the gold stock and reinvigorate the trade balance. At the same time the export of grain was forced. "We will not eat ourselves, but we will export," declared I.A. Vyshnegradsky. This policy could not guarantee long-term economic prosperity, which was demonstrated by the famine in Russia in 1891, which was the result of crop failure in the country.
Under S. Witte (Minister of Railways since 1892, Finance Minister since 1892, Chairman of the Committee of Ministers since 1903, Council of Ministers in 1905 - 1906) the state interference in the economy considerably expanded: in addition to the customs and tariff activities in foreign trade and legal support of business activities, the state supported certain groups of entrepreneurs (first of all connected with high state circles) and softened conflicts between them. S. Witte carried out a monetary reform. Russia followed the leading powers in 1897 and converted to a gold money circulation. The ruble became stable and freely convertible. The way was opened for the inflow of foreign capital, which Witte called the only way to bring the industry to the necessary level. Domestic sources of Witte's industrialization included the peasants' redemption payments, profits from export of bread, the state wine monopoly, indirect taxation. Industrial protectionism was an integral element of Witte's industrial policy. In the field of social reforms under him, the working day was limited (to 11.5 hours), compensation for victims of accidents and the position of an elected foreman were introduced.
In the post-reform period, the traditional tendency of colonization of new areas, reinforced by the needs of economic development of the country, continued. Under Alexander II significant territories in the Far East and Central Asia were annexed. Russia received the Amur region and Ussuriysk territory, taking advantage of the difficult situation in China, which was at war with England and France. New Russian towns began to be built: Khabarovsk, Blagoveshchensk, Vladivostok; there emerged opportunities for the economic development of large territories. In exchange for the Kuril Islands, South Sakhalin was received from Japan.
In the sixties, a noticeable rise in Russian-American relations takes place. Counting on the allied relationship with the United States, Russia began negotiations on the sale of Russian possessions in America. It was taken into account that the strengthening of the U.S. in the Pacific creates a strong counterweight to England. In the situation of US economic expansion on the American continent the sale of Russian possessions prevented possible territorial disputes; finally, due to lack of forces and means Russia was not able to develop these lands. In 1867 the Alaska Peninsula of 1.5 million square kilometers was sold for $7 million (11 million rubles).
In the 1860s and 1870s, conquests in Central Asia expanded. This was based on political and economic reasons. Undoubtedly, a significant incentive for the intensification of Russian policy in Central Asia was the rivalry of England, but economic motives were also important. The autocracy had to consider the interests of the bourgeoisie in its policy. And the interest of Russian entrepreneurs in the acquisition of new markets and sources of raw materials in the 60-70-ies of the XIX century became quite obvious. In the 1860s, the turnover of Russia's trade with China via the Kakhta falls, and since cotton and woolen fabrics from Russia were exported almost exclusively to Eastern countries, the importance of the Central Asian market increases. During the same period, the interest of Russian entrepreneurs in the Central Asian khanates as a source of raw materials increases because the cotton crisis, which began in the world market due to the reduction of cotton exports from the United States during the Civil War in 1861 - 1865, caused difficulties in providing the Russian cotton industry with raw materials.
As a result of the wars of 1868 - 1876 Kokand, Bukhara and Khiva Khanates were joined to Russia. The policy of the Russian government on the annexed territories was complex and contradictory. On the one hand, the Russian bureaucratic administrative apparatus had little regard for the needs of the local population, introducing order, corresponding to their interests, and using the social and ethnic conflicts of the Central Asian peoples to maintain and strengthen their power. On the other hand, joining of Central Asia to Russia contributed to economic and cultural development, elimination of slavery and slave trade, end of internecine wars, and creation of conditions for development of local industry and trade.
The accession of Central Asia was accompanied by land colonization. On average, about 50,000 people moved here annually. At first, the Turkestan region was unprofitable for Russia. During the first 12 years after the annexation the state outlays were three times higher than the revenues. The desire to improve the annexed lands was a peculiarity of Russian policy and distinguished it from other European powers, seeking primarily to profit.
In 1864 the half-century struggle with the mountain peoples of the Caucasus came to an end. The entire Caucasus was divided into administrative districts and subordinated to Russian administration. The main positive consequence of the annexation of the Caucasus was to put an end to inter-tribal strife between the mountain peoples and Russia brought peace to this region. Rapid normalization of the situation in the newly annexed territories was facilitated by features of Russian mentality developed by generations of the Russian people that consisted of understanding of uniqueness and originality of each people, ability to get along with different ethnic groups, absence of chauvinism. Dostoyevsky noted that just as the French have pride and love of grace, the Spanish have jealousy, the English have honesty and meticulousness, the Germans have accuracy, so the Russians have the ability to understand and accept other peoples.
Thus, the acquisition of new lands in the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Far East completed the political unification of the vast Eurasian territory within the Russian Empire.
In Russian foreign policy of the second half of the 19th century, historical literature distinguishes the period from the Peace of Paris (1856) to the London Protocol (1871) or to the Berlin Treaty (1878) and the period of 1878 - 1894.
The Crimean War and the Peace of Paris dealt a powerful blow to Russia's foreign policy power. The country lost southern Bessarabia, Kars and other areas occupied by Russian troops in the Caucasus. Russia was forbidden to have a warship on the Black Sea and coastal fortifications. She was deprived of the right to protect the Orthodox on the territory of the Ottoman Empire. Not being outwardly very difficult, the terms of the peace were not only humiliating for Russia, but also left her defenseless on the Black Sea coast. Russia's international prestige and influence, gained over a century and a half, were undermined.
The country found itself in international isolation. The struggle to break this isolation was the main content of Russian foreign policy in the 1860s - early 1870s. A. M. Gorchakov, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, saw his main tasks in ensuring favorable conditions for the domestic policy of the state with peaceful diplomatic means and abolishing the articles of the Paris Treaty prohibiting Russia to have naval forces in the Black Sea. To fight with England and France - the main guarantors of the Crimean system - Gorchakov found allies in Prussia, which was struggling for the unification of Germany and needed a benevolent neutrality of Russia. For Prussian diplomatic support in the wars against Denmark (1864) and Austria (1866), Bismarck promised not to oppose the revision of the Treaty of Paris. After the outbreak of Franco-Prussian war and the decisive defeat of French troops near Sedan in October 1870, A. M. Gorchakov informed the European powers of Russia's refusal to comply with the articles of the Paris Treaty. A conference held in London in early 1871 was forced to approve this decision. A kind of payment for this foreign policy triumph was the creation of a strong and dangerous neighbor for Russia - a united Germany. Partnership with Bismarck was the only way out for Russia, since its attempt at rapprochement with France was unsuccessful, and it would have hardly slowed down the process of unification of the German states.
The rapprochement of Russia, Germany and Austria marked the beginning of the "alliance of the three emperors" (1873). Its support diplomatically ensured Russia's advance into Central Asia. Already in 1868, the vassals of the Russian emperor became Kokand Khan and Emir of Bukhara, in 1873 - the Khan of Khiva. In 1881 Russian troops defeated the Turkmens, conquered Ashgabat. The annexation of Central Asia to Russia (completed in 1885) caused a sharp deterioration in relations with Britain, which were settled in the mid 1880s.
With the "alliance of the three emperors" Russia tried to restore its position in the Balkans. The Turkish sultan's refusal to carry out the reform program, proposed in 1875 by Russia, Austria and Prussia, which included the provision of autonomy and freedom of religion for Balkan Christians, followed by the revolt in Bulgaria and the war of Serbia and Montenegro with Turkey (1876) led to the Russian-Turkish war of 1877 - 1878. Bloody battles near Plevna, at Shipka and Sheinovo ended in victory for the Russian army. It occupied the town of San Stefano, only 10 km from Constantinople. Russia was forced to abandon the capture of the capital of the Ottoman Empire by the tough stance of England and Austria. In March, 1878 the peace treaty was signed, which was extremely favorable to Russia and the Balkan peoples, who received their independence. The threat of a new war, to which the country was not ready, and partly the internal political instability forced Russia to go to the Berlin Congress of 1878, where the Anglo-Austrian tandem, not without the help of Germany had achieved the isolation of Russia and significantly impaired its interests, and the southern Slavs gained autonomy, not independence.
The Berlin Congress led to a split between Russia on one side and Austria and Prussia on the other. Although the "alliance of the three emperors" continued to exist and was prolonged twice, in 1881 and 1884, for three years. - However, the conflict over the Balkans caused a "divergence" of Austria and Germany in 1882 in favor of the Triple Alliance (with Italy) against England and France, while Russia - in favor of France. A struggle between pro-German and pro-French groups in Russia led to the so-called "reinsurance" treaty with Germany in 1887. However, the prolongation of the Triple Alliance and Germany's refusal in 1890 to prolong the agreement with Russia finally determined the Russian-French rapprochement.
As early as 1887 the Russian government received its first loans from Paris. In 1891 appeared a defense agreement between Russia and France against the countries of the Triple Alliance, and in 1892 a military convention was signed, which in 1894 became binding. This led to the formation of two military blocs in Europe, whose balance of power largely determined policy on the continent. From about this time Russia, trusting in the stability of its position in Europe, shifted the main direction of its foreign policy to the Far East.
Already the Treaty of Beijing in 1860 secured for Russia the entire Ussuriysk region. Vladivostok was founded in the Peter the Great Bay. The Russo-Japanese treaty of 1875 divided ownership of Russia and Japan: Russia received Sakhalin, and Japan - the Kuril Islands. In 1867, as mentioned above, Alexander I. sold Alaska to the United States (which Russia was unlikely to hold in the future) and abolished the Russian-American Company which had existed since 1799 and could not compete with American merchants. In general, until the mid-1890s Russian policy in the Far East was quite cautious.
In 1890-ies the development of Russian capitalism and aspirations of England, Japan and the United States in Korea and Manchuria sharply intensified the economic and political development of the Far East. In 1891 began construction of the Great Siberian Way from Chelyabinsk to Vladivostok. The war of aggression won by Japan with China in 1894 - 1895 not only made Japan a leading Asian state, but also further encouraged its annexationist plans. The knot of Russo-Japanese contradictions was tightening.
Test Questions:
1. What was the government's program for the Peasant Reform of 1861?
a) personal freedom of peasants, redemption of peasant allotments, preservation of noblemen's land ownership;
b) emancipation of the peasants without a field allotment with the right to redeem the homestead;
c) landless emancipation of peasants, abolition of their serfdom;
d) liquidation of landed estates and destruction of the peasant community.
2. Identify the most characteristic features of the establishment of capitalism in industry in Russia during the post-reform period.
a) The growth of industrial production and the use of hired labor;
b) the formation of the industrial proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the emergence of new industries and economic regions;
c) application of steam engines, growth of railroad and steamship transportation;
d) the expansion of craft and manufactory production.
3. Specify the positions characteristic of Russian post-reform liberalism.
a) Struggle against autocracy and remnants of serfdom in Russia's economic and social order and the unacceptability of compromise with the government;
b) Restriction of the autocracy, expansion of self-government, establishment of central representative bodies, political freedom, compromises with the government;
c) Strict control of education and the press, the denial of the Constitution, the exclusion of elected representatives of society to participate in the legislative process and public administration;
(d) Preparation and carrying out of revolutions according to Western European models.
4. What is the essence of the Narodnik worldview?
a) Defending the non-alternative nature of capitalism, recognizing the role of factory workers as the leading fighters of the entire proletariat, and recognizing the importance of bourgeois political freedom;
b) Recognition of capitalism in Russia as a regress and the identity of the Russian economic system with its peasant community, denial of the connection of the intelligentsia and political institutions with the interests of the social classes;
c) The recognition of anti-government terror as the only possible means of struggle against autocracy;
d) the search for compromises between the peasantry and the landlords through the formulation of an extensive reformist program of action.
a) false in essence, since it is not the people, but only their representatives, who participate in political life;
b) responsive to the interests of broad social strata of Russia;
c) necessary for the peaceful transformation of the country into a constitutional monarchy;
d) the only alternative to the revolutionary path of development.
What about accountability? Doesn't it require positions of power to keep people accountable?
Administrative procedure for appealing decisions and actions (and inaction) of executive authorities and their officials
Further Socio-economic and political development
Stolypin's reforms.
Socio-economic and political development of the country. The first Russian revolution of 1905-1907.
Theme VII. Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century.
At the beginning of the twentieth century. Russia again faced a choice: to remain a traditional society with a predominantly agrarian economy, or through the elimination of autocracy, feudal relations, peasant community to follow the path of industrial development. Most historians are based in the concept of the objective conditionality of radical change. Supporters of the modernization approach believe that Russia embarked on the path of early industrial modernization. Supporters of the materialist approach note that the acceleration of modernization processes inevitably led to class contradictions, and as a consequence, made social revolution inevitable. Proponents of the liberal approach focus on the characterization of socio-cultural changes associated with the incomplete industrialization of the country.
In the early twentieth century. Russia was one of the largest countries in the world in terms of territory and population. The country was home to 131.9 million people, representing more than 100 nations and nationalities. During this period, the country was in the process of modernization, which had a contradictory nature. Russia embarked on the path of industrial development later than other countries. Therefore, Russia's main goal was to integrate into the world economic system and defend its national interests. The basis for this was the country's high rate of economic development. Having experienced an industrial boom at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, the country became one of the world's five strongest industrialized nations in terms of total production and became the largest exporter of grain on the world market.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Russian economy began to monopolize industrial production, and gradually monopolies covered all sectors of industry. Industrial and financial groups were created on the basis of monopolistic associations and banks. Thus, Russia, not having passed to the end of the stage of free capitalism, entered a period of monopolistic capitalism.
However, unlike the West, in our country the industrial revolution preceded the era of bourgeois revolutions. Industrialization had not been completed. The agrarian sphere remained leading in the Russian economy. In terms of industrial production per capita, Russia was largely behind the advanced powers. Living standards of the population was 3-4 times lower than in other countries. During this period 73.7% of the inhabitants were illiterate. Class division remained: nobility, burghers, Cossacks, merchants, peasants and others. However, as a result of the industrial revolution the main classes of bourgeois society were formed. The number of large commercial and industrial bourgeoisie was 40 thousand people, or 0.02% of the population.
As in other countries, the economic face of the Russian bourgeoisie was defined by joint-stock companies and banks. They accounted for 70% of the profits of large enterprises. All this indicated that at the beginning of the twentieth century the bourgeoisie ruled the country economically. Despite this, it was largely - both economically and politically - dependent on czarism. Its late emergence made the bourgeoisie little competitive on foreign and domestic markets; it needed patronizing duties, administrative and legislative measures to promote capitalism (monetary reform, railway construction, customs duties, government orders, etc.). These facts show that the bourgeoisie was completely satisfied with tsarism. But it was the complete dependence on the tsarist regime, which hindered the consolidation of the bourgeoisie and its formation into a class.
The total number of wage laborers was 14 million. During the 40 post-reform years the army of hired labor grew threefold. The main sources of the formation of the working class were: the multimillion masses of the peasantry, ruined by the reform of 1861; impoverished artisans and artisans; hereditary proletariat, which in the early twentieth century accounted for more than half of the working class. The Russian proletariat had a number of features: 1) it was distributed unevenly across the country; 2) it had too small a layer of the labor aristocracy (highly skilled and highly paid workers); 3) it was closely connected with the peasantry; 4) it was concentrated at large enterprises; 5) it was international in composition (but with a Russian "core"). Brutal forms of exploitation, political and civil disenfranchisement, low living standards, the inflexibility of the bourgeoisie toward the working class, and its inability to socially maneuver prompted the workers to fight against the existing regime.
The petty-bourgeois elements (84.4 million people) made up the majority of the population. A special place among them was occupied by the peasantry: the well-off - 20%; middle class - 30%; the poorest - 50%. The landed estates restrained the transformation of the peasantry as a class of feudal society into a class of bourgeois society. In this respect, peasant class played a certain role in rallying the village against the common enemy - the tsar and the landlords.
The nobility at this stage of the country's development was a closed caste, access to which was difficult (1.8 million people), but this stratum had economic and political power.
1894 Nicholas II ascended the throne
In the political sphere Russia remained an absolute monarchy. The country had no constitution, no representative bodies of power, no political freedoms, no legal parties and no trade unions. The full extent of power still belonged to the tsar. He himself administered all the funds of the state, appointed ministers and all high officials. The highest state institutions: the Senate, the Committee of Ministers, the State Council, the Council of Ministers, were powerless without the power and will of the tsar.
However, Russia in the early twentieth century entered a new era - the era of "great revolutions", and henceforth the reformist policy of the government was fully dependent on the revolutionary process. Subsequent events showed how, under the influence of revolutionary events, the autocracy followed the path of reforming the country's state system.
Under the conditions of increasing political and social tensions in the late 19th-early 20th century, political parties and organizations were formed. The first to emerge were the national and socialist parties, including the RSDLP - the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (1898 - 1903, leaders G.V. Plekhanov, Yu.O. Martov, V.I. Lenin); the Socialist-Revolutionary Socialists (1902, leaders V.M. Chernov, G.A. Gershuni, later A.F. Kerensky). At the II Congress of the RSDLP in 1903, the Social Democrats were divided into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks when discussing organizational issues. The victory at the congress was won by the left wing, the Bolsheviks (leader, Lenin). The program of the party, in addition to demanding bourgeois-democratic freedoms, included a paragraph on the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is, the proletariat's conquest of state power.
By the spring of 1905, the RSDLP included 26.5 thousand people, of whom 14 thousand Bolsheviks and 12.5 thousand Mensheviks. This party represented primarily the interests of the working class. In 1905, it included 62% of the workers, 5% of the peasants, 33% of the employees and intellectuals. The split in the RSDLP led to the fact that in the revolution that began in 1905, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks acted separately, each with its own tactics. The Bolsheviks believed that it was possible to overthrow the autocracy only by armed force, with the proletariat as the main driving force. They considered the peasantry as an ally of the proletariat, so they demanded the confiscation of the landed estates, churches and monasteries, their nationalization and subsequent transfer to the peasants free of charge. In the event of victory of the revolution, power, according to the Bolsheviks, would pass into the hands of the workers and peasants in the form of the Provisional Revolutionary Government, which would be called upon to defend the gains of the revolution, solve the agrarian question, and convene the Constituent Assembly.
The Mensheviks proceeded from the assumption that the leading role in the revolution traditionally belongs to the bourgeoisie and not to the proletariat, which acts as its ally, and that the peasantry is not a revolutionary force at all. Instead of confiscating landed estates, they proposed giving them to local governments (zemstvos) to lease to the peasants. This program was called the "land municipalization program." The Mensheviks were opposed to armed insurrection and preferred peaceful forms of struggle, and were supporters of the reformist path of Russia's development. After the victory of the revolution, power should, in their opinion, pass to the bourgeoisie.
In 1902, the Socialist-Revolutionary Party (SR) emerged on the basis of the old Narodnik organizations, which set the task of destroying the autocracy and building a socialist society on the basis of the peasant community. It was a mass, one of the most influential parties in Russia. During the first revolution, its ranks numbered more than 65 thousand people. Its social composition: 45% - peasants, 43% - workers, 12% - intellectuals. The Socialist Revolutionaries were opponents of the bourgeois and socialist revolutions. They wanted to build socialism in Russia bypassing the capitalist stage of development, through the so-called social revolution, which would occur in the interests of the working people. In the struggle for socialism the main role was assigned to the peasantry. The central point of the program of the Social Revolutionaries was the demand for socialization of the land: confiscation of the landed estates, their transformation into the property of the people and equalized distribution among the peasants. Land was withdrawn from the system of purchase and sale.
In the early twentieth century, the liberal movement also rose to a new level of development. The goal of the liberals was to implement political freedoms in Russia as well as social and economic transformations in their own interests. Meanwhile, the tsarist regime saw the liberals as its opponents. As soon as he came to the throne, Nicholas II in 1895 already rejected the "senseless dreams" of the liberals about the Constitution. In 1904 an illegal organization called the Liberation Union was founded. In late 1904 there was held so-called "Banquet Campaign" dated the 40th anniversary of the 1864 judicial reform. Its participants demanded "the people's representation" and establishment of the constitutional monarchy in the country. Nicholas II rejected these demands of the liberals, stating that he would never agree to a representative form of government. The pre-revolutionary situation of 1901-1904 was fatal for Tsarism.
In Russia in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, socio-economic contradictions reached an exceptionally acute level and the level of the general democratic movement was growing more and more. Public life demanded immediate answers to complex questions about the ways of further development of the country.
The whole course of socio-economic and political development of the country during the post-reform period testified to the historical necessity of the revolution. The process of modernizing the autocratic system, which began with the bourgeois reforms of the 1860s-1870s, subsequently slowed down. Czarism missed the chance to bring the reforms to a decisive end.
In Russia the contradiction between the rapidly developing capitalist industrial relations and numerous vestiges of serfdom, which permeated all spheres of the socio-economic and political life of the country, was objectively ripe and worsening.
Having sacrificed serfdom, the autocracy devoted all its efforts to preserving landed estates as fully as possible. There was an average of 7 dessiatinas of land per peasant household, and the average size of the landed estates was about 2,300 dessiatinas. An average peasant family needed at least 15 dessiatinas of land for a subsistence minimum. The economy of the peasants was also undermined by high taxes and redemption payments. From 1861 to 1906 the peasants paid to the landlords for their allotments nearly 2 billion rubles. The situation in the village had become explosive by the beginning of the 20th century. During 1900 - 1904 there were 670 peasant uprisings, three times more than during the previous 10 years. The agrarian-peasant question urgently required an immediate solution.
A revolutionary crisis was brewing. Serfdom vestiges were influencing all aspects of life in the country. In the economic sphere they hampered the development of productive forces: they deprived the peasantry of the economic initiative; the low living standard of the peasants narrowed the domestic market both for agriculture and industry; the excess of cheap labor allowed the industrialists to save on the equipment of enterprises, which hampered technological progress, promoted crude and most severe forms of exploitation. In the field of social remnants hindered the formation of classes of bourgeois society. In the political sphere, the remnants of feudalism strengthened the superstructure - the Russian autocracy, which enmeshed the whole country in the chains of political lawlessness and arbitrariness.
The transition from traditional to industrial society in Russia in the early 20th century aggravated the contradictions between labor and capital, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Workers were deprived of the right to form their own trade unions, cultural and political organizations, and to have a press. The working class became more and more active in the struggle not only against the capitalists, but also against the tsarist regime.
In the complex tangle of contradictions in Russian society, a significant place was occupied by national contradictions. The Russian Empire was a multinational state, where 57% of the population were non-Russian peoples, who were subjected to one form or another of national oppression. Czarism sowed discord among non-Russian peoples. The process of formation of bourgeois nations, which took place with the development of capitalism, was accompanied by a rapid growth of national consciousness, which gave rise to protest against the great-power policy of tsarism.
By the beginning of the 20th century the crisis affected practically all spheres of the domestic policy of the autocracy. To suppress the burgeoning liberation movement, it tried different measures - from police-repressive to reformist and demagogic: all active strikers were summarily deported, the agency network was expanded, troops were used to suppress popular uprisings, attempts were made to revise the peasant law, and legal workers' organizations were organized with the knowledge and under the control of the government ("Zubatovschina", or "police socialism").
The Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905)
During the second half of the 19th century, Japan experienced a powerful industrial and economic boom known and the Meiji Revolution. In less than half a century, the Japanese managed to adopt all achievements of Western civilization, recover their military power and thought about expansion into Asia.
The Russian Empire was in the way for Japan as Russia had firmly established its presence in Manchuria and Korea by that time. In 1904, without an official declaration of war, the Japanese fleet attacked the Russian squadron at Port Arthur. Having captured the naval base in a landing operation, the Japanese went inland.
Russia was defeated at sea and forced to abandon its positions in Chinese Manchuria. The Russians ceded the rights to Korea and the territory of Sakhalin with all the adjacent islands to the Japanese, including the Liaodong Peninsula and with Port Arthur.
The defeat in the Russo-Japanese war significantly undermined the state prestige of Russia. The empire lost its status of the supremacist power and world's military force No. 1. The defeat also exposed the weakness of the Russian monarchy and laid the foundation of revolutionary prerequisites in the country.
In fact, the coming of the revolution was greatly accelerated by the loss if the Russian-Japanese war of 1904-1905, although the tsarist regime, unleashing it, hoped to prevent a revolution. Minister of the Interior V.K. Pleve said: "To hold up the revolution, we need a small victorious war”. Finding itself unprepared for war, Russia was defeated. One of the conditions of the peace made in August, 1905 in Portsmouth (USA) was the cession of the southern part of the Sakhalin islands to Japan. This "Unfortunate war", - wrote S. Witte, who headed the Russian delegation at the talks in Portsmouth, - "has brought the revolution closer by decades".
So, at the beginning of the twentieth century in Russia there was a complex tangle of contradictions between the autocracy and the liberal opposition, the interests of the authorities and the interests of the national outskirts, landlords and peasants, the bourgeoisie and the workers. To solve these problems without revolution, an all-embracing reform was needed, capable of democratizing life in the country and opening the way to the rapid development of capitalism.
However, the tsarist regime, in pursuit of its great-power goals, was unwilling to make concessions to society, which increased discontent with the tsarist regime in all strata of Russian society. A revolution began in the country. The most significant consequence of the events of January 9, 1905. ("Bloody Sunday" the shooting of a peaceful demonstration in St. Petersburg) was that people's faith in the tsar was undermined.
In essence, Russian modernization in the twentieth century was carried out in the framework of a permanent revolutionary process. A series of social upheavals began in 1905. The revolution of 1905-1907 was bourgeois-democratic in character, but it failed to solve the problem and did not open the way to a full-scale modernization of the country, limiting itself to some liberalization of the political regime. Since then, the revolutionary process practically did not stop until the end of the century, with the goal of modernizing the country. But at different periods, one or another political force understood the content of modernization in different ways, and in the end interpreted this process inadequately to the essence of modernization, thus bringing great suffering to the people and irreparable harm to the state.
During the revolution, various social movements: workers', peasants', national liberation movements merged into one. This gave the first revolution in Russia a vivid originality, determined the original balance of class forces, and raised the question of its prospects in a new way. This revolution was different from similar processes in previous periods. The working class was the most active participant in it, the leading force in the street battles. Workers' protests were the most striking events of the revolution. Since the working class suffered not so much from capitalism as from the semi-feudal repressive regime, it was extremely interested in the destruction of tsarism, in the decisive victory of the bourgeois revolution.
The position of the bourgeoisie in the revolution remained contradictory. On the one hand, coming to power would enable it to rule the country more effectively in its own interests. On the other hand, its close ties with the ruling regime and the landlord circles made it an indecisive and inconsistent force in the revolution. Therefore, the bourgeoisie maneuvered between the revolution and the government. In its tactics, the liberal bourgeoisie denied revolutionary action and advocated compromise with the forces of autocracy.
The revolution passed through two main stages: 1) from January to December 1905, the beginning and rise; 2) from early 1906 to June 3, 1907, a gradual decline.
The majority of the population of the country - the peasantry did not take a dominant position in this revolution. Political underdevelopment and monarchist prejudices did not allow them to actively join the social movement, but the unsolved agrarian question pushed the peasants to confront the regime. As a result, the first Russian revolution was bourgeois in its aims and democratic in its driving forces.
Under the influence of the "Bloody Sunday" the tsar was forced to issue a decree of February 18, 1905, on the establishment of the people's representation, which instructed the Minister of Internal Affairs A. G. Bulygin to prepare a draft law on convening a legislative Duma.
However, it was not enough in the new circumstances. The spring of 1905 was the time of growth of opposition sentiments in the society. During this period, appeared the local authorities based on the principles of traditional culture - the Soviets of Workers' Deputies. In May-June 1905, in Ivanovo-Voznesensk a Stachka Committee appeared, which in winter became the de facto authority.
With the help of the "Bulygin's Duma" the tsarist government hoped to strengthen the monarchist illusion in society, especially among the peasantry, and thereby weaken the revolution. But this Duma never began to act. In October 1905 the All-Russian Strike broke out, which paralyzed the business life of the country and the activities of the government. From October to December 1905 there were 89 riots in the army and navy. The most significant of them were the uprisings on the cruiser "Ochakov", the battleship "Potemkin" and others.
Under these conditions S.Y. Witte, who returned from the USA after signing peace with Japan (Portsmouth, August 23, 1905), was chosen as the "tamer of the revolution". On October 9, he submitted a report to the tsar, in which he argued that the practical task was to create conditions for the implementation of universal suffrage; rationing the length of the working day; state insurance; the sale of government land to the peasants. He hoped that this program would split the revolutionary movement and give an advantage to liberal circles.
The Soviets of Workers' Deputies become a real political force. On October 13, the St. Petersburg Soviet begins to operate, and on November 21, the Moscow Soviet. In all, 55 Soviets were active in the country. The number and influence of socialist parties grew significantly. Socialists negatively assessed the Manifesto of October 17 and sought to overthrow the autocracy.
On October 17, 1905, Nicholas II adopted the program of S.Y. Witte, appointed him chairman of the Council of Ministers and signed the Manifesto, which declared the basic principles of bourgeois liberalism; the autocracy went to establish the legislative State Duma. The mechanism of elections to the State Duma was such that it ensured the class composition desired by tsarism. In addition, the autocracy reserved to itself the right to convene and dissolve the Duma by decree of the tsar. As a reactionary counterweight, the State Council was placed above the Duma. Half of its members were appointed by the tsar, the other half were elected. Thus, in the legislative field the State Duma slightly limited the power of the tsar. In addition, the tsar had the executive power, and he disposed of it uncontrollably. The appearance of the manifesto caused an explosion of joy in almost all segments of society. Liberals became inclined to cooperate with the regime. Among the participants of the revolutionary movement, constitutional illusions grew stronger. Free rallies and demonstrations were held all over the country, and political parties and the revolutionary press were legalized. It was these events that precipitated the establishment of the monarchist and bourgeois parties. The group of monarchist parties included the class and nobility organizations - the Russian Monarchist Party, the All-Russian Union of Landowners, the Union of the Russian People (leaders N. E. Markov, V. M. Purishkevich, A. I. Dubrovin). Common to all the monarchist organizations were a commitment to the triad of "Autocracy, Orthodoxy, and Nationality", the protection of the class system, anti-Semitism, and the slogan of "one and indivisible Russia".
On the basis of the bourgeois electorate (large and medium bourgeoisie, landlords, bureaucrats, part of the intelligentsia), the moderate-liberal party "October 17 Union" (leader A.I. Guchkov) emerged in November 1905. The party stood for assistance to the government, preservation and strengthening of capitalism, unity and indivisibility of the empire, protection of civil rights of an individual. Particular attention was paid to creating conditions for development of trade and industry.
The left flank of liberalism was constituted by the Constitutional-Democratic Party (Kadets), whose leader was P. N. Milyukov. Its program included demands for a constitutional state governed by the rule of law in the form of a parliamentary monarchy, universal civil and political equality, cultural self-determination of nations, compulsory alienation of private property land at a "fair (non-market) price". In the area of labor legislation, the Cadets advocated an 8-hour workday and compulsory social insurance for workers, and freedom to form trade unions.
In the course of the revolution, the social movement was divided into three directions, the struggle between which determined the fate of Russian reforms. The traditionalist-monarchical forces that had taken shape became an important factor in hindering the country's modernization. The Russian liberal movement, in contrast to Western Europe, could not lead the revolution and achieve radical reforms. Socialist parties became an influential political force. A significant part of the workers got a taste of the struggle against power. A new generation of revolutionary leaders was formed. As noted by historians, there was "a new type of revolutionary movement, characterized by the content, the intertwining of the three revolutionary forces - the labor movement, the peasant agrarian revolution and the national liberation movement.
However, Russian society soon realized the precariousness of the won freedom. In October-November 1905 the government intensified its fight against strikers and revolutionary demonstrations. In December, the strike launched by the Moscow Soviet escalated into an armed uprising. But the rebels did not have the support of the army, did not have a clear coordination of their plans, did not take into account changes in the society after the publication of the Manifesto of October 17. All this led to the defeat of the uprising and its defeat by the tsarist troops.
This event became the turning point of the revolution, the beginning of its retreat. In the first half of 1906 the number of organized mass demonstrations decreased. At the same time tsarism was not able to cancel the liberal reforms which appeared during 1905.
On December 11, 1905, the supreme decree was issued to change the provision on elections to the State Duma. Preserving the curial system established in the elections to the Bulygin Duma, the law added to the previously existing landowner, city and peasant curiae the working curiae and somewhat expanded the composition of voters in the city curiae. However, the new law also contained significant restrictions for certain categories of electors. For example, for the workers' curiae only men over 25 years old who worked at enterprises with at least 50 employees were allowed to be elected. The law retained the prohibition on participation in elections of women, servicemen, young people under 25 years old, i.e. the elections were not universal. Nor were they equal. So, in the landowners' curiae, there was one elector for every 2 thousand people, in the town one for every 4 thousand, in the peasantry one for every 30 thousand, in the worker's one for every 90 thousand. The elections were not direct, but two-stage for the landowners and urban, three-stage for the workers and four-stage for the peasant curia. Members of the State Duma were elected for five years.
The desire to have a counterbalance to the Duma led to the reorganization of the State Council. By the Manifesto of February 20, 1906, it was also endowed with legislative functions, becoming, in fact, the supreme legislative chamber with the right to impose a "veto" on the decisions of the Duma. Half of the members of the State Council were appointed by the tsar, half were elected. But they were elected not by the population, but only by some privileged institutions and public organizations.
The emergence of the first Russian parliament has led to certain changes in the structure and nature of the supreme state authority. In the new edition of the Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire in defining the prerogatives of imperial power the notion of "unlimited" was replaced by "supreme". The emperor retained full power to govern the country through the government, responsible only to him, the management of foreign policy, the management of the army and navy. He could issue, between sessions of the Duma, laws, which then were only formally approved by it. The State Duma had no right to change the basic laws of the empire, but could be dissolved by decree of the emperor before the expiration of its five-year term.
On April 27, 1906, in the presence of Nicholas II, the State Duma was inaugurated. Among its deputies there were 34% of the Kadets, 14% of the Octobrists, 23% of the Trudoviks. Social Democrats were represented by the Mensheviks (4%). Monarchists and Black Hundreds were not allowed into the Duma. The Bolsheviks and Social Revolutionaries boycotted the election.
The Duma's first open clash with the government occurred as early as May 5, when the deputies almost unanimously approved the "Answer Course" to the speech delivered by Nicholas at a meeting with the "people's choice" at the Winter Palace on April 27. The document was drawn up in the spirit of the Cadet program. It included the demands for a ministry responsible to the Duma, abolition of the State Council, the introduction of universal suffrage and fundamental civil liberties, the abolition of the death penalty, etc. At the insistence of the peasant deputies in the Duma, a demand was made to solve the agrarian question on the principles of alienation of private, appanage, monastic and church lands. However, Nicholas refused to accept the presidium of the Duma, which should have handed him the address.
The first Duma was predominantly a Kadet Duma, but the number of peasant deputies, united in the faction of the so-called Trudoviki, constituted a relative majority - 107 out of 448 seats. By giving an obvious advantage to the peasant element, the supreme authorities hoped that their political conservatism and inclination toward traditional foundations would neutralize the intellectual opposition and their desire to bring the constitutional reforms in the country to their logical conclusion.
However, the higher Russian officials did not take into account the significant psychological breakthrough that had occurred in the peasantry. The peasants, indeed, were indifferent to political freedoms and the ideas of parliamentarism, but they were obsessed with the idea of redistributing the land. Not having received the landed property from the Czar, they came to the Duma for it, and were ready to support any force that promised them rapid attainment of their desired goal. Peasant sentiment prevailed in the Duma, and the agrarian question became the leading theme in its activities.
Two bills were discussed: those of the Cadets and of the Labor Party. Both advocated the creation of a "state land fund" from the treasury, monasteries, estates and landed estates. However, the cadets conditioned not to touch the profitable estates. They offered to buy back the confiscated part of the land from the landlords "at a fair price. The Trudoviks' project stipulated alienation of all private land without compensation, and in the future - the complete destruction of private land ownership, the announcement of natural resources and mineral resources as public property.
1906 was the year of the rise of the national liberation movement. The Revolutionary Socialist-Federalist Party of Georgia, the Belarusian Socialist Hramada and the Dashnaktsutyun Party demanded national autonomy. On the day of the dissolution of the First State Duma, P. A. Stolypin was appointed chairman of the Council of Ministers.
In the new elections, the tsar hoped to get a more obedient Duma, but miscalculated. The Second State Duma (February-June 1907) was even more left than the first. The representation of the Kadets was reduced to 19% of the seats. The Rightists were included in the Duma (10%), the share of Octobrists remained at the same level (15%). The Trudoviki, SR and Social Democrats formed a "left-wing bloc," which had 222 seats (43%).
As before, the agrarian question was central. The Cadets rejected the idea of a state fund. They proposed to buy some land from the landlords and give it to the peasants, dividing the expenses equally between them and the state. The Trudoviks again put forward their project. However, the discussion of the agrarian question changed fundamentally when, on March 6, the chairman of the Council of Ministers, P.A. Stolypin, made a government declaration to the Duma. The oppositional Duma refused to discuss, much less approve, the decree of November 9, 1906.
It became clear that the Second Duma was also doomed. They decided to start with the tried-and-true method - the Duma dispersal. But the fear arose that the third Duma would be no better than the first two. Therefore, the question was raised as to whether it was necessary to change the electoral law in such a way that it would provide a favorable deputy list for the government. The idea was to publish a new electoral law simultaneously with the dissolution of the Duma. And although such a decision contradicted the basic laws of the empire, which stated that changing the procedure of election to the Duma could not be made without the consent of the Duma itself, P. A. Stolypin was ready to sacrifice the letter of the law for the sake of implementing his agrarian reform. Three versions of a new electoral law were prepared in the depths of the Interior Ministry. One of them was jokingly called "shameless" by its developers, since it "too openly manifested the main tendency to pass all elections through the filter of a large property. Nicholas opted for this particular option.
On the morning of June 1, 1907, F.A. Golovin, Chairman of the II Duma, received a note from P.A. Stolypin requesting that the public be removed from the hall and he be given the floor. The Prime Minister, also the Minister of Internal Affairs, accused 55 Social Democratic deputies of conspiracy against the state and demanded the authorization for the immediate arrest of 16 of them. The Duma responded by forming a special commission to investigate the case. However, the government did not even think of waiting for the results of the commission's work. On June 3, 1907 the manifesto on the dissolution of the Duma and the changes in the Regulations was issued. This event went down in history under the name of the Third of June coup d'etat.
The main results of the First Russian Revolution were: restriction of the autocracy in the form of Duma monarchy, establishment of legislative representation; establishment of moderate civil and political freedoms; emergence of legal parties and trade unions; improvement of living standards of workers, reduction of working week length; reduction of the fines; abolition of redemption payments in the village.
The First Russian Revolution did not achieve its main objectives. The autocracy managed to retain its power, although its foundations were shaken. The basic principle of the policy of the tsarist government was maneuvering between the social forces ready to compromise with autocracy. In pursuance of this policy, a new electoral law was adopted, which served as the basis for the elections to the third Duma in autumn 1907. The representation of the people was reduced several times, and, conversely, the vast majority of seats in the new Duma were occupied by members of the nobility and the bourgeoisie.
As a result of the elections to the III State Duma, 147 seats went to the right-wing, 54 to the Cadets and parties close to them, 154 to the centrists of the Union of October 17. The Octobrists decided the outcome of any vote. Thus, in the Duma there were two majorities: the Octobrist-Octobrist and the Octobrist-Cadet.
Guchkov, a major Octobrist factory worker, was elected Chairman of Parliament. Agrarian, workers' and national issues remained the main issues in the Duma.
Even in the course of the 1905 revolution, the government developed four bills on workers' issues: on creation of workers' sick-boxes, commissions on resolution of conflicts between representatives of workers and administration, on reduction of working day to 10 hours, on revision of the law penalizing participation in a strike. Their consideration dragged on until 1911, then they were debated in the Duma for almost another year. In the end, most of them were adopted.
By decision of the III State Duma, zemstvos appeared in nine Ukrainian and Belarusian provinces. Several laws concerning Finland were passed. Russian and Finnish citizens living in Finland were equalized in rights. The Finnish treasury was to pay 20 million marks for military service. Finland was deprived of her independent rights with regard to taxes, justice, law and order, and customs; Finnish money was abolished.
During the five years of its existence, the Third Duma had approved 2,197 bills. Civil rights were given to the Old Believers. Women received the right to be sworn attorneys in courts, to open lawyers, etc.
In the post-revolutionary period, the State Duma became the permanent representative body of supreme power. It had a certain legislative power. The social explosion that shook Russia in the early twentieth century, clearly showed the inevitability of serious socio-economic reforms. That is why the major bills of the III Duma included the Stolypin reforms. P.A. Stolypin's activity began in the years of the first revolution, in 1906 he became chairman of the Council of Ministers. He proceeded from the need to "pacify" Russia, as well as to create conditions under which a new revolution would be impossible.
During 1907 - 1909 over 28 thousand people were sentenced on political cases, over 5 thousand of them were executed. The activity of several professional organizations was prohibited, newspapers and magazines of "extremist" persuasion were shut down, the teachers in opposition to the authorities were dismissed from the schools.
The program of reforms outlined by the P.A. Stolypin's government included 43 measures. The government planned: 1) to change the system of local government, based on the estate principle; 2) to cancel the institution of zemstvo governors; 3) in the field of labor legislation, to introduce workers' insurance against accidents, sickness, disability and old age, to limit working hours for the young, elderly, etc.; 4) to introduce universal primary education; 5) to improve the judicial system; 6) to reform the army; 7) to create new ministries (labor, nationalities, social security, local self-government), etc.
The main content of P.A. Stolypin's activity was the transformation of the agrarian sector of the economy. Coming from an old noble family, P.A. Stolypin could not help protecting the interests of the autocracy and sought to adapt it to new conditions. He saw his main task in creating a "great Russia”. The modernization of the country was to take place in three main directions: 1) making the peasants full owners of the land; 2) implementing universal literacy training; and 3) strengthening the growth of industry through the development of the domestic market.
The key place in the reforms was occupied by the agrarian reform, which was adopted on November 9, 1906. The agrarian reform was initiated by the "Decree on supplementing some provisions of the current law concerning peasant landownership and land use" adopted on November 9, 1906. After the draft was discussed by the State Duma and the State Council, the reform received the force of law on July 14, 1910. According to this reform, every peasant received the right to freely leave the community and was obliged to receive land from its funds. He could inherit the land he received, and, in addition, he could buy the landed property of the landlords. By acquiring land allotments, peasants had to switch to bran and khutor (not collective), farming. To preserve the landed property of the landlords and at the same time to eliminate land shortage of the peasants, a land fund was created from the state land, and a large-scale resettlement of peasants began, mainly in Siberia and the Far East, where there were many vacant lands. Considering the need to economically stimulate reforms, the government expanded the powers of the Peasant Bank, which was empowered not only to grant loans, but also to regulate land use.
In the field of industrial policy, P.A. Stolypin paid considerable attention to strengthening national capital while reducing foreign capital, developing profitable foreign trade. All this strengthened the economic position of the Russian state.
P.A. Stolypin's activities and his transformations are quite significant, but at the same time contradictory. Modern historians are unanimous that the main objective of the agrarian reform was the creation of a wide layer of landowners. There is no consensus about whether the new social group was to be prosperous peasants or farmers. This dispute is of a theoretical nature, as in real life everything was more complicated and a new social stratum was not created. The agrarian sector of the country underwent processes of deepening capitalism and modernization of this industry. By 1916 about 2.5 million peasants in the European part of Russia had left the community and taken land ownership (22% of communal households). These were rich peasants who owned a khutor or otrub (10.3% of all peasant households), and poor peasants who later sold their allotments. At the same time rich peasants began to buy up the land of the nobility. In 1905 - 1914 in the hands of the peasants 9.5 million acres of land. About 3 million settlers settled on the new lands in Siberia, Altai, Kazakhstan, Central Asia. However, about 1 million peasants returned to the European part of Russia.
As a result of the agrarian reform, taking into account the khutors and branches established on state and bank lands, individual land tenure covered 15.4 million dessiatinas (11% of the total allotment land). With such a share of farming could not have a significant impact on the overall development of agriculture in the country. The most economically active peasants (8% of the total number of rural workers) were supported. Thus, P.A. Stolypin failed to create a solid foundation of the autocracy in the form of the rural bourgeoisie.
The traditional community was able to withstand an organized powerful onslaught because: 1) the attack on it began in the absence of conditions for its elimination; 2) the agrarian reform was intended to combine tradition with new trends of development, but the interests of the nobility were primarily taken into account; 3) the transformations were carried out by traditional bureaucratic methods, which often turned into violent ones.
The result of agrarian reforms was the growth of agricultural production, it was on the rise. In 1909 - 1913 the average annual harvest of grain reached 4 billion poods (instead of the usual 2 - 2.5 billion poods). Russia exported 750 million rubles worth of bread annually.
There were considerable successes in industry. The economic growth of 1909-1913 covered all spheres of material production. The average annual growth of industrial production reached 9%; the energy capacity of Russian industry increased (by 3 times); industrial production grew by 54%, and the total number of workers increased by 31%. Despite this rise in industrial production, its overall level in 1913 was 2.5 times less than in England, 6 times less than in Germany, and 14 times less than in the United States.
In accordance with the school reform in 1906 - 1914, the budget for public education was tripled, but universal primary education was not introduced. The main mass of the population remained illiterate, which hindered the process of modernization of the country. P.A. Stolypin failed to achieve his main goals. His reforms generated new contradictions in society, which contributed to social tension in the country. Out of 43 projects, only 9 were implemented, as the tsarist regime considered the reforms unnecessary. The assassination of P.A. Stolypin in 1911 stopped the attempts at purposeful renovation and modernization of Russia.
After a period of political lull in 1907 - 1910 in the public life of Russia, revolutionary sentiments revived again. At the same time, the social-democratic movement revived: in 1912 the Bolsheviks created their own party at the Prague conference, finally breaking with the Mensheviks. Socialist ideology and revolutionary slogans increasingly spread in the labor movement. A wave of strikes threatened revolutionary events. The outbreak of World War I interrupted the revolutionary upsurge.
The war broke out in August 1914, lasted 4 years and 3 months, covering 38 countries with a population of over 1.5 billion people. During the war 10 million people died. The First World War was the result of the development of capitalism. Contradictions arose in the world capitalist system, among which the struggle for redistribution of the world was the first place. This struggle was the main economic cause of the war. In addition, there were political reasons: the desire of the bourgeoisie in most countries to suppress the revolutionary movement, to divert the attention of the workers from the internal political crises, to "dumb down" the workers with nationalism, to exterminate their vanguard, to weaken the heat of the national liberation struggle.
In 1879 the Austro-German alliance was concluded, which Italy joined in 1882. Thus, was created the Triple Military Alliance against England and France. In response, England and France in 1904 concluded their own treaty, called "Entente" ("cordial concord"), and began to look for ways to reach an agreement with Russia. In this complex environment, Russia had to choose which side to take, especially since both orientations had their supporters and opponents inside the country. Austrian expansion in the Balkans, supported by Germany, was of particular importance in the choice of foreign policy. This affected the interests of Russia, which considered itself the patroness of all Slavic peoples. It was these events that have strengthened the position of the Russian bourgeoisie, which advocated an alliance with Britain and France: in 1907, Russia joined the Entente (England/France).
By participating in the war, Russia pursued its own goals: to join the territories of Galicia, Ugorska Rus, Bukovina, to eliminate the power of East Prussia, dividing it between Russia and Poland; to seize the Black Sea straits, control the situation in the Balkans, to improve their shaken political and military prestige, caused by defeat in the Russian-Japanese War.
The First World War, by its origin, character and results, had an aggressive character for all its participants, with the exception of Serbia, Montenegro and Belgium, whose peoples were fighting for their freedom and independence.
The Russian army by its size was the largest of the armies of the belligerent countries. For three years 15.5 million soldiers and officers fought for the tsar and the Fatherland, showing courage and heroism in battles. The results of 1914 showed that the Entente had managed to disrupt German plans for warfare, to force the war on two fronts. But already the first months of fighting demonstrated the lack of preparation of Russia for a large-scale war. The army was short of ammunition, equipment and especially heavy artillery. Under these conditions, Germany sought to inflict a decisive defeat on Russia (in 1915) and take it out of the war. Despite the heroism of the Russian army and repeated attempts to go on the offensive, the army began a hard retreat eastward. By the fall of 1915 Poland, Lithuania, almost all of Galicia, and part of Volhynia were lost.
Russian losses amounted to more than 2 million people. But Germany did not achieve capitulation of the Russian army. In August 1915. Nicholas II assumes the functions of Supreme Commander of the army and appoints General M. V. Alexeev as Chief of Staff. In May 1916, the armies of the South-Western Front under the leadership of A. A. Brusilov launched an offensive and dealt the Austrian army a heavy blow. As a result, Austria-Hungary was on the verge of defeat and subsequently never undertook independent military operations. However, the successes achieved were not used in the further conduct of the war.
The war placed its serious demands on industry. In order to mobilize it for the needs of the front, the government set up committees, meetings, etc. In March 1915, a committee for the distribution of fuel, the main food committee, etc. were established. Almost simultaneously with the above-mentioned actions of the government, military-industrial committees began to be formed. There were created 226 committees, the leading role in them belonged to the bourgeoisie. The Russian bourgeoisie was able to attract 1200 private enterprises to arms production. The measures taken made it possible to significantly improve the army's supply. However, the development of industry was one-sided. The enterprises which were not connected with military production were closed, thus accelerating the process of monopolization. The war disrupted the traditional market relations. Some factories were closed: the number of such enterprises by 1915 was 575. The war led to increased government regulation of the economy and curtailment of market relations, which resulted in a drop in industrial production: by 1917 it was 77 percent of the pre-war level.
Transport was in a difficult situation. By 1917 the steam locomotive fleet was reduced by 22%. Transport provided neither military, nor civilian freight. In 1916 was carried out only 50% of food transportations for the army.
Agriculture was in a difficult situation. During the war, 48% of the male population was mobilized from the village to the army. Shortage of workers led to a reduction of cultivated areas, rising prices for processing of agricultural products and increase in retail prices. Livestock farming was severely damaged: the number of livestock, especially horses, declined sharply.
All this had serious consequences. The food problem in the country was exacerbated to an extreme. Hunger was increasingly affecting the army and the civilian population. The situation was greatly exacerbated by the disorder of finances. Commodity value of the ruble by 1917 was 50% of the pre-war one, and the issue of paper money increased sixfold.
Failures at the front, the deteriorating internal situation led to increased social tensions in society, which manifested itself in all spheres. Unity on the basis of patriotic sentiments was replaced by disappointment and dissatisfaction with the policies of the government and monarchy, and as a consequence - a sharp upsurge in political activity of various social groups.
In September 1915, the majority of the deputies of the IV State Duma, led by the Octobrists and the Kadets, formed the Progressive Bloc, headed by P. N. Milyukov. In the Duma it had 268 votes out of 397, i.e., the overwhelming majority. Representatives of the bloc came out with their program. Its main points were: the creation of the Ministry of Public Trust, a broad political amnesty, which included the authorization of trade unions, legalization of the workers' party, weakening of the political regime in Poland, Finland and other national outskirts. This moderate program was rejected by the government; it was unwilling to have any constructive relations with the opposition. Nicholas II tried to restore order by endlessly changing prime ministers and government compositions. In conditions of almost complete isolation of power P. N. Milyukov on December 1, 1916 at a meeting of the Duma accused the government of treason. A.F. Kerensky on behalf of the Workers demanded the resignation of "all ministers who betrayed their country. The tsar made no concessions to the Progressive Bloc even this time.
Under pressure from reactionary elements in the ruling circles hatched a plan to dissolve the State Duma and the establishment of a military dictatorship in the country to suppress the opposition and revolutionary movement. In this situation among the industrialists, financiers, parliamentarians and representatives of the military began to germinate a plan to organize a palace coup. They intended to force Nicholas II to abdicate in favor of his son so that he could rule under the regency of Prince Mikhail Alexandrovich. But even in this case the leaders of the Russian bourgeoisie were indecisive. Fear of revolutionary demonstrations of the masses constrained their actions.
By early 1917, the situation in Russia was the most difficult among the Entente countries. Dissatisfaction with the war enveloped both front and reserve units. Patriotic slogans were becoming unpopular. Socialist party slogans became more attractive. The army was becoming a hotbed of potential instability.
The concentration of all industrial activity on military production further worsened the living conditions of the workers. A crisis began in the transport system, the output of necessary goods declined, the domestic market collapsed, and the country entered a period of inflation, deficits, and rising prices. The living conditions of the workers were worsening catastrophically. The number of strikers grew, the situation worsened in the eastern parts of the country, where mass demonstrations against labor mobilizations began. Czarism found itself in a state of social isolation. This led to a deep national crisis. Its expression was the development of the revolutionary process, which culminated in the events of 1917.
IN EFFECT THAT IS THE END OF THIS BOOK
The following topics are proposed: There are also additional pages on this website where these topics would be discussed. However, the content on those additional pages have been withdrawn (with some kind of excuse)?
The net result is that the 1917 revolution and all subsequent discussions of the Soviet Republic USSR, are missing. What we do have (above) is valuable for the period that it covers.
I HAVE ALL THESE TOPICS BELOW IN ANOTHER SERIES OF 6 (LONG) RUSSIAN BOOKS. All translated and edited by me. Whether I’ll get to post them here, if and when, we’ll have to see.
Topic VIII. Russia during the Revolution and the Civil War........
1. Revolutionary Russia in 1917: Establishment of Soviet power ..........................................................
2. The Civil War and Intervention...........................
Topic IX. The Soviet country in the interwar period (early 1920s - early 1940s).................................
1. implementation of the new economic policy (1921 - 1928). Formation of the USSR..............................
2. Formation of the Soviet socio-economic model in the late 1920s - early 1940s.........
3. Foreign policy of the USSR ....................................
Topic X. The Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War and postwar years (June 1941 - 1953)....
1. The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet people (June 1941 - 1945)...............................................
2. Soviet society in the postwar period (1946 - 1953)..........................................................
Topic XI. Soviet society in 1953 - 1985.........................
1. Foreign policy of the USSR. The confrontation of the two systems......................................................................
2. social and political development of the country..............
3. Social and economic development..........................
Theme XII. The Soviet Union during the years of "perestroika" (1985 - 1991).
1. The USSR and the world. "New political thinking" and its results............................................................
2. Political reforms: plans and results. Collapse of the USSR........................................................
3. Economic Transformations. Collapse of the administrative-bureaucratic system....................................
Theme XIII. Modern Russia (1991 - 2003)...........................
1. Foreign policy of the Russian Federation................
2. Russia's internal political development......................
3. Economic liberalization course and its results....
THE END
.