Foreign policy of Alexander II. National policy of Alexander II

Reforms in the field of education.

University reform of 1863 Universities were given autonomy back. The election of the rector, vice-rectors, deans and professors is introduced. The police had no right to enter the territory of the university.

New universities were founded Novorossiysk» in Odessa (1862–1865) and Tomsk(1888). In Moscow in 1861 opened Petrovsky Agricultural Academy, and in St. Petersburg in 1891 - Electrotechnical Institute. The foundation was laid for higher education for women: 7 higher courses for women were opened. Petersburg in 1878 founded Bestuzhev courses professors K. N. Bestuzheva-Ryumina; in Moscow in 1872 - professor's courses V. I. Ger'e. Education in women's courses was not inferior to university education, but a diploma of higher education female students did not receive. In 1897, the Women's Medical Institute was opened in St. Petersburg.

school reform 1864 G. Author of the reform: Minister of Education A.V. Golovnin. In 1862, women's gymnasiums were opened. Private schools were allowed to open. In 1864 approved Regulations on primary public schools and Charter of gymnasiums and progymnasiums.

Primary education schools three types: state, parochial and zemstvo. Duration of study: 1–3 years. Continuity between primary schools and there were no high schools.

Secondary education: 4-class progymnasiums and 7-class gymnasiums. The gymnasiums were divided into classical with a humanitarian bias (teaching "classical" languages ​​- Latin and Greek), and real with in-depth study of the natural sciences. In 1871, real gymnasiums were transformed into real schools.

The number of educational institutions increased from 8 thousand in the middle of the 19th century to 79 thousand by the end of the century, and the number of students, respectively, from 23 thousand to 3.8 million. Literacy increased from 1-2% to 22%. The intelligentsia went to zemstvo schools in the hope of helping the people. The activity of a talented teacher was of great importance K. D. Ushinsky.

The national question in the Russian Empire was quite acute.

Polish uprising of 1863–1864 In 1863 underground Central National Committee headed by Y. Dombrovsky, 3. Serakovsky and others began an uprising in Poland and Lithuania under the slogan of returning the independence of the Commonwealth within the borders of 1772. The rebels destroyed the Russian garrisons. England and France were ready to support the Poles, but the 164,000-strong Russian army severely suppressed the uprising. 4.5 thousand Russian soldiers died, 30 thousand rebels, 1 thousand Poles were executed, 12.721 were sent to hard labor and exile.

The tsarist government intensified the policy of Russification of Poland: the Russian language was planted; important posts were occupied only by Russian officials. In 1874 Kingdom of Poland renamed to Privislinsky region(the autocracy avoided a reminder of the Polish statehood). Russification policy intensified Russophobia Poles' hatred for Russia. The Poles emphasized their civilizational and cultural superiority: "Get away to Asia, descendants of Genghis Khan!" - these words are from a Polish song of 1863-1864. convey the stereotype of Polish consciousness in relation to Russians. On the other hand, the uprising caused in Russia Polonophobia.

The Poles took an active part in the Russian anti-government revolutionary movement. In 1881, a member of the "Narodnaya Volya", a native of the former Commonwealth Ignatius Grinevitsky mortally wounded Alexander II. This caused in Russia spontaneous pogroms of the Poles as the perpetrators of the assassination of the tsar.

Russia and Finland. In 1863 Grand Duchy of Finland legislature was granted Seimas(parliament) and a constitutional monarchy. Residents received wide civil and political rights, which in Russia one could only dream of.

State anti-Semitism. In relation to the Jews (Jews), the autocracy pursued a policy of state anti-Semitism. In 1791–1917 existed" Pale of Settlement"- the border of the territory beyond which Jews were forbidden to live.

In the 19th century in Eastern Siberia were created " foreign councils" For driving " foreigners"- the indigenous peoples of Siberia.

Under Alexander III, the Russian Empire was a 120 million multinational state, which included more than 200 nations, nationalities and ethnic groups of different tribes. The huge difference in the levels of development of the peoples living in the country significantly complicated the implementation of national policy. 3

Considering the policy of Alexander III, one must take into account the personal qualities of the king. Despite the fact that Alexander III had 1/64 of Russian blood, by his character and mental disposition he was a Russian person. 4 First of all, he was identified as a Russian Orthodox faith. For Alexander Alexandrovich, religiosity meant something more than submission to the ritual requirements of the church. He loved the church service and prayed earnestly. Religion gave him an emotional connection with both a quiet brother and his mother. 5

Russianness - this was the trait that first of all caught the eye of everyone who met with the emperor. He was brought up in Orthodox faith his mother, Empress Maria Alexandrovna. His teachers and educators were people who deeply loved Russia: the historian S.M. Soloviev and the philologist F.I. Buslaev. The well-known lawyer K. Pobedonostsev played a big role in shaping his personality. The writer I. Turgenev, who wrote the article “Alexander III” in a French magazine after meeting in Paris with Tsarevich Alexander Alexandrovich, noted: “All that can be said about him is that he is Russian and only Russian. He even provides a remarkable example of the influence of the environment according to Darwin's theory: barely a few drops of Russian blood flow in his veins, and, however, he merged with this people so much that everything in it - language, habits, manners, even the very physiognomy are marked by distinctive features. race. Wherever they saw him, everywhere they would call his homeland. 6

Alexander III knew and loved Russian history well, highly honored and preserved Russian traditions and customs. Under him, in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, all office work and correspondence began to be conducted in Russian. 7 All these facts indicate that the Tsar was a real Russian patriot. For the tsar, Russian meant native. He himself always spoke Russian, preferred Russian food to overseas delicacies. The Tsar was a Russian nationalist. Later, in the twentieth century, this concept will be discredited by its extreme, hypertrophied-chauvinistic manifestations (fascism, Nazism). For the previous period, this definition did not contain anything reprehensible. The formation of a nation, its spiritual and moral self-determination in all countries at certain stages of history inevitably led to the triumph of the national idea and national leaders. In Russia, such a time is the second half of the 19th century. eight

Yes, there was also a rather tough national policy, which is usually denoted by the motto “Russia for Russians” (the term “Russian” then meant not only ethnic Russians, but also all others, primarily representatives of other Slavic peoples who adhered to the Orthodox faith).

At the same time, it was not about the fact that all non-Russians should either be expelled or forcibly “transformed” into Russians. Nobody set such goals and could not set them. The essence of Russification was formulated in a completely different way: to ensure priorities for the Russian (Orthodox) element, to ensure that Russians and Russians become the first and main thing in the empire. nine

Recognizing the nationalist sentiments of Alexander III, it should immediately be noted that they never sank to the level of chauvinism. There was no persecution of other peoples, persecution of their cultures and beliefs, just because they are not Russians in Russia at the initiative of the monarch. ten

Under Alexander III, a national-state political course was being formed, pursuing the goal of protecting the national, religious and cultural interests and values ​​of the main Orthodox mass of the inhabitants of the empire, constituting about 80% of the population.

The empire has been multinational for centuries and should remain so. However, the tsar could not and did not want to put up with discrimination against Russians in his home - Russia. eleven

Thus, speaking about the root causes of the pro-Russian orientation of the national policy of Alexander III, one must take into account the personal characteristics of the tsar. It was the patriotism formed in his youth that became the basis of the national-state policy of the monarch.

Features of Russification under Alexander III

In the 80s of the XIX century, the empire included many ethnic groups, and the social life of each of them flowed according to special customs and laws. Ethnic groups, of course, interacted more at the level of elites than at the level of peoples, but they did not live a single life, common thoughts and moods, did not exist as a single society 12 . Therefore, the main task of the state policy was the creation of a single Russian society, headed by the main component - the Russian ethnic group. This could be achieved through the assimilation of the cultural characteristics of the peoples of the state. Thus, Russification became the main measure of the national policy of Alexander III.

Until the end of the XIX century. Russification was carried out primarily with the aim of creating a more efficient local administration, but in the 1880s. the intentions of the central government clearly reflected the desire for cultural assimilation of ethnic minorities in order to transform the empire into a more homogeneous, more national state.

The Russification policy was not new in the empire. However, before it was used only in relation to peoples caught or suspected of separatist aspirations. In a will drawn up in September 1876, Alexander II instructed the heir not to forget that the power of "our fatherland ... is based on the unity of the state, and therefore everything that can tend to shock its unity, to the separate development of various nationalities, is detrimental to him and should not be allowed.

Under Alexander III, Russification ceased to be a punishment imposed on a rebellious land; it acquired the character of a systematic policy towards all nationalities subject to the Russian sovereign, even those most loyal to him. The very meaning of "Russification" has changed dramatically. The "Russian spirit" and "Russian soil" demanded energetic protection against corrosion, which was threatened by the destructive "ideas" coming from other nations with a different "cultural type". The state-family cannot accommodate subjects of alien cultural types, since these types are associated with a different socio-political system. As Katkov wrote in 1882 in Moskovskie Vedomosti, "Russia can have only one state nation." But the "great reforms" and the economic breakthrough in the second half of the 19th century contributed to the socio-economic and cultural development of the outskirts, that is, other nations. The criteria for "Russianness" in the reign of Alexander III gradually shifted in a purely political direction. As early as the beginning of the 19th century, “Russian” meant only “related to Russia”, and then, in the Nikolaev era of “official nationality”, the concept of “Russian” meant an Orthodox loyal subject, under Alexander III the word “Russian” lost touch with cultural and religious qualities and became purely political. thirteen

The representative of the Russian people in this political sense could not be the bearer of liberal or revolutionary ideas and intentions. Persons of “inconsistent” convictions, even titled nobles, such as, for example, the leader of the liberals, Prince D.I. Shakhovskaya, they could not claim the title of "truly Russian" person. fourteen

Thus, the identification of national and religious principles appeared in the state, which were given political meaning. The conservative "Russian idea" was based on the recognition that "Russia can have one state nationality", but the concept of nationality is not an ethnographic, but rather a political term. The call to converge on "real, that is, on Russian soil" meant unification under the banner of Orthodoxy and autocracy. The concept of "Russianness" in both conservative journalism and in the correspondence of conservatives serves, first of all, as a political characteristic.

Key National Policy Activities

Russification, which became the basis of the national policy of Emperor Alexander III, involved a number of measures related to a greater extent to the Russian outskirts.

Since the fundamental factor in identifying Russianness was religious, intensive construction of Orthodox churches began on the territory of Russia. During the 11 years of the reign of Alexander III, 5,000 churches were built, the most famous of them are the Church of the Resurrection of Christ on the site of the death of Alexander II, the Church of St. Vladimir Equal-to-the-Apostles in Kyiv. During the reign of Alexander III, the construction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior was completed in memory of the deliverance of Russia from the Napoleonic invasion. In religious policy, the government began to persecute the followers of Christian non-Orthodox sects, Old Believers, and Catholics. The Buryats and Kalmyks were forbidden to build Buddhist temples. In the east of the empire, the government strongly encouraged the conversion of the local population to Orthodoxy.

The rights of Jews and Poles - Catholics were significantly constrained in their rights. Back in the 18th century, the “Pale of Settlement” was introduced for Jews, within which they were allowed to live. The Pale of Settlement included Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Right-bank Ukraine, Bessarabia, Chernihiv and Poltava regions. This restriction did not apply to Jewish merchants of the 1st guild, persons with higher education, artisans and soldiers. In 1882, the “Temporary Rules” were issued, according to which Jews were deprived of the right to settle outside the cities and towns defined by the “Pale of Settlement”, they were also prohibited from acquiring and renting real estate. In 1887, for Jews, the percentage rate for admission to higher educational institutions was determined - 3% in the capitals, 5% - outside the Pale of Settlement. Since 1889, the admission of Jews to the positions of sworn attorneys (lawyers) was suspended.

The government pursued an active policy of "Russification" of Poland. Russians were appointed to all important posts in Poland, the Russian language was strongly planted in schools and in the office work of Polish administrative institutions. A number of measures were taken to further integrate the Polish economy into the Russian economy. So, in 1885, the Polish Bank was transformed into the Warsaw office of the Petersburg Bank. The Polish coin stopped its circulation. Support for Russian landowners began to be carried out in the Western Territory. The Noble Land Bank in the Western Territory provided loans only to Russian landowners.

Russification was carried out in the territories where the population related to the Russians lived. Thus, in Ukraine in 1881, the restriction of 1875 was confirmed, which prohibited the publication of books in Ukrainian in Ukraine. As a result, the center of the Ukrainianophile movement moved to Galicia, which was part of Austria-Hungary. This led to an increase in anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine.

In the Baltic States, the government waged a "fight against Germanization." Three Baltic provinces - Estonia, Livonia, Courland - lived a life isolated from the rest of the empire. The land here mainly belonged to the "Ostsee Germans" - the descendants of noble German and Swedish-Danish families. They occupied all important positions in the local administration, the German language dominated in educational institutions, courts. The Orthodox paid fees for the benefit of the Lutheran churches and the Lutheran clergy. Historically, in the Baltics there was a confrontation between the "Ostsee Germans" and the rest of the Latvian and Estonian population. Not only the Russian, but also the local population suffered from this "German" dominance. The government began to translate educational institutions, the judicial system, and local governments into Russian. In 1887, teaching in Russian was introduced in all higher educational institutions. This met with the approval of the local population.

At the same time, Finland's autonomy was significantly expanded. The Grand Duchy of Finland became part of the Russian Empire in 1809. By tradition, it had the widest autonomy: it had its own diet, its own troops, its own monetary system. Under Alexander III, the Finnish Sejm received the right of legislative initiative, which it had been seeking for two decades. The official language was still Swedish, although only 5% of the population spoke it, and Finnish. Since 1890, the government began to take measures to bring Finland closer to Russia. For this purpose, a manifesto was issued, according to which the Russian coin was introduced at post offices and railways Oh.

Thus, the measures of the national policy of Alexander III were of a conservative nature, which was expressed in following the Orthodox, monarchical and Slavophil traditions.

LECTURE XXXVI

(Start)

Government policy on the outskirts. – Harassment in Little Russia and Poland. - Foreign policy of the government. - East question. - The rivalry of Russian and British interests in Asia. - The conquest of the Caucasus and the Central Asian khanates. - Troubles in Turkey. - Movement of the Balkan Slavs. – Serbian war and Bulgarian massacre. - Negotiations of the great powers. - Russo-Turkish War 1877–1878 Its course and outcome. - Congress of Berlin. – Economic and financial results war. Reitern's resignation. - The impression of war and congress on Russian society. - Slavophiles.

Fight against Ukrainophilism

Last time I introduced you to the emergence and development of populist ideas and the populist revolutionary movement in the 70s. Along with the revolutionary movement Along with the long-standing growth of discontent in Zemstvo liberal circles in the same post-reform period of modern Russian history, elements of discontent and irritation accumulated in different parts of the vast Russian Empire on a different basis, on the basis of insulting and persecuting the feelings of various nationalities that make up the Russian state. Everywhere on the outskirts, under the influence of the Russification policy, carried out moreover in crude forms, painfully heightened national interests and feelings arose and developed.

In Little Russia, it was precisely at this time that the so-called Ukrainophilism developed, which intensified and aggravated under the influence of the persecution of the Little Russian language, the persecution that began under Nicholas and which resumed precisely in the late 60s and 70s in connection with the chauvinistic trend that prevailed in the ruling spheres and part of society and the press after the suppression of the Polish uprising. It was at this time that Katkov, who, as you remember, became an ardent patriot and chauvinist after the Polish uprising, began to write uniform denunciations of various national movements and various manifestations of the desire of non-state nationalities for cultural self-determination. These denunciations, which tended mainly to accuse such nationalities of striving for political separatism, had a rather strong effect on the ruling circles.

So, for example, in 1875, when Katkov specifically began to persecute the Ukrainophiles in the press, finding that just such a separatist movement was starting in Kyiv, the government paid such serious attention to Katkov’s news that even a special government commission was appointed, consisting of the minister education of Count Tolstoy, the Minister of Internal Affairs Timashev, the chief of the gendarmes Potapov and one of the Kiev chauvinists Yuzefovich, who had long come to the fore in this regard. This commission examined, among other things, the activities of the southwestern branch of the Russian Geographical Society, which at that time concentrated on the study of Little Russian poetry and language. As a result, it was recognized that this activity had a connection with the separatist "Khokhloman", i.e., Ukrainophile, movement, and therefore it was decided in 1875. to shut down this branch of the Geographical Society, which had begun to develop so well. Along with this, the persecution of the Little Russian language intensified: any publication of literary works, as well as performances and concerts in the Little Russian language were banned, so that this language was subjected to consistent ostracism in Little Russia.

In this regard, professors M.P. Dragamanov (philologist-historian) and N.I. Ziber (economist) were dismissed from Kiev University, and they were first offered to submit a letter of resignation, and when they refused to do this, they were dismissed " on the 3rd paragraph”, which deprived them of the right to ever enter the civil service again. Then the outstanding ethnographer Chubinsky was expelled from Kyiv, while Drahomanov and Ziber chose to emigrate abroad. (They say that Dragomanov himself was advised to do so by the Governor-General of Kyiv, Prince A. M. Dundukov-Korsakov, who was friendly to him.) Thus, a pogrom occurred, which, in fact, was not caused by anything.

Policy of Alexander II in Poland

The Polish question became no less aggravated at this time. In Poland in the early 60s, before the uprising, Russian policy, as you remember, was based first on the grounds proposed by the Marquis of Velepolsky, and then based on the ideas of N.A. Milyutin and Yu.F. Samarin, who separated the issues of Russian statehood in the Kingdom of Poland itself from the issues and interests of Russian statehood and culture in the North-Western and South-Western regions, where the question of the fight against "Polonism", i.e., the fight against the Polonization of these regions, was already raised , recognized as either native Russians or Lithuanian, but in any case not Polish. On the contrary, the Kingdom of Poland was recognized from the very beginning as a native Polish country, where the Polish language should be dominant and given full opportunity for the cultural development of the Polish nationality. But the policy initially divided in this way changed very quickly, and when Milyutin, stricken in 1866 with an apoplexy, left the stage, one of his closest collaborators, Prince V. A. Cherkassky, appeared at the head of the leadership of Russian policy in Poland, and it was he, largely due to his difficult character, his harshness, greatly aggravated relations with various sections of Warsaw and Polish society in general, and from that time on, Russian policy in the Kingdom of Poland began to imperceptibly move on to the foundations that had been set for it in the Western Territory.

First in middle educational institutions they began to demand the widespread introduction of teaching in Russian, then this requirement is transferred to lower schools, so that the question of developing the elementary education of the people is placed in an extremely difficult situation, since, naturally, the Poles do not want to give money to Russian schools and send their children there if they are not allowed to study in their native language. In the 70s and 80s (under the trustee of the educational district Apukhtin), these restrictions reached the point that even the teaching of the law of God on Polish, due to which its teaching in most schools ceases altogether at this time.

In Warsaw itself, the question of shop signs was raised seriously. It was required that these signboards be in Russian, or at least have a translation into Russian. In a word, those principles that even from a conservative, so to speak, point of view were correctly established by Samarin and Milyutin regarding the difference in political demands in the Kingdom of Poland and the Western Territory, here completely changed, and the Russification policy in the Kingdom of Poland proceeded almost in the same way as in the Northwestern and Southwestern regions.

In the 70s, this was joined by the question of that very Kholmsky region, which before our eyes was finally resolved by the third State Duma. This question then arose from its religious side, namely, they drew attention to the fact that within the Kingdom of Poland itself there is a population that is Ruthenian, that is, Little Russian, and not Polish, and that it once belonged to the Orthodox faith; that then, under the rule of Poland, this religion was modified, namely: the Orthodox rites were preserved, but the primacy of the pope was recognized, and thus the Uniate religion arose. And in the 70s, the question arose of reuniting these Uniates with the Orthodox Church, just as it was done in the North-Western Territory under Nicholas. But at the same time administrative authorities, in whose hands this matter fell - the governor of Sedlec, who wanted to distinguish himself, the Uniate bishop Popel, who wanted to make a career on this - were too hasty, acted recklessly and forcibly, and this greatly aggravated the matter, while, in essence, the population there (in part of the provinces of Lublin and Sedlec) was indeed Little Russian in origin and language, and perhaps little by little would itself return to Orthodoxy; but since energetic forms of administrative influence were put into play, a series of outrageous events, unrest and pacification took place; Hussars and Cossacks were sent to promote the "voluntary" conversion to Orthodoxy, and thus the question of the reunification of these Uniates acquired the character of a real scandal.

It is clear that such a policy on the outskirts and even in Little Russia, which had long been part of the Russian Empire, could not arouse in the population, and especially in its most conscious part, benevolent feelings towards the government; it, no doubt, aggravated this general oppositional mood, which existed everywhere in Russia under the influence economic reasons and a general reaction that grew stronger every year.

This general, albeit suppressed, discontent, which, as a result of stubborn reaction and reckless repressions, developed inside Russia and on its outskirts, was complicated in the 70s by an aggravation foreign policy. By this time, the rather old Eastern question had just matured and become extremely acute.

Accession of the Amur and Primorye to Russia

During the twenty years that immediately followed the Crimean campaign, our military authorities, especially the chiefs of the border troops, were constantly overwhelmed by the desire to somehow restore the violated prestige of our army and Russian military power, undermined in the Crimean War, and now they are beginning to actively strive to restore the trampled the honor of our weapons even in Asia, if it failed in Europe. We see that already two years after the end of the Crimean War, significant increments of our territory along the entire East Asian border begin. It started from the most remote eastern outskirts. Already in 1858, the Governor-General of Eastern Siberia, Muravyov, raised the issue of annexing to Russia not only the entire left bank of the Amur, but also the vast Ussuri Territory located south of the mouth of the Amur up to Vladivostok. Ants achieved this almost without using military force, with the help of several hundred soldiers, with whom he traveled around the border, and, taking advantage of the extreme anarchy and helplessness of the Chinese authorities, established new boundaries for those areas that he considered to belong to Russia, relying on the fact that, as if in the 17th century. all these areas were conquered by the Cossacks, who even built the city of Albazin on the Amur, then destroyed by the Chinese. The Chinese authorities, yielding only to rumors of Russian military power, weakly resisted this, so that Muravyov eventually managed to seize the territory described above and annex it to Russia, leaving small military posts everywhere along the border thus occupied.

These actions of Muravyov were then consolidated in 1860 by a formal agreement concluded by Count N. P. Ignatiev, then still a young man, sent specifically for this to Beijing.

End of the Caucasian War

At the same time, the final conquest of the Caucasus took place under the guise of "pacification" of the recalcitrant highlanders. A decisive blow to their independence was dealt in 1859, when the village of Gunib was taken, in which the spiritual head and leader of these mountaineers Shamil was hiding. The capture of Shamil marked the beginning of the final triumph of the Russians in the Caucasus; a very small area still remained unoccupied, and its final conquest was completed in 1864. Thus, in 1865, the Caucasus and all of Transcaucasia, right up to the then border with Turkey and Persia, could be declared parts of the Russian Empire completely subordinate to Russian rule.

Accession of Central Asia to Russia

Along with this, throughout the 60s, the constant progressive pushing of our border into the depths of Central Asia and in relation to the then independent Central Asian khanates continued. It must be said that we have had trade relations with these khanates for a long time, but the population of these khanates, which consisted of wild steppe predators, constantly committed a series of robberies on the Russian border, which sometimes ended with the removal of whole batches of not only cattle, but also Russian people: men and children into slavery, and young women into harems. It is clear that such incidents have long worried the Russian government, but for a very long time these Central Asian khanates, despite the fact that they seemed to be insignificant under the power of Russia, were in fact quite inaccessible to us. Our attempts to lay a hand on them have always ended in failure, beginning with Peter. Under Peter the Great, for the first time, Russian troops under the command of Prince Cherkassky-Bekovich went there quite far, and the end of this expedition was very sad: all of it died after a temporary success. Then the Orenburg Governor-General V.A. Perovsky, already under Nicholas I, decided to put an end to the constant robberies and taking Russians into captivity and, at his own risk, undertook a winter expedition to Khiva in 1839. A trip to Khiva during the summer heat seemed almost impossible, and therefore Perovsky chose winter time. But it turned out that this was also fraught with no less difficulties, since in these steppes raged very coldy and snowstorms, and the entire expedition of 1839 nearly perished. Finally, already in 1853, the same Perovsky managed to advance the Russian military outposts to the banks of the Syr Darya, and a rather significant fort was founded here, which was later called the Perovsky Fort.

At the same time, in the south of our Siberian possessions and the steppe regions, our border also began to gradually move further and further south. Back in 1854, this border was established along the Chu River from the city of Verny to Fort Perovsky, and it was fortified by a number of small military posts, in general, however, rather weak. The wild detachments of the Bukhara and Kokand people very often tried to break through this line, but each such robbery caused retribution, and the military commanders, overwhelmed by a thirst and personally distinguish themselves and raise the prestige of Russian weapons, actively tried to push these Bukhara and Kokand people into the depths of their country. It ended in a big clash in 1864, and Colonel Chernyaev managed to conquer the large Kokand city of Tashkent.

When the Russian government received a report about this, it approved the fait accompli, and the Tashkent region was annexed to Russian territory, and two years later a new Turkestan governor-general was formed here. This led to further clashes, and we continued to push back the Kokand and Bukharians - again without any official order from above. Of course, England met such a progressive movement of the Russians in Asia to the south with great anxiety, and remembering from the time of Napoleon about the then fantastic plans of the Russians to penetrate through the Asian steppes and mountains to India, the British government immediately asked the Russian chancellor about where the Russian government intended to stop, to which Prince Gorchakov replied that the Sovereign Emperor did not at all mean an increase in Russian territory, but only the strengthening and correction of the border.

In the end, however, a uniform war began with the Kokand and Bukharians, which ended in their complete defeat, and we managed to conquer (in 1868) the city of Samarkand, where the remains of Tamerlane rest, a sacred place, regarding which there is a belief that someone owns Samarkand, he owns the whole of Central Asia. True, the Bukhara people, taking advantage of the fact that the Turkestan Governor-General, the energetic General Kaufman, sent most of the troops to the south, tried to take back Samarkand the following year, and they temporarily succeeded, but Kaufman, returning, severely punished the temporary winners , and the entire population of Samarkand, and the barbaric method he used to establish Russian rule made such an impression on the semi-savage eastern peoples that after that they no longer tried to capture the sacred city occupied by the Russians.

Meanwhile, Kaufman, taking advantage of the uprising of the Kokand people, who were trying to return part of the territory taken from them, sent a significant detachment there under the command of Skobelev, who finally conquered the Kokand Khanate, after which it was annexed to Russia and turned into the Fergana region. Little by little, Kaufman began to think about how to curb and bring to a submissive position the main predatory nest in Central Asia - Khiva, where, according to rumors, there were several hundred Russian slaves and where Russian expeditions had so unsuccessfully set off until then.

This time, having come close to Khiva and having the opportunity to make a simultaneous invasion into it from four sides, Kaufman first delivered an ultimatum to the Khiva Khan, who demanded that he transfer a significant part of the territory and completely abolish slavery. Khan refused this, and then Kaufman made his famous campaign of 1873 in Khiva. All Khiva was conquered this time very quickly, and the khan was forced to give up not only what Kaufman offered him, but more than half of his possessions, he was forced to free all slaves from slavery and become the same dependent, vassal in relation to Russia ruler , as his closest neighbor, the Emir of Bukhara, had already become.

Thus, the conquest of all of Central Asia took place, to the great indignation and very understandable fears of the British, who saw that the Russian troops approached India quite close and were separated from it only by the lands of the Turkmens and Afghanistan, so that the campaign of Russian troops in India at this time is far away. no longer had that fantastic appearance as it seemed when the question of it was raised at the beginning of the 19th century. Napoleon.

Revolt in Bosnia and Herzegovina

At the same time, when the fears of the British reached their apogee and when they acutely felt the imminent "Russian danger" in Asia, the situation in the Middle East also became extremely aggravated. In 1874, an uprising of Herzegovinians and Bosniaks broke out on the Balkan Peninsula against Turkey. They revolted mainly as a result of the incredible oppression and oppression on the part of the Turks, on economic grounds, partly in land, and especially in taxes; for in Turkey there was an extremely difficult tax system, which consisted in the fact that all, even direct, state taxes and taxes were farmed out to private individuals, who exacted them in an increased amount in order to cover the state needs and satisfy their own greed. The Slavic and other nationalities of the Balkan Peninsula, oppressed by this situation, continued to be constantly agitated, and after the creation of the semi-independent states of Serbia, Montenegro and Romania, and due to this circumstance, the Eastern question constantly threatened to escalate.

When in 1875, in the month of August, the Herzegovina uprising began, then, of course, Austria was first of all alarmed by this. The fact is that Bosnia and Herzegovina has long been presented in the eyes of the Austrian government as a tasty morsel, which it was not averse to annexing to Austria. Now Austria was afraid that as a result of the outbreak of the uprising, perhaps the Bosnians and Herzegovinians would join Serbia with the help of Russia, which had managed to recover from the Crimean defeat. Therefore, as soon as this uprising broke out, Count Andrássy, then head of Austrian foreign policy, immediately proposed to resolve this matter through collective European intervention. And in January 1876, after some objections from England, which was afraid that Russia would not win something for itself with such intervention, in the end it was possible to reach the full consent of the powers, and on behalf of the six great European powers, the sultan was a demand was made that he immediately conclude a truce with the Herzegovinians and undertake to radically change the tax system and land relations in the rebellious provinces, and the Christians would also be given the right to own land there; that, in addition, other administrative reforms be carried out here and, by the way, that the Turkish troops should be kept only in six fortresses and should not have the right to stand up in the countryside.

The Sultan very quickly agreed to these conditions, but then the Herzegovinians declared that they would not lay down their arms until they were given sufficient guarantees that the Sultan would fulfill his promises, and they saw these guarantees in the appointment of a special commission by the European governments, which implement the promised reforms. At the same time, they demanded that one third of all land in the region be given to the Christian population instead of a vague promise of settlement of land relations. The Turks did not agree to this, and in general at that time in Turkey, under the influence of the Christian uprising that had begun, a strong religious movement flared up among the Muslims, embracing all classes of Turkish society, and the sultan's compliance with foreign pressure caused fanatical indignation. The Sultan was soon forced to let into European Turkey to pacify the uprising of the Slavs hordes of wild riders - bashi-bazouks, who carried out a massacre of civilians in Bulgaria.

Bulgarian martyrs. Painting by K. Makovsky, 1877

By the way, in the peaceful city of Thessaloniki, the French and German consuls were killed, and in Bulgaria, the massacre, according to an investigation carried out by an English diplomat, reached huge size and was expressed in no less than 12 thousand killed Bulgarians of both sexes and different ages. These horrors made a huge impression not only among Russian society and people, and in general on the continent of Europe, but even in that same England, whose government all the time tried to patronize Turkey in view of its suspicions about Russia.

The semi-independent Balkan states of Serbia and Montenegro declared war on Turkey, and masses of volunteers went from Russia to the ranks of their troops.

Although the Serbian troops were led by the Russian general Chernyaev, the same one who conquered Tashkent, nevertheless they turned out to be unprepared to fight the Turks, they turned out to be very poorly armed, untrained, and therefore the Turks quickly won a number of victories over them. Russia, seeing that Serbia was on the brink of an abyss and that she was threatened with a massacre similar to the Bulgarian one, demanded from the Turks an immediate suspension of hostilities and the conclusion of a truce. This demand was also supported by the rest of the European powers, although Austria hesitated for some time; she wanted Serbia, whose strengthening she was afraid of, to be completely defeated by the Turks. But very soon, Austria saw the need to join the common opinion of the European powers.

In 1876, a special memorandum was issued in Berlin, by which all the powers demanded that the Sultan immediately introduce the previously promised reforms in the parts of Turkey inhabited by Christians, increase the territory of Serbia and Montenegro and appoint Christian governors-general in Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina with the approval of their council of European powers. However, England refused to participate in the support of this memorandum and thus encouraged Turkey so much that she also refused to satisfy the demands of the powers, and when the European powers sent their fleet for a military demonstration in Thessaloniki, England, on the contrary, sent hers to the Bay of Besik to support Turkey.

The Turkish patriots, encouraged by this, forced Sultan Abdulazis to first change the vizier, and for the first time the Young Turk, i.e., a supporter of progressive internal transformations, Mithad Pasha, became the Grand Vizier, and soon after palace coup, and Sultan Abdul-Azis was first deprived of the throne, and then strangled in prison. In his place was Murad V, who, however, turned out to be weak-minded, so he had to be replaced and Abdul-Hamid was put in, who later remained the sultan until the revolution of 1908. Under Abdul-Hamid, who kept Mithad Pasha in power, Turkey's political position in relation to the powers became extremely aggravated, and in order to eliminate this situation, England then proposed that a special conference be held in London, at which it was supposed to peacefully resolve all issues after the Turks agreed to conclude an armistice with Serbia and Montenegro, first for a week, and then for six weeks. The conference met in London, but here the Turks, thinking that Russia would not dare to start a war, since England would firmly stand for Turkey, allowed themselves, in essence, to laugh at the European powers. As soon as the sessions of this London conference opened, the Turkish delegates announced that the Sultan had decided to give his country a constitution, and when the discussion of peace terms then began, the Turkish delegates declared that since they now had a constitution, no concessions could be made without a parliament. maybe. Such a statement, obviously hypocritical, in the opinion of the assembled diplomats, since, according to them, there could be no talk of any real constitution in Turkey at that time, even British diplomats were outraged against the Turks, and here a new ultimatum was presented to Turkey by Russia , which the Turkish government was invited to immediately accept the draft reforms that were developed by the European powers, and in case of its rejection, Russia threatened to declare war. England tried to persuade Russia and other governments to postpone the matter for one year, but Russia did not agree to this, and when the Turks refused our ultimatum, Emperor Alexander declared war on Turkey in April 1877. Such was the external course of events and relations in the aggravated eastern question.

Russo-Turkish War 1877–1878

Alexander II declared war not with a light heart; he was well aware of the importance of this step, he was aware of the extreme difficulty of the war for Russia with financial side and he clearly understood from the very beginning that, in essence, this war could very easily turn into a general European war and, perhaps, which seemed to him even more dangerous, into a Russian war against Austria, England and Turkey, with the rest of the powers neutral.

Thus, the circumstances were extremely serious. Prince Gorchakov, who was at the head of Russian diplomacy, was by this time extremely outdated, he was already close to eighty years old, apparently he did not even realize a number of circumstances, and his policy was extremely vacillating. Emperor Alexander himself also hesitated very strongly; in general, he did not want war at all, and it was mainly the mood that seized Russian society in general and those areas whose influence had access to court circles in particular that forced him to take decisive measures. Alexander Nikolaevich saw with displeasure that, thanks to the agitation raised by the Slavophiles on this question, which at that time had a very strong influence on the public opinion of the country and was very sensitively perceived abroad, he seemed to be bypassed and outstripped by this public opinion of the country and no longer was thus, in the eyes of Europe, the true representative and leader of his people. This circumstance extremely aroused court circles, who, especially in the autumn of 1876, during the stay of the court in the Crimea, showed great military fervor, which was reflected in the mood of Emperor Alexander himself, who saw himself largely forced, in the form of preserving the position of the true leader of the nation in the eyes of the whole world, to act more decisively in defense of the Slavs.

In vain did the Minister of Finance Reitern try to fight against this mood of Emperor Alexander, who saw quite clearly that, given our financial and economic relations at that time, the conduct of this war could lead us to extreme financial ruin. In 1875, Reitern had just succeeded in reaching such a state of the budget that not only could it finally be concluded without a deficit, but it was also possible to accumulate a metal fund, which at that time had already reached 160 million rubles, so that Reitern dreamed of starting , finally, in the near future to the implementation of its main idea - to the circulation of credit fiat money in change; and so, just at this very moment, circumstances - even before the war - began to take shape again in such a way that all Reitern's calculations were shaken. In 1875, there was a significant crop failure, at the same time, due to drought, shallow water appeared on inland waterways, which then still had such great importance in Russia in relation to the grain trade - in relation to the delivery of grain to the ports, and, thus, the export of Russian bread abroad decreased. By that time, as you remember, the development of Russian railway construction had reached great proportions. We already had a whole network of 17,000 versts, but many of these railroads did not generate sufficient income to cover the costs of maintenance and to give the profit negotiated under the guarantee; therefore, the government had to pay according to the guarantee accepted for the treasury, and for this either spend its gold fund, which was accumulated with such difficulty, or enter into loans, which in the end required the payment of significant interest and, in essence, also led as a result to a waste of the accumulated metal fund.

Thus, even before the war, the exchange rate of the ruble began to fall again, under the influence of an unfavorable balance of trade (due to a decrease in the sale of grain abroad) and due to the need for the government to spend a lot of money abroad to pay for railway guarantees. At the same time, a number of foreign capitals, in view of the alarming international circumstances, began to sail abroad; there were also random internal circumstances that acted in the same unfavorable direction, such as, for example, the bankruptcy of one of the large banks in Moscow as a result of Strusberg's major fraud. All this caused a stock market panic, a banking crisis and an even greater increase in the outflow of foreign capital. Thus, even before the war, Reitern's plans began to waver, and the war, of course, threatened them with complete collapse. Already in order to carry out one partial mobilization, which in the autumn of 1876 was ordered to be carried out to threaten Turkey, a hundred million loan had to be concluded, and Reitern sharply told the sovereign that if there was a war, then state bankruptcy could be expected.

But despite all these most serious warnings by Reitern, under the influence of Slavophile agitation, under the influence of public opinion, which was strongly in favor of war after the Bulgarian horrors, Emperor Alexander nevertheless decided to fight.

When the war had already begun, it turned out that no matter what mass productions had to be done paper money which, of course, completely ruined all of Reitern's plans to restore the exchange rate of the paper ruble, regardless of this, it turned out that we were not ready for war in other respects either. It turned out that Milyutin's transformations (especially the replacement of recruitment by universal military service, made only in 1874, i.e., just two years before the mobilization of 1876), were so new and so overturned the entire previous organization of the army that to carry out the mobilization of the army under these conditions, it turned out to be far from easy, and those administrative authorities, on which the correctness and speed of actions during mobilization depended to a large extent, turned out to be beyond all criticism, and therefore it turned out that we could only deliver an insufficient number of troops to the Turkish borders within six months .

Here Count Ignatiev, the Russian ambassador in Constantinople, was partly to blame, who asserted that we would very easily defeat the Turks, that Turkey was disintegrating, and that very small forces were needed to deliver a decisive blow to her.

In fact, it turned out that not only did we have few troops, but the army headquarters was extremely badly chosen. The brother of Emperor Alexander was made commander-in-chief, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, a man who did not have the necessary strategic talents at all. He chose General Nepokoichitsky as chief of staff, who, in his youth, may have been capable person, especially as a writer on military matters, but now completely outdated, distinguished by complete indiscretion and had no campaign plan.

Thus, it turned out that immediately after the brilliantly executed crossing of our troops across the Danube, a new confusion immediately turned out. The heads of individual detachments, due to the lack general plan, began to take very risky actions at their own risk, and now, the very enterprising and brave General Gurko rushed straight beyond the Balkans and, without encountering significant obstacles on his way, was carried away almost to Adrianople. Meanwhile, Osman Pasha, who commanded several tens of thousands of Turkish troops, took up an impregnable position at Plevna in the rear of our troops, who had crossed over the Balkans. The assault on Plevna was repulsed, and it soon turned out that this was such an impregnable place from which it was impossible to knock out Osman Pasha, and we had to think about a long-term siege, and we did not have enough troops to surround Plevna from all sides. Our situation turned out to be sad, and if Suleiman Pasha, who was in command of the southern Turkish army and who was on the other side of the Balkans at that time, immediately crossed, as he was ordered, through the Balkans and joined with Osman, then Gurko and our other advanced detachments would be cut off from the rest of the army and would inevitably perish. Only due to the fact that this Suleiman Pasha, apparently competing with Osman, instead of going through one of his passes, as he was ordered, went to drive the Russians out of the Shipka Pass, which was occupied by Radetsky - the only thanks to this mistake or the crime of Suleiman Pasha, our forward detachments were saved. We managed to hold Shipka, Suleiman Pasha was repulsed by Radetzky, Gurko managed to safely retreat, and at the same time our new troops managed to approach. However, Plevna had to be besieged for several months; Our first attempt to capture the Plevninsk Heights was in July 1877, and we managed to force Osman Pasha to surrender only in December, and then only because the entire guard was demanded from Petersburg, which could quickly mobilize and be delivered to the theater of war.

In addition, it was necessary to seek help from Prince Charles of Romania, who agreed to give his own, although a small, but well-trained and armed army of thirty-five thousand, only on the condition that he himself be appointed commander of the entire siege corps. Only with the arrival of the engineer-general Totleben, summoned from St. Petersburg, did the siege of Plevna go right, and Osman Pasha finally had to lay down his arms after an unsuccessful attempt to break through.

Capture of the Grivitsky redoubt near Plevna. Painting by N. Dmitriev-Orenburgsky, 1885

Thus, the campaign lasted for the whole of 1877 and part of 1878. After the capture of Plevna, we managed to cross the Balkans again, take Adrianople, which was not a fortress at that time, and approach Constantinople in January 1878. At this time, Emperor Alexander received a telegram from Queen Victoria , with which she asked him to stop and conclude a truce. Although Emperor Alexander promised England before the outbreak of the war that he would not seek to occupy Constantinople, nevertheless, Lord Beaconsfield, in support of this telegram, had already succeeded in applying for 6 million pounds sterling from Parliament for military purposes, and war with England seemed almost inevitable. . But Turkey, which was completely exhausted, was forced to ask for peace without waiting for British support, and in mid-January (according to the new style) 1878, the Adrianople truce was concluded, which was based on the promise of the Sultan to satisfy the demands of the great powers and give correct device- partly in the form of semi-independent principalities, partly in the form of territories with Christian governors-general - to all Christian provinces of European Turkey. Soon after the armistice, diplomatic negotiations opened in San Stefano, conducted on our part by Ignatiev with complete success. In March, a peace treaty was already signed, according to which all the demands of Russia were satisfied. At the same time, not only the expansion of Serbia and Montenegro was spoken out, but Bulgaria also became a semi-independent principality with a territory reaching the Aegean Sea.

At the same time, since we waged a war in the Caucasus much more successfully than on the Balkan Peninsula, and managed to take Kars, Erzerum and Batum, it was established under the peace treaty that in return for part of the negotiated military indemnity, which Turkey had to pay Russia in the amount of 1400 million rubles, it will provide Russia in the region of Asian Turkey from the territory occupied by us Kars and Batum with their districts. However, necessary condition of the world, Emperor Alexander set the return to Russia of that piece of Bessarabia, which was separated from Russia and given to Romania in 1856, and since Romania, which fought in alliance with Russia, was very offended by this, Dobruja was granted to it in the form of compensation.

Berlin Congress 1878

However, as soon as England learned about these conditions of peace, Lord Beaconsfield immediately protested against any changes in the territory of Turkey without the participation of the great powers that took part in the Congress of 1856 in Paris. Therefore, Emperor Alexander had to finally, under the threat of a difficult war with England and Austria, agree to a Congress of Representatives of the Great Powers in Berlin, under the chairmanship of Bismarck. At this congress, the terms of the peace were significantly changed: the acquisitions of Serbia, Montenegro, and especially Bulgaria were curtailed. From the latter, a whole region, Eastern Rumelia, was separated in the south of the Balkans, which remained a Turkish province with a Christian governor-general.

Beaconsfield also protested against the territorial acquisitions of Russia, and although he did not succeed in destroying them, he nevertheless managed to insist that Batum, from a military port, which it was until then, be turned into a peaceful harbor accessible to all states.

Thus, the conditions of peace were changed not in favor of Russia. This circumstance, in connection with the method of conducting the war, which caused a number of failures, as well as the theft, which this time was also discovered during the supply of supplies and for the investigation of which a special commission was appointed, all this created extreme indignation and a sharpening of mood in wide circles. Russian society. It must be said that not only the radical and revolutionary-minded layers were indignant at that time, but even the most loyal circles of society with the Slavophiles at the head. When rumors about the concessions made at the Berlin Congress reached Moscow, Ivan Aksakov spoke at a public meeting of the "Slavic Society" with a thunderous speech, where he said:

“Surely we must admit at least a fraction of the truth in all these correspondences and telegrams, which daily, hourly, in all languages, to all corners of the world, are now spreading from Berlin the shameful news of our concessions and, being transferred to the jurisdiction of the whole people, have never been refuted by Russian power, then they burn him with shame and sting his conscience, then they crush him with bewilderment ... "

Then, in bright and harsh words, describing the humiliating behavior of our diplomats and depicting the significance of these concessions for the inviolability and freedom of the southern part of Bulgaria, for the independence of the rest of the Slavic peoples on the Balkan Peninsula, for the political predominance of Austria, which he hates, and for the decline of our prestige among the Slavic world, Aksakov somewhat once repeated that he refuses to believe that these actions of our diplomacy would be approved and recognized " supreme authority", and ended his wonderful speech with the following words:

“The people are agitated, grumbling, indignant, embarrassed by daily reports about the Berlin Congress, and waiting, as good news, for a decision from above. Waiting and hoping. His hope will not lie, because the King's word will not be broken: "The holy work will be brought to an end." The duty of loyal subjects tells us all to hope and believe, but the duty of loyal subjects tells us not to be silent in these days of lawlessness and unrighteousness, erecting a mediastinum between the king and the earth, between the royal thought and the people's thought. Can it really be heard from above in response to an impressive word: “Silence, honest lips! Only you speak, flattery and falsehood!

When Emperor Alexander found out about this speech, he became so angry that, despite Aksakov's position in society and his years, he ordered him to be expelled from Moscow by administrative procedure.

A particularly tense situation persisted in Poland, where numerous secret organizations appeared. Contemporaries divided them into two types - "red" (who fought for the interests of the peasantry) and "white" (landlords and the big bourgeoisie who opposed the solution of the peasant question). Both parties, however, were united by the desire to restore Poland within the borders of 1772. The anti-Russian mood in the Polish environment was so strong that even the initiative of the head of the civil administration, Marquis A. Wielopolsky, to restore the constitution of 1815 was considered too moderate a national program and did not satisfy either the “reds” or the “whites”. The Marquis decided to recruit revolutionary-minded youth into the army with the help of a special recruitment set, which led to an armed uprising at the end of January 1863. By May 1864, the uprising was finally crushed, after which the last remnants of Polish autonomy were liquidated, and the name of the Kingdom of Poland was replaced by the faceless "Privislensky region". Polish nobles were deprived of the right to elect marshals of the nobility, who were now appointed from St. Petersburg. Catholic Poles were prohibited from buying and renting land in nine western provinces.

Under Alexander II, the policy begun by Nicholas I in relation to the Caucasian peoples continued. Commander-in-Chief of the Caucasian Army A.I. Baryachtinsky considered it necessary to begin an active settlement of the Caucasus with the Terek Cossacks, "in order to gradually embarrass the highlanders and deprive them of their livelihood." The result of such a policy was the forcible resettlement of about 100 thousand Circassians to Turkey (at the same time, not only Cossacks and peasants, but also Greeks and Armenians who fled from oppression from Turkey) moved to the liberated lands.

However, there were other opinions regarding the solution of the national question in the Caucasus. Minister of War D.A. Milyutin called for a more flexible national policy, considering it necessary to leave intact the religion, customs and way of life of the Caucasian peoples. The government acted in line with this policy, providing support to the higher and middle clergy. A special court was introduced in the Caucasus, which consisted of elected representatives of the mountain peoples who decided cases "in the spirit of popular beliefs."

The attitude of the government towards the Jewish population also changed. In the 1860s, various benefits were introduced that allowed merchants of the 1st guild, owners of academic titles, some categories of artisans. The government of Alexander II began to pursue a more flexible policy towards the peoples of the Volga region (the policy of forced Christianization in this region showed its complete failure; many newly baptized peoples returned to their former beliefs). The second half of the 19th century was for many of them the time of the formation of the national intelligentsia, the foundations of the literary Tatar language, the first Tatar and Chuvash schools were opened. At the same time, the administrative-political independence and national self-government of the German colonies in the Volga region and the national school in them were destroyed. All this caused the exodus of the German population from Russia to America.

Atmosphere liberal reforms contributed to the rise of national consciousness in the ranks of the Ukrainian and Belarusian intelligentsia. But if in relation to other peoples the government allowed certain indulgences. Then in Little Russia (Ukraine) and the provinces of the North-Western Territory (Belarus), the government saw the primordially Russian part of the population of the country and refused to recognize the independent existence of the Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples, their national language and culture.

Thus, the government of Alexander II pursued a selective national policy. But this selectivity manifested itself only in the choice various methods to achieve a single goal - to strengthen the united and mighty Russian Empire.

The next ruler, Alexander III, acted in the same vein, seeing as one of his main tasks the preservation of the unity of the multinational Russian state.

The purpose of this article is to briefly introduce the reader to the internal and foreign policy Alexander II. Alexander II is rightly called the king-liberator and the king-reformer. The changes that took place in Russia during his reign were radical and significantly changed the nature of its development. Foreign policy was quite successful, Russia significantly strengthened its positions and expanded its spheres of influence.

1. Video

Domestic policy of Alexander II

Foreign policy of Alexander II

• The main task of Alexander II during the accession was a more or less worthy end to the shameful Crimean War, during which the monstrous backwardness of Russia was revealed. The loss of the fleet and bases on the Black Sea as a result of the war, a significant blow to Russia's positions in the Eastern question determined the further foreign policy in terms of revising the results of the Crimean War.
• Alexander II adhered to the tactics of accumulating and gathering forces before a decisive performance. Carrying out the necessary internal reforms, along with military reforms, allowed him in 1877, under the pretext of protecting the Slavic population, to declare war on Turkey. Started new stage in resolving the Eastern question. The hostilities have shown that Russia is once again a serious participant in world events.
• The victorious and fairly confident end of the war in 1878 gave independence to part of the Slavic peoples of the Turkish Empire. Russia received a huge indemnity from Turkey, the territories lost in the Crimean War were returned to it. The provisions of the preliminary peace treaty were indeed significantly revised with the participation of Western countries, who feared the strengthening of Russia, at the Berlin Congress (1878), but the fact of the revival of Russian power was recognized by all.
• Another direction of the foreign policy of Alexander II was the strengthening of positions in the Far East and Central Asia, the final formation of the territory of the Russian Empire. In Central Asia, Russia's rivals were three Muslim kingdoms: Kokand, Bukhara and Khiva. A number of Russian military campaigns led to their defeat. By the mid 80s. middle Asia became completely part of the empire. On the Far East Russia acted with the help of agreements and treaties with China. Successful diplomacy led to the accession to Russia of the Amur Region and the Ussuri Territory.

Importance of domestic and foreign policy of Alexander II

• Alexander II got into his hands a country that was defeated in the war, in a difficult situation, lagging behind the Western powers in a number of indicators. The success of his policy was expressed in the fact that by the end of his reign, the most important transformations were carried out in the country, which, with further development could make Russia a world leader. Unfortunately, the fruitful policy was curtailed.
• Russia has made significant progress on the world stage. The consequences of the Crimean War were eliminated, the final borders of the Russian Empire on the outskirts were fixed. Russia is taking its place in the new system of emerging military-political alliances.