Nicholas II VS the Bolsheviks: Facts that are not written about in history textbooks

2024 Author: Richard Flannagan | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-15 23:55

What modern PR people should learn from the Bolsheviks is building images and creating a reputation. In world history, Nicholas II has survived under a variety of nicknames. So different that some of them are mutually exclusive. Could the "tsar-rag" be called "Nicholas the bloody"? With all this, in foreign history there are many facts confirming that the last Russian tsar was an extremely progressive leader of his time and an advanced reformer. So what really characterized him as a person, a man and a leader of the state?

Perhaps, the person of the last Russian tsar is the most controversial in the whole history. What do we know about him? Weak, but bloody, he loved and appreciated his wife too much (which is generally strange for sovereigns, they are more favored), established the Duma, then dispersed it. Shot, where did the treasure, which he loved very much, is not clear. Conducted the first population census, in which he modestly identified himself as "the master of the Russian land." Action to all this is also added by Rasputin, who now and then arises with his dubious role.

For any schoolchild who did not skip history lessons, Nicholas II is not the most majestic tsar in all eras, but also these photographs walking on the net. When Nikolai, at the time, for whom photography was a huge rarity, spent the rarest shots (no doubt he could afford), which were supposed to become a part of history, to make a couple of idiotic shots with his friends. No, it’s here that the generation that doesn’t part with smartphones has just no questions, but somehow it doesn’t add authority. However, it was from this king, for obvious reasons, that the maximum number of not only photographs but also various documents remained. There is even a recording of his voice. His life has been thoroughly and thoroughly studied, as well as his personal qualities, but this information has remained closed to the general public. For most, he still remains a freak who did not care about his country.

The throne inherited for Nicholas

On the pages of the history textbooks of the USSR, Nicholas II was a tyrant and despot, and this, despite the fact that historical facts suggest otherwise. Modern textbooks, which, it would seem, should keep neutrality between the Bolsheviks of Tsarist Russia, assess both sides too softly and too neutral.

Nikolai's father Alexander III died in Crimea, it was there, near Yalta, that Nikolai became the heir to the throne and tsar. And this, despite the fact that his own mother did not see him as the ruler of the state, she promised this place to her youngest son Mikhail. Nikolai himself in the photo of those times looks confused and taken aback by such a legacy, with which it is not clear what to do and where to run from. Yalta became his favorite place in the country, here he wanted to move the capital, but, of course, he lacked determination. Although, probably, this was demanded by the soul, and the mind suggested to him the opposite. Yet he was a pragmatist and a talented leader.

However, in 1960, Nikolai almost handed over the throne to his daughter Olga. And this, despite the fact that she was only 5 years old. The king fell ill with typhus and was dying, the entourage awaited his death. They talked about Olga, although the throne was inherited through the male line, this move was advantageous in terms of the fact that Olga could be married off to anyone and put the candidate to the throne instead of Nicholas. This thought haunted the royal relatives for a long time, every now and then, giving rise to intrigues.

Be that as it may, Nicholas became tsar and remained in history the final, final chord of the monarchy, was the last monarch so bad and what did he do for his state?

Education

In 1889, every third inhabitant of Tsarist Russia could read, that is, he was literate. This figure is very high in the world, because such indicators could not boast in the same England. However, the Bolshevik textbooks say the opposite - the population was dark, uneducated and progress in the field of education began only in 1920. Meanwhile, in 1908 (Nikolai, of course) started universal primary education, by 1913, thanks to this, the general level of education significantly increased.

However, the assertion that the government of those years, headed by Nicholas, allegedly encouraged the illiteracy of its population (the mob is easier to control) is an extremely widespread "fact" not only in the Bolshevik data, but also in the American press.

But it was during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II that education reached an unprecedented level. In 1913, the total amount of the country's education budget reached half a billion rubles. If primary education was free, then since 1908 it has also become compulsory for all estates. Since that time, tens of thousands of new schools have been opened every year. In 1913, there were 130 thousand schools in the country. For comparison, today there are 53.5 thousand schools in Russia. That is, to put it simply, the process has already begun, moreover, it has been adjusted, and if it were not for the revolution, then Russia by 1920 would have achieved the same (or rather better) results.

It's funny, but a survey conducted by the Bolsheviks among young people 12-16 years old, in 1920 showed that 86% of them can read and write. On what basis the Bolsheviks considered these merits their own - it is not clear, because primary education was introduced back in 1908 and, with a much greater degree of probability, this category of the population was educated even during the tsarist Russia.

Another nuance that speaks volumes about the Russian education of that period - during the reign of Nicholas II, Russia was the first in Europe in terms of the number of women receiving and already having higher education. At the same time, if we compare tuition fees, then in England higher education cost $ 750-1250 per year, in Russia - $ 25-75 per year. At the same time, students with low incomes, but high abilities, were exempted from payment.

Industry

In two decades, by 1913, Russian industry quadrupled its productivity. It equaled the level of profitability with agriculture and almost completely covered the needs of the country. The country was the leader in the world in terms of industrial growth. Yes, we are talking about the level of those years, and it would be strange to talk about prosperity. However, the data of the Bolsheviks that they built everything from scratch, that production and industry were laid down, are not confirmed again.

It was during this period that active electrification, industrialization, and the construction of railways and roads began. During the reign of Nicholas, more than 40 thousand km of railways were built, starting from the regions of the far north and ending with the southern regions. The Great Siberian Route was the longest in the world. Tram lines were opened, not only in the largest cities, but also throughout Russia - Nizhny Novgorod, Sevastopol. At the end of the 19th century, the first Russian-made car was ready; ten years later, its production was already established.

In the same 1913, Russia was one of the world leaders in energy, not only cities, but also villages were actively electrified. In 1924, the volume of electricity generation was lower than in Tsarist Russia. Therefore, it was Nikolai who was the founder of the electrification of Russia, in addition, public transport was actively purchased - the first trams appeared.

The head of state paid great attention to all areas and achieved very good results. The Siberian Railway is still the main highway that connects the vast country. And it was in her that he saw his main goal. In general, being the leader of a huge state, he felt many of the problems that Russia had to face in the 20th century. For example, he assured that the population of China is growing by leaps and bounds, which means that it is necessary to strengthen Siberian cities, paying more attention to their development and growth. Although at that time no one was interested in China at all and did not play a special role in the international market.

Nicholas’s role in the monetary and judicial system, labor legislation, and the monopoly on wine production is generally silent. As if they were not started by Nikolai (but he was competently supported and continued in the spirit of the times), then his role in this is not so great. The tsar, in his own words, “worked like a convict,” supported two key innovators - Witte and Stolypin.

So, 1913 is a golden ruble - an example of strength and stability, Russia is the leader in grain sales, agriculture is flourishing, industry is developing exponentially. For many years to come, it is 1913 that will become the measure of economic well-being. However, why could a revolution happen in a country that was developing so rapidly and successfully? But the world history of revolutions proves that the reason for most of them is not economic or social reasons. Rather, in problems of an ideological nature.

The idea is being cultivated that liberal Russia will achieve much greater success, that no attention is paid to the already existing achievements. The people thirsted for a revolution, and it happened, Nicholas was overthrown and not a single public institution supported the legitimate government. The country was losing control levers. However, despite all the subsequent difficulties and trials, the country did not fly into the abyss, only for a while plunged into an era of anxiety and torment.

Facts about Nicholas II, which are usually silent

World politician and peacemaker, he became the founder of arms limitation and the development of a corresponding program. Simply put, he owns a certain prototype of the modern UN, and even at that time. This did not fit into the heads of the leaders of the world states.

On his own skin, he experienced soldier's ammunitionSo, putting on an overcoat, and in general the full uniform of a soldier, he walked almost 15 kilometers to check the quality of the cloth. Russia occupied a leading position in spending on the military-industrial complex (At the same time, on the world stage, the militarist advocates reducing spending in this area). Under Nicholas, military aviation, submarines, weapons, and armored equipment were created.

Demography Those years is also a very eloquent factor, if at the beginning of the reign of the last tsar the population was 122 million inhabitants, then by the beginning of the First World War it was already 60 million more. That is, such an increase happened in two decades! If there had not been a revolution, then by the 60s, while maintaining such rates, the population of Russia would have been equal to 275 million people.

Nikolay built your country's budget based on the accumulation of gold reserves, and not on a simple budget without a deficit, as is the case in modern democracies. At the same time, state revenues were constantly growing, and this was without increasing the tax burden. In general, during the reign of Nicholas, taxes in Russia were lower than in any European country. State revenues were growing, while spending remained at about the same level.

After the revolution number of schools not only stopped growing, but also significantly decreased. The number of students has also decreased. However, this did not stop the Bolsheviks from shouting about a general training program and taking the country out of filth and illiteracy. The situation was similar in the health care system. The coming to power of the Bolsheviks disrupted the natural growth and development of this sphere, leaving thousands of people without medical care.

Industrialization implied an increase in the number of workers, about the welfare and well-being of which the government of those years was concerned. It was during the reign of Nicholas II that the legislative framework, which regulated work in hazardous conditions at work, prohibited child labor, limited working hours and the liability of manufacturers for accidents at their work. There was even social security. There was no such practice anywhere in Europe, and Russian industrial legislation was truly ahead of its time.

If we talk about the Russian emperor as a person, then he was also a very extraordinary personality. He was actually greatly influenced by his spouse. With her they were on warm and friendly terms, and he married for love and lived with his wife in perfect harmony - a great rarity for the king and those times.

The emperor was very similar to his cousin brother George (later George V - the English king), they were confused even by their relatives, the similarity was so great.

Nikolai brought up two adopted children - Dmitry and Maria. These are the children of his uncle Paul, whose mother died, and he himself got married. So the nephews entered the imperial family and called Nicholas and the Empress their parents.

The emperor drank, but never overdosed, preferred port wine from Crimea, but smoked a lot and often. He treated himself very ironically, as evidenced by the entry in his diary, they say, he tried six sorts of port and "sprinkled", but slept well. But I hated female singing. It was hard for him, given that almost all women of those times were taught to play music and singing in society was considered a sign of good form.

But even a well-bred Nikolai ran away, as soon as his wife or daughters sat down at the piano, he called their singing howling and preferred not to be present. But he loved to read, and this did not concern fiction, but magazines and the press, subscribed to a lot of periodicals.

Today you can clearly see that Nicholas II is not just the last Russian monarch, but a symbol that demonstrates the high level of values of a country in which the military industry is simultaneously developing, schools and hospitals are being built, legislation is being improved and electrification is being carried out. It personifies a progressive and civilized Russia, it contains the highest values that will not be erased by time.

However, the Bolsheviks, on the way to their goal, believed that all goals are good. The story with Pavlik Morozov, who was rather not a hero and not a symbol of the fight against the kulaks, but just an offended child, was served in such a way that it was preserved for centuries.