The uprising of the Decembrists had a great impact on
government policy. Active and purposeful
fight against any manifestations of public discontent
became the most important component of the internal political course
new monarch - Nicholas I(1796-1855).

A necessary condition for strengthening the existing system
emperor considered the strengthening of the personal control of the monarch for
the work of the state apparatus... Nikolaevskoe
reign - the time of the utmost centralization of government
empire, the apogee of autocracy. All levers leading to
movement of a complex state machine, were in
the hands of the monarch.

In an effort to prevent a revolution in Russia, special attention
the emperor paid strengthening the repressive apparatus.
Existing in the country in the first quarter of the 19th century. system
needed political investigation, as the uprising showed
Decembrists, in reorganization. WITH 1826 provide
"the security of the throne and tranquility in the state" became
III Department of His Imperial Majesty's Own
office. Executive body III branch was
Corps of gendarmes, formed in 1827, the country was divided
on the gendarme districts, led by gendarmes
generals. In each province, security issues
state security was in charge of a specially appointed
headquarters officer (senior officer) of the gendarmerie.

The subject of special care of Nicholas I there was a seal and
education... It was here, in his opinion, that
"revolutionary infection". In 1826 a new
censorship charter, which was called by contemporaries
"cast iron charter". Indeed, by its strict standards
he placed a very heavy burden on publishers and authors.
True, in 1828 the new statute somewhat softened the extremes
its "cast iron" predecessor. Still petty
and strict oversight of the seal was maintained.

The same pedantic control was also subjected to educational
establishments... Nicholas I strove to make the school an estate school, and
teaching, in order to suppress the slightest free thought,
lead in a strict Orthodox-monarchical spirit.
By the rescript, published in 1827, the tsar forbade admitting
serfs to secondary and higher educational institutions.
In 1828, a new school charter appeared, rebuilding
middle and lower levels of public education. Between
existing types of schools (one-class parish
school, three-class district school, seven-class
gymnasium) any line of succession was destroyed,
since in each of them only people from
corresponding estates. So, the gymnasium was intended
for the children of nobles. Secondary and lower school, as well as private
educational institutions were under strict supervision
Ministry of Public Education. Close attention
the ruling circles devoted to universities, which and the highest
bureaucracy, and the king himself, not without reason, believed
a breeding ground for "willfulness and freethinking". Charter of 1835
deprived universities of a significant part of their rights and internal
independence. The goals of the ideological struggle against
free thought was formulated in 1833.
Minister of Public Education S.S. Uvarov theory
official nationality based on three principles:
Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality. In the spirit of this
the theory that substantiated the correspondence of existing orders
Russian national tradition, teaching in
educational institutions. The theory of the official nation is actively
was promoted in the press and literature.

It should be noted that, having adopted theory
official nationality, Nicholas I resolutely fought against
any deviations from Orthodoxy. Very cool measures
were taken against the Old Believers, from whom
prayer buildings, real estate, etc. Children
"schismatics" were forcibly enrolled in schools
cantonists. This "protection" of the interests of the official
Orthodoxy, however, did not go to the benefit of the latter.
Orthodox Church under Nicholas I finally
became an integral part of the bureaucratic machine.
The Synod became more and more a "department of the Orthodox
confession ", ruled by a secular official -
Chief Prosecutor. All this could not but undermine the authority
churches.

December 6, 1826 Nicholas I formed
a special secret committee to consider
the situation in the state and develop a program of necessary
reforms. "Committee of December 6, 1826" operated for
three years. He has outlined a rather extensive program
transformations, which provided, in particular, some
limitation of landlord power over the peasants, perestroika
central and local administration in a spirit of principle
separation of powers, etc. Extremely conservative circles
opposed these plans. Uprising in Poland
"cholera riots" of 1830-1831 finally buried
most of the undertakings of this Committee. To provide
legality should have a certain meaning
codification of laws, completed by 1833. Result
this extensive work on the systematization of laws,
appeared after the Cathedral Code of 1649, it became
publication of the "Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire" and
"Code of Laws of the Russian Empire". However, the meaning
which all these measures that streamlined the legislation had,
was small, since the bureaucracy was acting,
absolutely disregarding any legal norms.

In subsequent years of his reign, Nicholas I
repeatedly returned to thought about the need
settlement of the issue of serfdom... Various
solutions to this problem were developed in 8
secret committees, which literally one after another
created by the emperor. The position of Nicholas I himself in
the peasant issue was highly controversial. "Not
doubts that serfdom in its current position has
we have evil ... - said the king once, - but touching
it would now be even more disastrous. "
conditions the practical results of the mentioned
committees were negligible. By no means
any significant change in the position of the serfs,
Nicholas I did not go. Disappointing results were obtained and
carried out in life from the mid-30s of the XIX century. reform
management of state peasants. Summoned
improve their position and realized one of the most
enlightened and capable dignitaries of Nikolaev
reign of P.D. Kiselev, this reform turned around for
government village by strengthening administrative trusteeship with
side of corrupt officials, the growth of arbitrariness
bosses. The bureaucratic apparatus acted on its own
and against the will of the autocrat, guided by their own
interests. Ultimately, therefore, to reform
P.D. Kiselev, the peasantry responded with an outbreak of serious
unrest.

Nicholas I paid great attention to strengthening
positions of the first estate of the empire - the nobility how
the most important pillar of the throne. Gradual economic process
the impoverishment of the nobility made itself felt as the decay
serf system. In this regard, the autocracy
sought to strengthen the position of the upper and middle strata
landlords, sacrificing the interests of the economically weakened, and
therefore seeming and politically unreliable representatives
nobility. Manifesto December 6, 1831 admitted to participation
in elections for noble public positions, only those
landowners who had at least 100
souls of peasants or 3 thousand acres of unsettled land. For
in order to make it difficult to penetrate the noble environment
immigrants from "taxable states", in 1845 was published
military law
hereditary nobility was acquired only upon reaching
senior officer rank, and in the civilian - rank V, and not
Grade VIII, as was the practice before. A kind
a barrier to the increasing harassment of the nobility
constructed the Manifesto on April 10, 1832. He created
institutions of "hereditary honorary citizens" (to them
were large entrepreneurs, scientists, children of personal
nobles, etc.) and "honorary citizens" (lower officials,
graduates of higher educational institutions). They all received
some of the noble privileges - freedom from
corporal punishment, etc. This, according to the ruling circles,
was supposed to reduce the desire for "ignoble" elements
seek to obtain the nobility. To strengthen
material base of the first estate in 1845 Nicholas I
created the institute of reserved hereditary estates
(maiorates). They were not subject to crushing and, making up
property of a noble family, passed by inheritance to
eldest son.

In its economic policy Nicholas I in the famous
degree took into account the interests of the nascent bourgeoisie,
the needs of the country's industrial development. This line found
reflected in protective customs tariffs,
organization of industrial exhibitions, railway
construction. Financial reform 1839-1843 provided
the stability of the ruble and had a positive effect on the development
domestic trade and industry. Workers unrest
at the enterprises forced the autocracy in the 30s - 4Os of the XIX
c, to issue laws regulating labor relations in
industry and somewhat limited arbitrariness
employers.

Protective principles in government policy sharply
intensified in the last years of the reign of Nicholas I.
Revolution of 1848-1849 in Europe frightened the ruling circles
Russian Empire. Persecution of the press and school began.
To strengthen the current censorship,
special committees (under the leadership of A.S. Menshikov - for
observation of journals and D.P. Buturlin - to supervise
"the spirit and direction of all works ...
typography "). Writers whose works
displeased the authorities, punished. One of
leaders of Slavophilism Yu.F. Samarin was imprisoned in
Peter and Paul Fortress for an essay directed against
Baltic Germans, which was read by only 13 relatives
acquaintances of the author. Paid for their works with links
M.E.Saltykov-Shchedrin and I.S. Turgenev. In higher education
institutions curtailed the teaching of philosophy,
was limited to admission to universities that Nicholas I
in general it was not averse to close. Supervision over
professors and students. The fight against the "revolutionary
contagion "became more active. Strong impression on society
routed the Petrashevsky circle.

The results of the thirty-year reign Nicholas I failed
Crimean War of 1853-1856, which showed that during
preserving the existing order, Russia cannot
compete on equal terms with the advanced states of Western
Europe. Progressive economic backwardness
caused a discrepancy in the level of the country's military power
the requirements of the time. The Nikolaev system went bankrupt.
The autocracy, which had reached its climax, was not in
able to provide efficient, appropriate
era of the functioning of the state machine. Possessed
unlimited power, the monarch could not cope with
corruption and incompetence of the bureaucracy. From society
the bureaucratic apparatus was not dependent, and control from above,
despite all the efforts of Nicholas I, he did not bring any
effect. “Take a look at the annual reports,” wrote in 1855.
the governor of Courland, P.A. Valuev, everything has been done everywhere
possible, successes have been gained everywhere ... Look at the case,
peer at it, separate the essence from the paper
shell ... and rarely, where there is a strong fruitful
benefit. Above shine, below rot. "In 1855, in the setting
military setbacks Nicholas I died. Obvious inconsistency
his course, put on the agenda the issue of
reforms that can renew the country, overcome
Russia's lag behind the leading powers.

In the lesson on the topic "Nicholas I. Domestic policy in 1825-1855." lists the factors that influenced the formation of the personality of Nicholas I. The main goal of his policy is determined - to prevent an uprising in Russia. Freethinking in Russia is completely banned, Nicholas I dreams of eliminating serfdom, weakening it, but does not dare to abolish it. The reasons for this indecision of the emperor are revealed. The financial reform carried out by Nicholas I is considered. The construction of railways and highways contributes to the economic recovery. The contradictory development of culture and education in the country is emphasized.

Preliminary remarks

It must be said that for very many years in historical science there has been an extremely negative image of Nicholas I himself (Fig. 2) and his thirty-year reign, which, with the light hand of Academician A.Ye. Presnyakov, called "the apogee of autocracy."

Of course, Nicholas I was not an inborn reactionary and, being an intelligent person, he perfectly understood the need for changes in the economic and political structure of the country. But, being a military man to the marrow of his bones, he tried to solve all problems by militarizing the state system, rigid political centralization and regulation of all aspects of the country's social life. It is no coincidence that almost all of its ministers and governors had the rank of general and admiral - A.Kh. Benckendorf (Fig. 1), A.N. Chernyshev, P.D. Kiselev, I.I. Dibich, P.I. Paskevich, I. V. Vasilchikov, A.S. Shishkov, N.A. Protasov and many others. In addition, among the numerous cohort of Nikolaev dignitaries, the Baltic Germans A.Kh. Benckendorf, V.F. Adlerberg, K.V. Nesselrode, L.V. Dubelt, P.A. Kleinmichel, E.F. Kankrin and others, who, according to Nicholas I himself, unlike the Russian nobles, served not the state, but the sovereign.

Rice. 1. Benckendorf ()

According to a number of historians (A. Kornilov), in domestic policy Nicholas I was guided by two fundamental Karamzin ideas, which he set out in his note "On Ancient and New Russia": a) autocracy is the most important element of the stable functioning of the state; b) the main concern of the monarch is selfless service to the interests of the state and society.

A distinctive feature of the Nikolaev government was the colossal growth of the bureaucratic apparatus in the center and at the local level. So, according to a number of historians (P. Zayonchkovsky, L. Shepelev), only in the first half of the 19th century. the number of officials at all levels has grown more than sixfold. However, one cannot assess this fact as negatively as was done in Soviet historiography, for there were good reasons for that. In particular, according to Academician S. Platonov, after the uprising of the Decembrists, Nicholas I completely lost confidence in the upper strata of the nobility. The emperor now saw the main support of autocracy only in the bureaucratic bureaucracy, so he strove to rely on precisely that part of the nobility for which the state service was the only source of income. It is no coincidence that it was under Nicholas I that a class of hereditary officials began to form, for whom civil service became a profession (Fig. 3).

Rice. 2. Nicholas I ()

In parallel with the strengthening of the state and police apparatus of power, Nicholas I began to gradually concentrate in his hands the solution of almost all more or less important issues. Quite often, when deciding one or another important issue, numerous Secret Committees and Commissions were established, which were directly subordinate to the emperor and constantly replaced many ministries and departments, including the State Council and the Senate. It was these authorities, which included very few of the highest dignitaries of the empire - A. Golitsyn, M. Speransky, P. Kiselev, A. Chernyshev, I. Vasilchikov, M. Korf and others - that were endowed with huge, including legislative, powers and exercised the operational leadership of the country.

Rice. 3. Officials of "Nikolaev Russia")

But most vividly, the regime of personal power was embodied in His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery, which arose during the time of Paul I in 1797 G. Then, under Alexander I in 1812 g. it turned into an office for the consideration of petitions for the highest name. In those years, Count A. Arakcheev held the post of chief of the office, and she (the office) already had considerable powers of power. Almost immediately after accession to the throne, in January 1826, Nicholas I significantly expanded the functions of the personal office, giving it the importance of the highest state body of the Russian Empire. Within the Imperial Chancellery in first half of 1826 three special departments were created:

Section I, headed by the State Secretary of the Emperor A.S. Taneyev, was in charge of the selection and placement of personnel in the central bodies of executive power, supervised the activities of all ministries, as well as was engaged in rank-making, preparation of all imperial Manifestos and Decrees, and control over their implementation.

Section II, headed by another state secretary of the emperor, M.A. Balugyansky, fully focused on the codification of a dilapidated legislative system and the creation of a new Code of Laws of the Russian Empire.

Section III, which was headed by a personal friend of the emperor, General A. Benckendorff, and after his death - General A.F. Orlov, fully focused on political investigations at home and abroad. Initially, the basis of this Department was the Special Chancellery of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and then, in 1827, the Corps of Gendarmes was created, headed by General L.V. Dubelt, who made up the armed and operational support of the III Division.

Stating the fact that Nicholas I strove to preserve and strengthen the autocratic-serf system through strengthening the bureaucratic and police apparatus of power, we must admit that in a number of cases he tried to solve the country's most acute internal political problems through the mechanism of reforms. It was this view of the domestic policy of Nicholas I that was characteristic of all major pre-revolutionary historians, in particular V. Klyuchevsky, A. Kizivetter and S. Platonov. In Soviet historical science, starting with the work of A. Presnyakov "The Apogee of Autocracy" (1927), special emphasis was placed on the reactionary nature of the Nikolaev regime. At the same time, a number of modern historians (N. Troitsky) rightly say that, in their meaning and origin, the reforms of Nicholas I differed significantly from previous and forthcoming reforms. If Alexander I maneuvered between the new and the old, and Alexander II yielded to the pressure of the new, then Nicholas I strengthened the old in order to more successfully resist the new.

Rice. 4. The first railway in Russia ()

Reforms of Nicholas I

a) The Secret Committee of V.P. Kochubei and his reform projects (1826-1832)

December 6, 1826 Nicholas I formed the First Secret Committee, which was supposed to sort out all the papers of Alexander I and determine which projects of state reforms could be taken by the sovereign as a basis for carrying out the reform policy. The formal head of this Committee was the Chairman of the State Council, Count V.P. Kochubei, and M.M. Speransky, who long ago shook the dust of liberalism from his feet and became a convinced monarchist. During the existence of this Committee (December 1826 - March 1832), 173 official meetings were held, at which only two serious reform projects were born.

The first was the project of the estate reform, according to which it was supposed to abolish the Peter's "Table of Ranks", which gave the right to military and civilian ranks to receive the nobility in the order of length of service. The committee proposed to establish such a procedure in which the nobility would be acquired only by birthright, or by "the highest award."

At the same time, in order to somehow encourage government officials and the emerging bourgeois class, the Committee proposed to create new classes for domestic bureaucrats and merchants - "bureaucratic" and "eminent" citizens, who, like nobles, would be exempt from poll tax, recruiting duty and corporal punishment.

The second project involved a new administrative reform. According to the project, the State Council was freed from a pile of administrative and judicial cases and retained only legislative functions. The Senate was divided into two independent institutions: the Governing Senate, consisting of all ministers, became the highest body of executive power, and the Judicial Senate - the highest body of state justice.

Both projects did not in any way undermine the autocratic system, and, nevertheless, under the influence of the European revolution and the Polish events of 1830-1831. Nicholas I slid the first project into the back burner and buried the second forever.

b) Codification of the laws of M.M. Speransky (1826-1832)

January 31, 1826 Within the framework of the Imperial Chancellery, the II Branch was created, which was entrusted with the task of reforming all legislation. The official head of the Department was Professor of St. Petersburg University M.A. Balugiansky, who taught the future emperor legal sciences, but all the real work on the codification of legislation was carried out by his deputy, M. Speransky.

In the summer of 1826 M. Speransky sent four memos to the emperor with his proposals for drawing up a new Code of Laws. According to this plan, codification was to take place in three stages: 1. Initially, it was planned to collect and publish in chronological order all legislative acts, starting with the "Cathedral Code" of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich to the end of the reign of Alexander I. 2. At the second stage, it was planned to publish the Code of laws in force. arranged in a subject-systematic order. 3. At the third stage, it was envisaged to draw up and publish a new Code of Laws systematized by legal branches.

At the first stage of the codification reform (1828-1830) almost 31 thousand legislative acts were published in 1649-1825, which were included in the 45-volume first "Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire." At the same time, 6 volumes of the second "Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire" were published, which included legislative acts issued under Nicholas I.

At the second stage of the codification reform (1830-1832) the 15-volume Code of Laws of the Russian Empire was prepared and published, which was a systematized (by branches of law) set of current legislation of 40 thousand articles. In 1-3 volumes, the main laws were set out that determine the limits of competence and the procedure for the office work of all government agencies and provincial offices. Volumes 4-8 contained laws on government duties, income and property. In the 9th volume, all the laws on estates were published, in the 10th volume - the civil and boundary laws. Volumes 11-14 contained police (administrative) laws, and volume 15 published criminal legislation.

January 19, 1833 The Code of Laws of the Russian Empire was officially approved at a meeting of the State Council and came into force.

c) Nicholas' estate reformI (1832-1845)

After completing work on the codification of laws, Nicholas I returned to the estate projects of the Secret Committee of Count V. Kochubei. Initially, in 1832, an imperial decree was issued, according to which the middle class of "honorary citizens" of two degrees was established - "hereditary honorary citizens", where the descendants of personal noblemen and guild merchants were enrolled, and "personal honorary citizens" for officials IV -X grades and graduates of higher educational institutions.

Then, in 1845 Another Decree was issued, directly related to the project of the estate reform of the Secret Committee. Nicholas I did not dare to cancel Peter's "Table of Ranks", but, in accordance with his Decree, the ranks that were required to receive the nobility by length of service were significantly increased. Now the hereditary nobility was provided to civilian ranks with the V (state councilor), and not with the VIII (collegiate assessor) class, but the military, respectively, with the VI (colonel), and not with the XIV (ensign) class. Personal nobility for both civil and military ranks was established from the IX (titular adviser, captain), and not from the XIV class, as before.

d) The peasant question and the reform of P.D. Kiseleva (1837-1841)

In the second quarter of the XIX century. the peasant question still remained a headache for the tsarist government. Recognizing that serfdom is the powder magazine of the entire state, Nicholas I believed that its abolition could lead to even more dangerous social cataclysms than those that shook Russia during his reign. Therefore, in the peasant question, the Nikolaev administration limited itself only to palliative measures aimed at somewhat softening the severity of social relations in the countryside.

To discuss the peasant question in 1828-1849 nine Secret Committees were created, in the depths of which more than 100 legislative acts were discussed and adopted to limit the power of landowners over serfs. For example, in accordance with these Decrees, landlords were prohibited from giving their peasants to factories (1827), exiling them to Siberia (1828), transferring serfs to the category of household servants and paying off their debts (1833), selling peasants to retail (1841) etc. However, the real significance of these decrees and the concrete results of their application turned out to be negligible: the landowners simply ignored these legislative acts, many of which were of a recommendatory nature.

The only attempt at a serious solution to the peasant question was the reform of the state village, carried out by General P.D. Kiselev in 1837-1841

To prepare a draft reform of the state village in April 1836 in the bowels of Own E.I. In the Chancellery, a special V Section was created, which was headed by Adjutant General P. Kiselev. Agreeing with the personal instructions of Nicholas I and his own vision of this issue, he considered that in order to heal the ailments of the state-owned village, it was enough to create a good administration that could manage it carefully and prudently. That is why at the first stage of the reform, in 1837, the state-owned village was removed from the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance and transferred to the management of the Ministry of State Property, the first head of which was General P. Kiselev himself, who held this post until 1856.

Then, in 1838-1839, for the management of the state village in the localities, treasury chambers in the provinces and treasury district administrations in the counties were created. And only after that, in 1840-1841, the reform reached the volosts and villages, where several governing bodies were created at once: volost and village gatherings, boards and reprisals.

After the completion of this reform, the government once again tackled the problem of landlord (landlord) peasants, and soon the Decree "On Obliged Peasants" (April1842), developed also on the initiative of P. Kiselev.

The essence of this Decree was as follows: each landowner, at his own discretion, could grant his freedom to his serfs, but without the right to sell them the ownership of their own allotments of land. All land remained the property of the landowners, and the peasants received only the right to use this land on a lease basis. For the possession of their own allotments of land, they were obliged, as before, to bear corvee and quitrent. However, according to the agreement that the peasant entered into with the landowner, the latter did not have the right: a) to increase the size of the corvee and dues and b) to select or reduce the land allotment agreed upon by mutual agreement.

According to a number of historians (N. Troitsky, V. Fedorov), the Decree "On Obliged Peasants" was a step backward compared to the Decree "On Free Farmers", since that legislative act broke off feudal relations between landowners and serfs, and the new law preserved their.

e) Financial reform E.F. Kankrina (1839-1843)

An active foreign policy and a constant increase in government spending on the maintenance of the state apparatus and the army caused an acute financial crisis in the country: the expenditure side of the state budget was almost one and a half times higher than its revenue side. The result of this policy was the constant devaluation of the banknote ruble in relation to the silver ruble, and to late 1830s its real value was only 25% of the value of a silver ruble.

Rice. 5. Credit note after the Kankrin reform ()

In order to prevent the financial collapse of the state, at the suggestion of the long-term Minister of Finance Yegor Frantsevich Kankrin, it was decided to carry out a monetary reform. At the first stage of the reform, in 1839 g., government credit notes were introduced (Fig. 5), which were equated to the silver ruble and could be freely exchanged for it. Then, after the accumulation of the necessary reserves of precious metals, the second stage of the reform was carried out. . Since June 1843 g. the exchange of all banknotes in circulation for state credit notes began at the rate of one credit ruble for three and a half banknotes. Thus, E. Kankrin's monetary reform significantly strengthened the country's financial system, but it was not possible to completely overcome the financial crisis, since the government continued to pursue the previous budgetary policy.

Bibliography

1. Vyskochkov V.L. Emperor Nicholas I: a man and a sovereign. - SPb, 2001.
2. Druzhinin N.M. State peasants and the reform of P.D. Kiselev. - M., 1958.
3. Zayonchkovsky P.K. The government apparatus of autocratic Russia in the 19th century - M., 1978.
4. Eroshkin N.P. Feudal autocracy and its political institutions. - M., 1981.
5. A.A. Kornilov A course in the history of Russia in the 19th century. - M., 1993.
6. Mironenko S.V. Pages of the secret history of autocracy. - M., 1990.
7. Presnyakov A.E. Russian autocrats. - M., 1990.
8. Pushkarev S.G. History of Russia in the 19th century. - M., 2003.
9. Troitsky N.A. Russia in the 19th century. - M., 1999.
10. Shepelev L.E. The apparatus of power in Russia. The era of Alexander I and Nicholas I. - St. Petersburg, 2007.

1. Omop.su ().
2. Rusizn.ru ().
3. EncVclopaedia-russia.ru ().
4. Bibliotekar.ru ().
5. Hrono.ru ().

Therefore, he could not count on the throne, which determined the direction of his upbringing and education. From an early age he was fond of military affairs, especially its outer side, and was preparing for a military career.

In 1817, Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich married the daughter of the Prussian king, in Orthodoxy named Alexandra Feodorovna. They had 7 children, the eldest of whom was the future Emperor Alexander II.

In 1819, Emperor Alexander I informed Nicholas about the intention of their brother Konstantin Pavlovich to renounce his right of succession to the throne, and, accordingly, power would have to pass to Nicholas. In 1823, Alexander I issued a Manifesto proclaiming Nikolai Pavlovich the heir to the throne. The manifesto was a family secret and was never published. Therefore, after the sudden death of Alexander I in 1825, confusion arose with the accession to the throne of a new monarch.

On December 14, 1825, the oath was appointed to the new emperor Nicholas I Pavlovich. On the same day, the "Decembrists" planned an uprising with the aim of overthrowing autocracy and demanding to sign a "Manifesto to the Russian people", which proclaimed civil liberties. Informed Nikolai moved the oath to December 13, and the uprising was suppressed.

Domestic policy of Nicholas I

From the very beginning of his reign, Nicholas I declared the need for reforms and created a "committee on December 6, 1826" to prepare the reforms. A large role in the state began to play "His Majesty's Own Chancellery", which was constantly expanding with the creation of many departments.

Nicholas I instructed a special commission under the leadership of M.M. Speransky to develop a new Code of Laws of the Russian Empire. By 1833, two editions were printed: "The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire", starting with the Cathedral Code of 1649 and up to the last decree of Alexander I, and "The Code of Laws of the Russian Empire". The codification of laws carried out under Nicholas I streamlined Russian legislation, facilitated the conduct of legal practice, but did not bring about changes in the political and social structure of Russia.

Emperor Nicholas I, in his spirit, was an autocrat and an ardent opponent of the introduction of a constitution in the country and liberal reforms. In his opinion, society should live and act like a good army, regulated and by law. The militarization of the state apparatus under the auspices of the monarch is a characteristic feature of the political regime of Nicholas I.

He was extremely suspicious of public opinion, literature, art, education fell under the censorship, and measures were taken to restrict periodicals. As a national dignity, official propaganda began to extol like-mindedness in Russia. The idea of ​​"The people and the tsar are one" was dominant in the education system in Russia under Nicholas I.

According to the "theory of official nationality" developed by S.S. Uvarov, Russia has its own way of development, does not need the influence of the West and should be isolated from the world community. Under Nicholas I, the Russian Empire was called the "gendarme of Europe" for keeping the peace in European countries from revolutionary uprisings.

In social policy, Nicholas I emphasized the strengthening of the estate system. To protect the nobility from "littering", the "December 6 Committee" proposed to establish an order according to which the nobility was acquired only by inheritance. And for service people to create new classes - "bureaucratic", "eminent", "honorable" citizens. In 1845, the emperor issued the "Decree on entitlements" (the indivisibility of noble estates during inheritance).

Serfdom under Nicholas I enjoyed the support of the state, and the tsar signed a manifesto in which he stated that there would be no changes in the position of serfs. But Nicholas I was not a supporter of serfdom and secretly prepared materials on the peasant question in order to make things easier for his followers.

Foreign policy of Nicholas I

The most important aspects of foreign policy during the reign of Nicholas I were the return to the principles of the Holy Alliance (Russia's struggle against revolutionary movements in Europe) and the Eastern question. Russia under Nicholas I participated in the Caucasian War (1817-1864), the Russian-Persian War (1826-1828), the Russian-Turkish War (1828-1829), as a result of which Russia annexed the eastern part of Armenia , the entire Caucasus, received the eastern coast of the Black Sea.

During the reign of Nicholas I, the most memorable was the Crimean War of 1853-1856. Russia was forced to fight against Turkey, England, France. During the siege of Sevastopol, Nicholas I was defeated in the war and lost the right to have a naval base on the Black Sea.

The unsuccessful war showed the backwardness of Russia from the advanced European countries and how unviable the conservative modernization of the empire turned out to be.

Nicholas I died on February 18, 1855. Summing up the results of the reign of Nicholas I, historians call his era the most unfavorable in the history of Russia, since the Time of Troubles.

The reign of Nicholas I: 1825-1855.

Nikolai got the nickname " gendarme of Europe "for the suppression of the revolution in Hungary (at that time it was part of the Austrian Empire) in 1849.

Main directions of domestic policy .

1.Suppression of the Decembrist uprising and reprisals against its participants.

The uprising of the Decembrists took place on December 14, 1825, on the day of the oath of allegiance to Nicholas by the senators and the guards. On the day of the uprising, the new emperor had to endure many unpleasant minutes, there was a real threat of his arrest or murder. The shock for the emperor was the fact that the Decembrists' organization included representatives of aristocratic families close to the throne. The commission of inquiry on the case of the Decembrists worked for about six months. 121 people were convicted in the case. The convicts were divided into several categories, depending on the severity of the guilt and punishment. category meant eternal hard labor, 5 people outside the categories were subject to the death penalty. According to the Cathedral Code of 1649, crimes against the tsar were punishable by death by quartering. Nicholas "took pity" on the "sovereign's criminals", replacing quartering by hanging. P. Pestel, K. Ryleev, P. Kakhovsky, S. Muraviev-Apostol and M. Bestuzhev-Ryumin were executed on the night of July 13, 1926 at the crown of the Peter and Paul Fortress.

The severity of the guilt of the defendants in the case of the members of the organization was often determined not by their activities, but by their behavior during the investigation. Nikolai was often present during interrogations, sometimes openly, more often being behind a screen. Numerous evidences have survived that his personal impressions, attitude towards one or another person under investigation predetermined the severity of his detention in the fortress, the possibility of transferring parcels and meetings with loved ones, as well as determining the degree of his guilt. The Decembrists sentenced to hard labor were put through the procedure of civil execution with stripping off epaulettes and breaking a sword over their heads, and then were sent to Siberia in escort. And if it were not for the dedication of the wives of the Decembrists, who achieved permission to follow their husbands, they probably would have perished in hard labor, since Nicholas did not agree to amnesty until the end of his reign. Enduring many hardships, abandoning noble privileges, the wives of the Decembrists aroused the respect of the local administration, and sometimes fears of discontent from their influential metropolitan relatives, which made them monitor the conditions of detention of the convicts. Three brave women who were the first to follow their husbands to Siberia became the heroines of A. Nekrasov's poem "Russian women". These are E.I. Trubetskaya (Princess Trubetskaya was the daughter of Count Laval and a friend of the Empress), M.N. Volkonskaya (daughter of General N.N. Raevsky, muse of A.S. Pushkin), A.G. Muravyov (brought a message to Siberia A.S. Pushkina "In the depths of Siberian ores", died of pneumonia at the age of 28).

Regardless of the nature of their convictions and activities, the participants in the Decembrist movement showed loyalty to the moral duty of serving their neighbors. The authorities showed cruelty and bias: people were shot with canister, curious spectators were killed or wounded, the severity of punishment was determined subjectively and did not always correspond to the degree of guilt.

In the future, the tsar often turned to the materials of the investigation file, some extracts were constantly in his desk, since during interrogations the Decembrists raised the most pressing issues of the country's life. The feelings of uncertainty and fear experienced on the day of the uprising forced Nicholas to introduce harsh protective measures.

2. Attempts to solve the peasant question.

Decree "on obliged peasants" 1842 was not binding, he allowed the landowners, giving their peasants personal freedom, to switch to contractual relations with them regarding the land and its cultivation. In fact, the decree is identical to the manifesto of Alexander I "on free farmers".

Reform of the management of state peasants (the so-called Kiselev's reform). The preparation of the reform was carried out by the Fifth Section of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery. To carry out the reform in 1837, the Ministry of State Property was created under the leadership of P.D. Kiselev. The reform provided for a new management system and improvement of the life and life of state peasants, as well as the creation of conditions for the activities of the bodies of volost and uyezd peasant self-government. The new tax system took into account the profitability of peasant farms; state chambers specially created in the provinces, according to Kiselev, had to be well versed in the life of peasants and competently manage districts that consisted of several counties inhabited by state peasants. Provided for the introduction of a special court for small peasant offenses. Medical and educational institutions were opened in many districts. New management bodies tried to introduce new advanced methods of management, which did not always meet the understanding of the peasants. The peasants were especially dissatisfied with the obligatory planting of potatoes. The so-called public plowing, that is, the obligatory sowing of potatoes in case of famine, was perceived by the peasants as state corvee, which provoked serious resistance, up to and including "potato riots", suppressed by force.

In general, the reform led to an improvement in the life and life of state peasants. Their dissatisfaction was caused by coercive administrative measures, that is, subjective factors.

As for the reaction of the landowners, who, according to the intentions of Count Kiselev, should have been imbued with a desire for changes in the position of serfs, this did not happen. On the contrary, they began to express fears.

Inventory reform. 1847-1848. The reform concerned the relationship between nobles and serfs in Western Ukraine. Have been compiled inventory books, which included the records of the feudal rent of the peasants: the size of the quitrent and corvee. Fixing the rent meant that the landlords had no right to increase it. The reform was carried out with the consent of the landowners and could, as under Alexander I in the Baltic States, become the first step to facilitate and abolish serfdom in the region.

3. Financial reform.

Conducted in 1839-1842 under the leadership of the Minister of Finance E.F. Kankrin. The reform was

caused, in particular, by the consequences of Napoleon's economic war, whose Great Army, among other things, flooded Russia with counterfeit banknotes. All banknotes were to be exchanged for state credit notes, exchanged for silver. According to the decree, the silver ruble became the main means of payment, and its firm exchange rate was established in relation to banknotes.

The reform strengthened the country's financial system and contributed to its economic stabilization.

4. Creation of a new code of laws or codification.

The codification or thematic streamlining of existing Russian laws was carried out under the leadership of M.M. Speransky on behalf of Nicholas I. To carry out this difficult reform, the Second Department of His Imperial Majesty's Chancellery was created, which was headed by Speransky. The reform consisted of two main stages. It was first published in 1830 a complete (45-volume) collection of laws of the Russian Empire, created from the Cathedral Code of 1649 to 1826. Then the Code of Laws was prepared and published - a thematically ordered collection, brought in line with modern norms of Russian law and the Russian language operating laws of the Russian Empire. In terms of volume and content, this is a grandiose work, only the organizational talent and efficiency of M.M. Speransky, his brilliant ability to formulate allowed this work to be carried out. In preparing the codification, Speransky analyzed the system of French, German and English legislation in search of the best option and settled on the Franco-German legal system. 15-volume Code of Laws was published in 1833 year.

5. Measures of consistent conservatism, protective measures to protect the existing system.

Creation His Third Imperial Majesty's Chancellery in 1826, the third department under the leadership of Count Benckendorff served as a political police. Constant supervision, perlustration of letters, denunciations - used means of activity. Subordinated to the department A separate corps of gendarmes commanded by Count Dubelt.

Tough censorship charter. The new censorship rules of 1826 and 1828 introduced strict prior censorship on any print publication.

Ideology. "The theory of the official nationality" - a system of views that has taken root in public consciousness. Its core was the formula of the Minister of Education, Count SS Uvarov: "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality." Orthodoxy is the best religion, autocracy is the best system for Russia. Nationality means a special relationship between the king and the people - the relationship of a strict but loving father and children obedient to his will. Ideology was introduced through the education system, literature and art. Its apologists (devoted supporters) are the poet Kukolnik, the writers Bulgarin and Grech, the author of historical novels Zagoskin.

The results of the domestic policy of Nicholas I.

1. Undoubtedly, the reform of the management of state peasants, financial reform and the systematization of Russian legislation are the most significant and successful, which had positive results, measures of Nicholas's internal policy and talented performers.

2. Conservative direction led, rather, to negative results. The environment of denunciation, surveillance, control negatively affected the life and work of the most prominent people of the time, including the great Russian poets A.S. Pushkin, M.Yu. Lermontov.

The harsh police measures did not lead to the abandonment of the social movement, an indicator of which is student circles, the Petrashevsky society. Severe punishments, not corresponding to the degree of guilt, used by the authorities, caused a significant part of the educated population to be rejected from the existing socio-political system.

3. Bureaucratization of the state apparatus, an increase in the number of officials - another negative consequence of Nikolai's internal policy. In order to centralize power and personal control, he created new state structures, branches of the Imperial Majesty's own chancellery, duplicating the work of other governing bodies. The office itself, under the supervision of talented leaders, worked efficiently. For example, the Second Branch under the leadership of Speransky, consisting of only 4 officials and 2 assistants, in just 8 months compiled a chronological register of thousands of laws stored in various archives. But numerous branches of various departments with corrupt officials are the theme of many literary works. In general, the number of officials in Russia under Nicholas I increased to 60 thousand people. All of them, by order of the king, were dressed in a special (each unit) uniform, but this did not contribute to the effectiveness of their activities.

The main disadvantage of the domestic policy of Nicholas (like Alexander I) is the refusal to abolish serfdom, which hindered the development of the country in all respects, leading to low effective labor, negatively affecting its defense capability, which was shown by the Crimean War. But the will of the tsar was not enough to abolish serfdom, and most of the Russian nobles were still not ready for this.

History of Russia [Study Guide] Authors

6.7. Domestic policy of Nicholas I

Unlike Alexander I, Nicholas I came to the throne in unfavorable social conditions. The interregnum was a kind of crisis of power, and this forced Nicholas I to quickly orient himself in the situation and restore order in the country with a firm hand.

The personal qualities of the emperor also contributed to this. Sufficiently educated, strong-willed, pragmatic, he immediately took an active position in public affairs. The new autocrat correctly assessed the internal political situation in Russia, which, undoubtedly, was the reason for the Decembrists' speech.

The state activity of Nicholas I, so to speak, was fully based on the principles of noble conservatism. The historian V.O. Klyuchevsky described the policy of the emperor as follows: “not to change anything, but only to maintain the existing order, fill in the gaps, repair the dilapidated state with the help of practical legislation and do all this without any participation of society”.

Nikolai closed himself on the solution of all large and small state issues, considering his entourage only as executors. He strove to impart military harmony and severity to the entire command and control system.

Centralization of management

Nicholas I considered the strengthening of autocratic power to be the main condition for the life of the state. To this end, he pursued a policy of police-bureaucratic centralization of government. In parallel with the already established structure of the supreme governing bodies, His Imperial Majesty's own Chancellery, consisting of six departments, began to develop and transform.

The Chancellery was created during the war of 1812. It did not have an official status as a governing body. Rather, it was a tribute to Alexander's public policy; her education was also caused by the need to process a huge number of petitions, complaints and other materials received in the name of the king. A. A. Arakcheev was at the head of the Chancellery.

At the beginning of his reign, Nicholas I, as a concession to public opinion, removed Arakcheev, as well as some other most odious figures, from public affairs, and in 1826 the former Chancellery became the I branch of the newly formed Private Chancellery of His Imperial Majesty. In 1826, the II department was established, which was engaged in the codification of laws, and the III department, which became the body of political supervision and investigation in Russia. General A. H. Benckendorff, chief of the gendarme corps, created in 1827, became the head of the III department.

The responsibilities of Section III were extremely broad: collecting information about state criminals, the moods of various strata of the population, monitoring unreliable persons and foreign nationals in Russia, monitoring periodicals and perluting private correspondence, collecting statistical information and monitoring the actions of the local administration.

Codification of laws

Nicholas I was fundamentally opposed to any constitution, but actively sought to streamline the legislative framework of the state, believing that the autocrat was the main guarantor of legality.

The work on the codification of Russian laws was headed by M. M. Speransky. He saw his task, firstly, in the publication of all existing laws, starting from the "Cathedral Code" by Alexei Mikhailovich in 1649 to 1825; secondly, in the compilation of the Code of laws in force, systematized by areas of law and interpreted accordingly, but without making corrections and additions. The final stage of the work was to be the publication of the new Code - with additions and corrections in relation to the existing legal practice and in accordance with the needs of the state.

In total, during 1828-1830. 45 volumes of the first Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire were published. At the same time, the second Complete Collection was published, which included laws adopted during the reign of Nicholas I.

Subsequently, volumes of the second collection began to appear annually; its publication continued until 1881 (55 volumes). The third Complete Collection of Laws, which consisted of 33 volumes and covered the legislative period from 1881 to 1913, was published already in the late 19th - early 20th centuries.

In parallel with the Complete Collection of Laws, the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire was being prepared, which incorporated the current legislative acts and court decisions, which became precedents in their application. Moreover, all corrections and additions were made only with the approval of the emperor. On January 19, 1833, a discussion of the Code of Laws took place in the State Council. Nicholas I, in his speech at the meeting, especially emphasized the outstanding role of M. M. Speransky in the codification of Russian legislation and entrusted him with the ribbon of the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called, which he had taken off as a reward.

The peasant question

Codification, having streamlined Russian legislation, did not in any way change the political and class essence of the state.

In his domestic policy, Nicholas I was quite clearly aware of the need to resolve the most important social issue - the peasant one. The severity of the problem and its principled discussion led to the organization of secret committees and closed hearings.

The committees outlined only political approaches to solving the peasant question, which were reflected in a number of legislative acts (in total, more than 100 of them were issued). Thus, the law of 1827 forbade landowners to sell peasants without land or only land without peasants. In 1833, a decree was issued prohibiting the public trade in serfs; it was forbidden to pay them off on account of debts, to transfer peasants to courtyards, depriving them of allotments.

In the secret committee of 1839, the leading role was played by the supporter of moderate reforms, Minister of State Property P. D. Kiselev. He considered it necessary to regulate relations between peasants and landowners, and thereby take a step towards the emancipation of the peasants. The result of the committee's work was the publication in 1842 of the decree "On obliged peasants." According to the decree, the landowner could provide the peasant with personal freedom and land allotment, but not for property, but only for use. The peasant was obliged to bear duties, in fact, the same corvee and quitrent, of a strictly fixed size. The law did not establish any norms on this score - everything depended on the will of the landowner. The decree on obligated peasants did not bring real results - the peasants did not agree to the dubious conditions of "will", which did not give them either land or freedom.

The government acted more decisively in the western provinces - in Lithuania, Belarus, in Western Ukraine. Here a policy was openly pursued aimed at weakening the landlord bondage in relation to the serfs. In the second half of the 40s. In the western provinces, the so-called inventory reform was carried out: descriptions ("inventories") of landowners' estates were compiled, the size of peasant allotments was fixed, duties were regulated (mainly corvee days).

Reform of Count P. D. Kiselev

By the beginning of the 30s. the income received by the treasury from the farms of the state peasants fell noticeably. The government of Nicholas I saw in improving their economic situation the key to solving the problem of serfdom. According to V.O. Klyuchevsky, the government preferred "to give the state peasants such a device that, while raising their well-being, would at the same time serve as a model for the future organization of serfs."

In 1835, specifically for the development of a reform of the management of state peasants, the 5th department of His Imperial Majesty's Chancellery was formed. Count PD Kiselev was appointed head of the department. After conducting a survey of the state of affairs in the state village, he presented to Nicholas I a draft of the main directions of transformations, which were approved.

The state peasants were transferred from the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance to the jurisdiction of the newly established Ministry of State Property in 1837, headed by PD Kiselev. This ministry was supposed to pursue a policy of trusteeship in relation to state peasants. Land-scarce peasants were given land from the state reserve, hayfields and forest lands were cut to them. More than 200 thousand peasants were relocated in an organized manner to the provinces with fertile lands.

Credit banks were created in large villages, and loans were issued to those in need on preferential terms. In case of crop failures, "bread shops" were opened. Schools, rural hospitals, veterinary centers, "exemplary" farms were organized, popular literature was published that promoted advanced farming methods. The Ministry of State Property had the right to buy, at the expense of the treasury, estates of the nobility, together with the peasants, who passed into the category of state ones.

In 1838, the Decree "On the management of state property in the provinces" was issued. A multi-stage management system was created: rural gathering - parish - district - province. The volost gathering was made up of delegates from householders and elected a volost board for three years (a “volost head” and two assessors). Several volosts made up the district.

The reform of the management of state peasants and property retained communal land ownership with periodic redistribution of land. The rent was also still spread out "heart to heart", but its size was determined by the profitability of peasant allotments.

Thus, the nature of the reform was contradictory. On the one hand, it contributed to the development of rural productive forces, on the other, it increased the tax oppression and bureaucratic tutelage over the peasants, which caused peasant unrest.

As for the legislation of Nicholas I on the peasant question, its general orientation was the gradual introduction into the public consciousness of the view of the serf peasant not only as the property of a private person, but above all as a subject of the state, a payer of state taxes and duties, inextricably linked with the state. wealth - land.

Education policy

In May 1826, the "Committee for the Organization of Educational Institutions" was established, whose duties included the development of new approaches to the organization of the public education system and the preparation of curricula.

During the reign of Nicholas I, the principle of class formation was officially consolidated, in the form of an instruction to the Minister of Public Education A.S. Shishkov about the prohibition of admitting serfs to grammar schools and universities.

On December 8, 1828, the new Charter of gymnasiums, district and parish schools was approved. The education was based on the division into estates: children from tax-paying estates could study for one year in a parish school or two years in a city school; children of merchants and bourgeois - in a three-year district school. Gymnasiums with a seven-year term of study were intended only for the children of noblemen and officials. Gymnasium graduates could enter universities.

The Minister of Public Education, Count S. S. Uvarov (headed the ministry from 1833 to 1849), upon assuming office, uttered the famous phrase that became the national idea of ​​the Nikolaev reign: “Our common duty is that public education is accomplished in the united spirit of Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality ". At the same time, the concept of "autocracy" implied, first of all, unquestioning obedience to the state power headed by the autocrat. "Orthodoxy" carried the people the concept of universal human moral values, so the official ideology relied on it. In addition, Orthodoxy, emphasizing national Russian features, constituted a counterweight to European liberal views of the state. From this point of view, Orthodoxy was inseparable from autocracy. Raising an unlimited faith in the tsar among the people meant ensuring political support for the autocratic government, minimizing civic activity of all social strata.

The principles of Orthodoxy and autocracy were quite traditional for Russia. The third component of the formula - "nationality" - was directed against the spread of European liberation ideas in Russia and in a broad sense - against Western influence in general. The positive significance of this idealistic principle consisted in an appeal to Russian national values, the study of Russian culture, and the development of ideas of patriotism.

In 1833, the Russian national anthem was approved with the text of V. A. Zhukovsky, which began with the words "God Save the Tsar."

The political program to strengthen the autocratic power affected the change in university policy towards extreme conservatism. On July 26, 1835, a new Charter of universities was issued, which significantly limited their autonomy. Universities were no longer viewed as centers of scientific life; they were given the task of training civil service officials, gymnasium teachers, doctors, and lawyers. As educational institutions, they fell into complete dependence on the trustee of the educational district and were under administrative and police control. Access to universities for people from the lower classes was limited, terms were increased and tuition fees increased.

At the same time, the development of the economy required the expansion of the training of qualified specialists for industry, agriculture, transport, and trade. Therefore, in the reign of Nicholas I, the network of institutions of higher specialized education expanded: technological, construction, pedagogical institutes and schools of jurisprudence were opened in St. Petersburg, the Land Survey Institute in Moscow, and the Naval Academy was founded.

Tightening censorship

On June 10, 1826, the Censorship Charter was issued, which contemporaries called "cast iron". Within the structure of the Ministry of Public Education, the Main Censorship Committee was established to coordinate the actions of all other censorship bodies.

The task of censors of all levels was to prevent the publication of works that even indirectly criticize the authorities and the government; various kinds of satirical works that could weaken "respect for the authorities" and even more so works containing any assumptions about the need for political transformations. Thus, it was supposed to form the "literary taste" of the reading public in accordance with the main ideological task. All literature coming from abroad was censored. Authors whose essays were not censored were subject to police surveillance.

The charter on censorship discredited the authorities so much that two years later Nicholas I agreed to sign a new charter, softening censorship requirements and, most importantly, forbidding censors to arbitrarily interpret the writers' statements "in the wrong direction." At the same time, the censors were constantly under the threat of punishment for their "mistakes." In many cases, in addition to general censorship, the approval of the Senate, various ministries and the police was required for the release of a work to print. Thus, a bureaucratic system of obstacles to progressive social thought was created.

This text is an introductory fragment. From the book History of Russia XX - early XXI centuries the author Tereshchenko Yuri Yakovlevich

2. Domestic policy Economy. The main task of the internal policy of the USSR in the first post-war years was the restoration of the economy. The war caused colossal material damage. 1710 cities and urban-type settlements were destroyed, more than 70 thousand villages and villages,

From the book History of Russia XX - early XXI centuries the author Tereshchenko Yuri Yakovlevich

1. Domestic policy Economy. Since the summer of 1953, the leadership of the USSR embarked on a course of economic reform, which had a beneficial effect both on the rate of development of the national economy and on the well-being of the people. The main reason for the success of the reforms that went down in history as

From the book History of Russia. XVII – XVIII centuries. 7th grade the author

§ 29. DOMESTIC POLICY The country's economy. In the second half of the 18th century. the Russian Empire included the Right-Bank Ukraine, the Northern Black Sea region, the Azov region, the Crimea, as well as the territory between the Bug and Dniester rivers. For 1745 - 1795 the number of inhabitants of the country increased from

From the book History of Russia [Study Guide] the author Team of authors

6.7. Internal policy of Nicholas I Unlike Alexander I, Nicholas I ascended the throne in unfavorable social conditions. The interregnum was a kind of crisis of power, and this forced Nicholas I to quickly orient himself in the situation and direct

From the book History of Russia. XX - early XXI century. Grade 9 the author Kiselev Alexander Fedotovich

§ 27. INTERNAL POLICIES Industry. The Soviet people victoriously completed the Great Patriotic War. He was faced with the most difficult task - the restoration of the country. The Nazis turned into ruins 1,710 cities, more than 70 thousand villages and villages, thousands of factories, mines, hospitals and schools.

From the book History of Russia from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century the author Froyanov Igor Yakovlevich

Domestic policy of Nicholas I (1825-1855) The Decembrist uprising had a great influence on government policy. An active and purposeful struggle against any manifestations of public discontent has become an essential component of the new internal political course.

From the book Patriotic History (until 1917) the author Dvornichenko Andrey Yurievich

§ 13. Domestic policy of Nicholas I (1825-1855) The Decembrist uprising had a great influence on government policy. An active and purposeful fight against any manifestations of public discontent has become an essential part of the internal political course.

the author Yarov Sergey Viktorovich

1. Domestic policy 1.1. The course of the revolution The uprising in Petrograd The October Revolution of 1917 at its initial stage quite accurately repeated the scenario of the February coup. From the center to the provinces - that was her course. The starting point of the revolution was the seizure

From the book Russia in 1917-2000. A book for everyone interested in Russian history the author Yarov Sergey Viktorovich

1. Domestic policy 1.1. Crisis of 1921 The end of the war at first had little effect on the political and economic course of the ruling party. The simplicity and temporary effect of the military-communist methods of production and distribution gave rise to the illusion of their eternity and

From the book Russia in 1917-2000. A book for everyone interested in Russian history the author Yarov Sergey Viktorovich

1. Domestic policy 1.1. Plan "Barbarossa" Establishment of Nazi control over Europe in 1938-1940. made the Soviet Union the only real force capable of opposing Germany. On December 18, 1940, Hitler approved the Barbarossa military operational plan. Them

From the book Russia in the middle of the 19th century (1825-1855) the author Team of authors

INTERNAL POLITICS OF NICHOLAS I During his reign, Nicholas I created ten Secret Committees, which were intended to discuss various reforms. One of the first such offices appeared on December 6, 1826. The emperor gave him the task of "reviewing

the author Galanyuk P. P.

Internal policy of Emperor Nicholas I Part I When completing the multiple choice assignments (A1-A20), circle the number of the correct answer in the examination paper. A1. In what year was the III Department of the Imperial

From the book History. 8th grade. Thematic test items to prepare for the GIA the author Galanyuk P. P.

Domestic policy of Emperor Nicholas I

From the book The Course of Russian History the author Devletov Oleg Usmanovich

3.3. Domestic policy of Nicholas I (1828–1855) Historiography notes the deep influence that the Decembrist movement had on all spheres of the policy of Nicholas' reign. However, there are various estimates of the extent of this influence. Russian historiography (V.O.

From the book My XX century: the happiness of being yourself the author Petelin Viktor Vasilievich

6. Internal review for the Military Publishing House (Yuri Karasev. Always in action. Literary portrait of Nikolai Gribachev) “Difficult, as they say, feelings I experienced while reading this manuscript. On the one hand, I also know Nikolai Gribachev well, I edited his book