The 17th century is called “rebellious” by historians because of the many popular uprisings and riots that took place during this century. Popular uprisings swept across huge masses of the tax-paying population. In addition, the performances were not limited to the capital, but took place throughout Russia.
The most massive uprisings of the 17th century: 1. Salt riot in Moscow in 1648; 2. Bread riots in Pskov and Novgorod in 1550; 3. Copper riot in Moscow in 1662; 4. Cossack-peasant uprising led by Stepan Razin in 1667 - 1671.
The reasons for the popular uprisings were the enslavement of peasants and the increase in their duties, increased tax oppression, an attempt to limit Cossack liberties, church schism and persecution of Old Believers. The urban unrest was complex and ambiguous. The main force of the uprisings were the “black people” - the lower and middle strata of the urban population. Inside the posads there was a struggle against the privileged commercial and industrial strata (guests, merchants of the living room and cloth hundreds), as well as the “best people” (the rich), who shifted the burden of taxes onto the “middle” and “younger” people. The Posad poor were often joined by the Streltsy, who by origin and type of economic occupation were closely connected with them. Cossacks, dissatisfied with the government’s attack on their liberties, also took an active part in popular movements. With Nikon's church reform, the army of those dissatisfied and ready to fight the authorities was replenished by schismatics who suffered severe persecution.
SALT RIOT , the movement of the lower and middle strata of the townspeople, urban artisans, archers and courtyard people in June 1648 in Moscow, one of the largest urban uprisings of the mid-17th century. The uprising was caused by the dissatisfaction of the “taxable” population with the policies of the government of B.I. Morozov and his closest associates L.S. Pleshcheeva and P.T. Trakhaniotova. In order to replenish the state treasury, the government replaced various direct taxes with a single tax on salt, which caused its price to rise several times. Outcry from peasants and townspeople forced the government to cancel the new procedure for collecting taxes, but the authorities collected previous arrears for the last three years immediately
COPPER RIOT (Moscow uprising of 1662), an anti-government uprising of Muscovites on July 25, 1662, caused by the disruption of economic life during the wars of Russia with Poland and Sweden, an increase in taxes, and the issue of depreciated copper money. Since 1654, large quantities of copper money began to be issued, equal to the value of silver money, which led to their depreciation, speculation in basic necessities, and the mass production of counterfeit copper money, in which the ruling elite also participated. A financial catastrophe broke out in the country. A few days before the uprising, people talked about the “thieves' sheets” that were posted in certain areas of the city on the night of July 24-25.
Peasant War led by Stepan Razin, The Peasant War of 1670-1671 or the uprising of Stepan Razin - a war in Russia between the troops of peasants and Cossacks with the tsarist troops. It ended in the defeat of the rebels.
Causes: In Soviet historiography, the reasons indicated are that the period for searching for fugitive peasants became indefinite, and excessive feudal oppression manifested itself. Another reason was the strengthening of centralized power, the introduction of the cathedral code of 1649. It is quite possible that the immediate cause of the war was the general weakening of the country’s economy as a result of the protracted war with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Ottoman Empire over Ukraine. State tax increases. A pestilence epidemic and mass famine begin.
Background: The so-called Zipun Campaign (1667-1669) is often attributed to the uprising of Stepan Razin - the campaign of the rebels “for booty”. Razin's detachment blocked the Volga and thereby blocked the most important economic artery of Russia. During this period, Razin's troops captured Russian and Persian merchant ships. Having received the loot and captured the Yaitsky town, in the summer of 1669 Razin moved to the Kagalnitsky town, where he began to gather his troops. When enough people had gathered, Razin announced a campaign against Moscow.
Results: The scale of the reprisal against the rebels was enormous; in some cities more than 11 thousand people were executed. In total, more than 100 thousand rebels were destroyed. The Razins did not achieve their goal: the destruction of the nobility and serfdom. But the uprising of Stepan Razin showed that Russian society was split. Reaching a compromise proved impossible.
During the period of decomposition of the feudal-serf system in Russia at the end of the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries. in Siberia, protest against social oppression was expressed in speeches by state and assigned peasants, artisans at state-owned and cabinet factories and mines against exploitation, arbitrariness and violence on the part of officials, mining managers, and merchants. The first unrest among hired workers began in the gold mines of Siberia. The performances of the indigenous peoples of Siberia occupied a significant place in social movements.
Particularly acute discontent manifested itself among artisans and peasants assigned to factories and mines. The difficult material and socio-legal situation of the dependent categories of the mining population aggravated class contradictions. Their spontaneous struggle was diverse in form. It was attended by miners, junior mountain servants and assigned peasants. However, each of these groups lived its own, separate life. Therefore, the performance of one of them was not always supported by the other. The unity of the exploited was hampered by the military barracks situation of workers at Siberian mining enterprises. Vigilant surveillance of their work and the lives of not only factory officials, but also the military team made it difficult to openly speak out.
In 1789, peasants assigned to the Nerchinsk silver smelting plants filed a complaint to the Irkutsk and Kolyvan Governor-General Pil about their oppression by the factory authorities and burdening them with various duties, “from which they fell into extreme poverty and ruin.” 1 The peasants complained that they were forced to transport ore and coal “above the legal limit” in mountainous and inconvenient places for driving, because of which they suffered “extreme losses and lost a considerable number of horses.” The peasants considered factory arable farming extremely burdensome and “completely ruinous”, which separated them from their own agricultural activities. In addition, they had to perform factory work for minors, the elderly, the disabled, conscripts, and even the dead, who, before the new revision, were listed as part of the revision souls. As a result, the work assigned to 12,241 people was transferred to 5,032 people. 2 The peasants protested against bribery, extortion, and oppression by the zemstvo police and factory managers. They sought the abolition of state-owned arable land, a reduction and equal distribution of other duties, and the elimination of administrative and police arbitrariness on the part of officials.
In 1790, an investigation was appointed that confirmed the correctness of the complaints of the assigned peasants of the Nerchinsk silver smelting plants. The Governor-General reported to the Senate that “the exhaustion of the strength of the peasants comes to a complete extreme, which creates danger, so that in case of intolerance they, the burdened peasants, do not encroach on any desperate enterprise.” 3
In June 1792, the Senate suggested that the Governor-General not leave the offended peasants without “satisfaction, but deal with the guilty according to the laws.” 4 The solution to the question of “how to support the peasants without burden with work and in proper order” was submitted to the discretion of the Siberian Governor-General, but what measures he took to this end remained unknown. The officials, accused of “bringing the Nerchinsk factory peasants to extreme ruin and engaging in abuses,” were removed from office, put on trial, but were not punished. 5
In the late 80s and early 90s of the 18th century. working people and “lower employees” of the Nerchinsk factories and mines complained about the lack of food products given to them. The workers stated that they “suffer an extreme shortage and ask that they be given more food from the treasury for their children in a decent proportion.” The factory administration was forced to make some concessions, as it feared that “poverty and insufficiency, and even more so hunger” would force desperate people “to do all kinds of bad things.” 6 Often the hatred of workers resulted in reprisals against the most hated persons from the factory administration. There is a report that in 1828 there was a protest by workers of the Petrovsky ironworks. 7
In the 30s of the XIX century. Among the peasants assigned to Siberian factories, rumors began to spread about their transfer to the state category with exemption from factory duties. The reason for this was the transfer in 1830 of the management of the Kolyvan-Voskresensky (Altai) factories from the Imperial Cabinet to the Ministry of Finance, but leaving the peasants in the personal property of the emperor. The center of the unrest was the village of Varyukhina, Oyashinsky volost, assigned to the Kolyvano-Voskresensky factories, whose peasants refused to carry out factory work. They were supported by peasants from other villages in Oyashinskaya and even neighboring volosts. It took the military team several days to break the resistance of the peasants. 8
In the 20s of the XIX century. There were unrest among the state peasants of Western Siberia. They were caused by a sharp increase in monetary collections for zemstvo duties, an increase in in-kind duties, and the increased arbitrariness of officials. All this led to a decline in the solvency of the Siberian village and an increase in arrears.
The unrest took its most acute form in 1825-1826, when, according to rough estimates, about 11 thousand peasants in 13 volosts took part in them. Unrest spread across almost the entire Tobolsk province; There were four cases of peasant unrest in the Tomsk province, and one case in the Omsk region. All categories of the peasantry took part in the movement - from the poorest part to the wealthy elite, since feudal oppression, although not to the same extent, put pressure on the entire peasantry.
One of the common forms of protest of the Siberian peasantry against feudal exploitation and the arbitrariness of the administration was the mass filing of complaints and protests, in which the peasantry’s faith in the “justice” of the higher administration and the tsar was manifested.
The discontent of the peasants was also expressed in unauthorized relocations. The Governor-General of Western Siberia, in a report for 1823, reported them as common phenomena. For example, about three thousand revision souls voluntarily moved to the shores of the fish-rich Chanovsky lakes from different districts of Western Siberia. 9
The Siberian peasantry also resorted to refusing to carry out this or that order. The events that took place in the Cannes district of the Tomsk province are characteristic. In 1824, the Chanovsky Lakes were declared government quitrent articles. Free fishing was prohibited there. Meanwhile, fishing was a serious help for peasant farming. The peasants of the villages close to the lakes categorically refused to take the lakes for rent. Their stubborn resistance forced the government in April 1826 to again declare the lakes free for public use.
Massive unrest of peasants in 1825-1826. the government had to suppress with military force.
The largest protests began in the Turin and Tyumen districts. Poor crops and heavy loss of livestock put the peasants of the Turin district in a difficult situation. Under these conditions, they were presented with demands to pay 7 rubles in excess of the estimate for zemstvo duties. 26 kopecks from the revision soul. The peasants of the Turin volost declared the new fees illegal and in August 1825 drew up a public verdict, according to which they refused to pay increased zemstvo duties. Not trusting their clerk, the peasants invited the literate peasant F. Ya. Asanov from the neighboring Kuminovskaya volost, who, in front of a large crowd of people, read the decree on duties and interpreted it in his own way. He explained that the decree was not allowed to perform any duties other than pre-existing ones.
Attempts by zemstvo police officials to force peasants to pay new taxes failed. (As the Turin zemstvo police officer reported, on August 8, 1825, the peasants of the Turin volost “showed complete disobedience to the zemstvo authorities in paying money” and “in addition to other actions, they committed a riot against the zemstvo police officer and the district attorney.” 10
By order of the Tobolsk governor, a zemstvo police officer with officials and a military team of 50 people were sent to the Turin and Kuminovsk volosts. They were ordered to seize the main “ringleaders”, “restore calm” and collect money from the peasants for zemstvo duties. When the peasants of these volosts heard rumors about the approach of a military command, they began to gather from all the villages in the villages of Turinsky and Kuminovsky and decided to defend their demands. A military team with weapons in hand dispersed the crowds of peasants. In the village of Kuminovskoye, 14 captured peasants were sent to a prison castle. In the village of Turinsky, the military team managed to capture the main “rebels” - the volost head Kaygorodov, the headman Abrosov and about 50 peasants. eleven
The peasants of the Kossuth volost of the Turin district were also gripped by excitement, not only the Russian, but also the non-Russian population.
In July-August 1825, major unrest occurred in the Tavdinskaya volost of the Tyumen district. The peasants here also refused to pay taxes on zemstvo duties and did not obey the volost mayor and clerk. The unrest of the peasants of the Tavda volost was suppressed only as a result of the use of armed force. 12
The unrest of state peasants that unfolded in the Turin and Tyumen districts in 1825 was notable for its mass character, the unity of the peasants, and the unity of the demands put forward. All layers of the peasantry, including the non-Russian population of the Turin district, took part in the unrest - from the poor to the wealthy elite.
In the Tobolsk district in 1825, unrest occurred in the volosts inhabited by Tatars. Peasants Aliver Kelmetov and Abdybak Urazmetov agitated the Tatars of the Tobolsk district to refuse to pay taxes. 13
The Tobolsk and Tomsk governors reported in their reports that the collection of arrears that had accumulated since 1824 led in 1826 to peasant disobedience and even “riot.”
The peasants of the village of Mironova, Cheremshansky volost, Ishim district, “displayed a riot against the volost head and assessor” and completely refused to pay zemstvo taxes. A 100-member military team was sent to the Ishim district, which suppressed the unrest of the peasants. 14
In April 1826, during the collection of arrears in the villages of Zavodoukovskaya and Suerskaya of the Yalutorovsky district, “first murmurs arose, then disobedience, and finally even rioting.” In the Suera volost, the peasants Medvedev and Pyankov “persuaded their comrades to pay only one tax,” 15 not to pay arrears and fees for zemstvo duties. Even Governor N.N. Bantysh-Kamensky, who came to the peasants, “with all his suggestions, was not completely successful.” Only a military detachment forced the peasants to obey their superiors. The peasant leaders Artemy Medvedev and Semyon Pyankov were punished with whips and exiled to a settlement in another province. Six participants, accused of "disobedience and rioting", were also subjected to corporal punishment. The court decided to collect 925 rubles from the peasants. “for food and runs” for officials and military teams.
The mass movement of peasants forced the government to act not only by force of arms, but also to make some concessions. By order of the Governor-General of Western Siberia, monetary collections from peasants were reduced by converting them into natural ones. The governor-general’s announcement also stated that the peasants would be protected “from the injustices of the zemstvo and volost authorities.” 16 The measures taken by the Siberian administration and dictated by fear of the unfolding peasant unrest did not lead to a significant improvement in the situation of the peasants.
Some decline in the mass movement of Siberian peasants in the 30s of the 19th century. was temporary. The growth of monetary fees for zemstvo (district) and volost duties, the increase in natural duties, and the arbitrariness of the bureaucracy created the preconditions for the rise of the movement of Siberian peasants. In the early 40s, protests by old-time peasants intensified in connection with the delimitation of land for immigrants from the central regions of Russia.
The activities of the new Ministry of State Property, aimed at increasing guardianship over state peasants, increased the tension in the Siberian countryside, since its measures limited the freedom of the peasantry in land use and violated the freedom of their economic activities. Rumors that they wanted to make them appanages and landowners caused alarm among the peasants. The influence of the peasant unrest that took place in the Perm and Orenburg provinces neighboring Siberia was also felt.
Unrest among state peasants in the early 40s captured the most populated part of Siberia - the Tobolsk province. In August 1842, in the Salamanovskaya volost of the Yalutorovsky district, peasants beat and expelled the draftsman and the workers who carried out land surveying, so that they “would not dare to go and survey these lands in the future.” Peasant protests against the actions of land surveyors also took place in the Tarsky, Tyumen, Ishim and Tobolsk districts.
The most significant was the movement of state peasants in 1843. Rumors spread among the peasants of the Kurgan district that somewhere there was a decree, printed in gold letters, on the transfer of state peasants to serfdom and that the village authorities were hiding it, wanting to please the landowner. 17 This rumor was the impetus for the outbreak of mass unrest. The earliest performances began in the Utyatsky volost of the Kurgan district. Having gathered in a crowd, the peasants decided to find the decree and began to demand it from the volost authorities. The peasants believed that the destruction of the decree could prevent the danger.
The peasants of the Utyatka volost communicated with the peasants of the Chelyabinsk district, sent their proxies there, who brought with them “outrageous papers” - leaflets. One of the leaflets described what a grave fate awaited state peasants if they fell into the possession of landowners. Following Utyatskaya, the unrest spread to 12 volosts of the Kurgan district.
Everywhere the struggle took place in the same forms: the peasants, seeking a decree, dealt with the volost authorities, and in some volosts with the clergy, gathered meetings to coordinate actions, and contacted the peasants who were worried in neighboring volosts. A measure that could, in the opinion of the peasants, prevent their transfer to serfdom was a categorical refusal to sign any documents proposed by the volost authorities or officials. For this purpose, peasants at lay congresses drew up public verdicts refusing to give any signatures. This was a kind of mutual responsibility, in which each peasant was charged with monitoring the implementation of the decision of the gathering.
All efforts of the officials and clergy to achieve calm through suggestion and explanation failed. The Governor-General of Western Siberia, P. D. Gorchakov, went to the scene of peasant unrest and, addressing the peasants, tried to calm them down and promised “not to prosecute the misunderstandings that existed between them.” At the same time, he took measures to increase military forces to suppress the movement: about seven hundred Cossacks with guns were collected in various districts of the Tobolsk province. However, the unrest continued. There were rumors among the Kurgan peasants that if they remained free from the landowners, it was only because they were “rebelling.” Unrest took place in the Ishim and Tobolsk districts, and they intensified in the Yalutorovsky district. Only as a result of the introduction of military teams into the places of peasant unrest were they suppressed. In the Kurgan district alone, 90 peasants, mostly poor and middle peasants, were brought to investigation and punishment as instigators and active participants in the unrest. Among the participants in the unrest, the poor peasant Ivan Asyamolov and the retired Cossack Gavriil Novokreshchenov especially stood out for their energy and perseverance. Both of them were literate and influential among the peasants.
The mass unrest of state peasants in Western Siberia had a clearly expressed anti-serfdom character. There was no decree on transferring peasants to the power of landowners, but projects for imposing landownership in Siberian lands were more than once put forward by serf owners. Therefore, the protests of the peasants helped prevent attempts to enslave them. Government auditors pointed out the danger of a repetition in Siberia of actions similar to the uprising led by Stepan Razin, and explained that by this they mean “not gangs of robbers roaming the roads, but the implementation of rebellious gatherings of Stepan Razin, penetrating to Nizhny Novgorod and threatening capital." 18
The government was forced to retreat. The new procedure for managing state peasants, according to which the guardianship of officials over the countryside was strengthened and fees for the maintenance of the administrative apparatus (chambers of state property) were increased, was not extended to Siberia, 19 of which Governor-General Gorchakov was notified in June 1843. It is characteristic that he himself Gorchakov warned Nicholas I: “The introduction of a new administration can lead to the fact that displeasure can spread with incredible speed, increasing along the way. As for the means of extinguishing a fire... they are insignificant, remote and not even entirely reliable.” 20
The government's refusal to introduce new governance in Western Siberia is objective proof of the strength of the Siberian peasant movement. It played the same role as major unrest in the central and eastern regions of European Russia, namely, it contributed to the weakening of the foundations of the feudal-serf system.
The class struggle also manifested itself within the Siberian countryside, where broad sections of peasants sought to counteract their enslavement by merchants-usurers and village “world-eaters.” During the Siberian revision of M. M. Speransky in 1819-1820. Many complaints have been filed about abuses and disorder in the handling of debt claims. Peasants complained that the “world-eaters” forced their hired workers into unpayable debts and kept debtors in indefinite work. The complaints protested against moneylenders giving children as collateral for money borrowed by parents, and against the exorbitant increase in interest rates on money loans. The peasants also complained about the “volost, zemstvo and city authorities,” through which the moneylenders “forcibly took the last peasant property for debts.” 21
The government was forced to take legislative measures to limit usury. In 1822, the “Regulations on the examination of claims for obligations concluded between Siberian inhabitants of different classes” was published.
In the cabinet factories and mines of the Altai and Nerchinsk mountain districts, a form of social protest such as escape became widespread among working people who hereditarily belonged to the factories. Crushed by poverty and the harsh military regime, people sought salvation in flight. Peasants assigned to the Kolyvan-Voskresensky factories, in order to hide from feudal oppression, fled to “uninhabited places” lying beyond the southern borders of the Altai mountain district. In 1826, 41 families of such fugitive peasants settled in the Khanas tract.
Worker Ivan Chadov during 1830-1840. escaped from the Kushvinsky Goroblagodatsky plant five times. For the first escape, Chadov was put through a gauntlet of 200 people, for the second - 400, for the third - 500, for the fourth and fifth - 800 each. Chadov was transferred to the Nerchinsk factories. From here he fled again, for which he was “punished by the Spitzrutens three times through five hundred people.” 22 This cruel punishment did not deter Chadov. In June 1847, he made a new, seventh escape from the Verkhnekariya gold mine. During the investigation, Chadov testified that he “wanted to settle somewhere in the settlement and did not take away any government or private belongings when he escaped.” Many other workers did the same. 23 In 1858, 579 workers ran away from the gold mines of the Nerchinsk district. 24
The war between the workers and the factory administration dragged on “without concessions or truces.” 25 The authorities divided the villages where the workers lived into quarters and established day and night guards there. Slingshots were placed at the entrances to villages. They kept track of everyone who arrived and left the village. Secret pickets were set up everywhere on secret paths and crossings. All main roads were under the constant control of special military commands. Despite all these measures, the escapes did not stop.
The unrest and escapes of assigned peasants and workers at cabinet and state-owned factories and mines, based on forced labor, were essentially anti-feudal in nature.
The struggle of hired workers in private gold mines took a different direction. It was expressed in unrest and escapes of workers, which began in the first years of the existence of private gold mining in Siberia. The mine workers had many reasons and grounds for discontent: enslavement by deposits and debt obligations, difficult living and working conditions in the mines, oppression by gold miners, mine administration and the police.
Most of the mines were located hundreds of miles from residential areas, in the remote taiga wilds. Twice a year the workers had to make an arduous “journey” on foot through the taiga; it usually took at least two weeks. It happened that workers lost their way and died in the taiga while crossing, from hunger, cold and predatory animals. Meanwhile, gold miners tried to extend the time of gold washing: they delayed the work until late autumn, when the path from the taiga became especially dangerous.
One of the first protests by gold workers took place in 1831 at the Ryazanov mine in the Tomsk District. Out of 180 workers, 62 people initially left the mine “unauthorized.” The rest “at the onset of autumn,” as Ryazanov reported, “having left the work before the deadline appointed in the contract, dispersed with the greatest violence,” many “carried away” a significant amount of debt, without accepting payment and leaving no obligations. 26
In 1833, due to the prohibition by government auditors of mining work that provided additional income, unrest occurred at the Burlevsky and Bogoroditsa-Rozhdestvensky mines in the Tomsk province, which belonged to the gold miners Popov. In addition, the workers feared that with the establishment of state supervision in the industry, they would be enrolled as state artisans and assigned to the Imperial Cabinet. In total, about 700 people left the mines. This event caused great concern among the authorities. In a special order from the Minister of Finance, who feared the impact of this event on the workers of other mines, it was proposed to take all measures to return workers to the mines so that the development of the Rozhdestvensky and Burlevsky mines “was submitted to the Popovs’ own order.” Thus, by leaving the mines, the workers achieved some concessions - the lifting of the ban on artisanal work and guarantees against enslavement by the Imperial Cabinet.
In the same year, 1833, 78 workers of the Bolshenikolsky mine “revolted” and left the fields due to the harsh treatment of their supervisors, the reduction in the distribution of beef rations and the unfair allocation of places for mining work. The workers were returned with the help of a military team, but after a month and a half they again refused to work. Worker unrest in 1833 also occurred at the Voskresensky mine of Balandin and at a number of other mines. They did not stop in subsequent years.
A new wave of workers’ protests swept through the mines of Siberia in the summer of 1837. At Myasnikov’s Mitrofanovsky fields (Altai district) along the Kundati River, the reason for the protest was a clash between one of the workers and the official Grebenshchikov. The demonstration of 230 workers forced officials to flee "to safety." In total, in 1837, up to 1,500 workers took part in the unrest that took place in the mines of the Tomsk and Yenisei provinces.
In order to intimidate and quickly deal with protesting workers, military judicial commissions were created in 1838 (one in Tomsk, the other in Krasnoyarsk). Special Cossack detachments were stationed at the mines. But the workers' struggle did not stop.
The beginning of the 40s was marked by a number of major protests by mine workers. Conflicts between workers and gold miners often occurred over the completion time of mining operations. This, in particular, happened in 1841 at the mines of the Uderey system of the Yenisei district, where there were then more than 2 thousand workers. The workers' protest not only surpassed all previous ones in scale, but also took the form of a strike. At the same time, consistency and unanimity appeared in the demands and actions of the workers of almost all the Uderey mines scattered throughout the taiga. Apparently, communication was maintained between workers from different mines and an agreement was reached on the time of speech and the unity of demands. This forced the gold mine assessor to make “an order for the settlement of the people.” 27 The workers of the Uderei system, having left the mines on September 1, safely reached residential areas. Tragic events occurred with the workers of the mines of the Biryusa system. They also set off through the taiga on September 1st. From the Velikonikolaevsky mine alone, the company of Astashev and the merchants Korobkov and Tolkachev left 1,500 people. Half-naked people with a meager supply of crackers got lost in the taiga. Hundreds of people were found half dead from hunger and frost, and some of the workers could not be found. 28 The investigation established that at least 122 people “died in such an accident.” 29 Neither the owners nor the managers of the mines, who criminally allowed this tragedy, bore any responsibility for what happened.
The movement of mine workers reached its greatest strength in 1842. Events began at the same Velikonikolaevsky mine, the largest in Siberia, where over 2 thousand people worked at that time. Since the beginning of the mining season, excitement reigned among the workers, caused by the recent death of comrades, the intensification of work, the deterioration of mining conditions and insufficient quality food. 30 From the report of the Governor-General of Eastern Siberia V. Ya. Rupert to the Minister of Finance, it is clear that on May 10, the workers of the mine “made the first mess”, demanding better food. On May 27, a new conflict between workers and the administration arose over the distribution of sites for mining work. Having failed to achieve a fair resolution of this issue, the workers demanded that they be given a cash advance. But this was also denied to them. After this, the workers announced that they would not work, and the administration, in response to this, invited them to receive a payment and leave the mine. The workers resolutely refused. Then they were told that the distribution of food would be stopped until they went to work, but this had no effect either. Having grabbed provisions from the store, the workers did not start work at the mine for three days. In connection with these events, great excitement reigned among the workers of other mines of the Biryusa system, which in some places developed into open protests against the mine practices.
An official of special assignments under the Governor-General of Eastern Siberia, Silverhelm, went to the Biryusinsky mines. Gathering a team of 30 Cossacks, he moved to the Ryazanov mine. Here Silverhelm ordered the capture of 6 participants in the performance and publicly punish them to intimidate the rest. Then, arriving at the Velikonikolaevsky mine, he opened a session of the military court. The workers, recognized as the instigators, were subjected to severe punishment and sent to hard labor at the Nerchinsk factories. 31
Even more violent and massive uprisings of workers took place in 1842 in the Yenisei district, in the mines of which about 8 thousand people were employed. From the reports of individual assessors of private gold mines, it is clear that more than 4 thousand workers from eight mines worked in the Uderei system at that time. 32 Attempts by managers and assessors to persuade workers to continue working were unsuccessful: many workers left the fields before September 1 “unauthorized”, without even receiving a paycheck. 33 At a number of other industries, assessors, due to the large number of “people resisting the authorities” and the small number of Cossack crews, were forced to order the managers to pay off the workers. 34 A military detachment under the command of a gendarmerie officer was sent against the workers who refused to obey the mine administration and local authorities. 35 The detachment surrounded the workers returning from the mines and, under threat of execution, arrested the “main instigators.” According to the verdict of the military court, they were mercilessly punished, some were sent to hard labor.
Events of 1841 -1842 one official document defined it as “the disobedience of workers in the gold mines in droves.” This extremely alarmed not only gold miners, but also the authorities. For the mines of Western and Eastern Siberia, gendarmerie staff officers, who had gendarmes at their disposal, were appointed chiefs of police. Workers accused of violating mine regulations were brought before a military court and severely punished.
However, despite the situation of police terror created in the mines, the workers’ struggle did not stop. In 1843 and 1846 “unrest” occurred again in the mines of the Yenisei district. 36 In 1847, in the trades of the merchants Ryazanov, Balandin, Kazantsev, events acquired a particularly large scale. The reason for the speech was the refusal of one of the gold miners to satisfy the request of worker Zakhar Neborokov to allocate gold-bearing sands for mining work. Neborokov expressed indignation at this refusal. The mine administration tried to arrest Neborokov, but his comrades supported him. The unrest spread to other mines. Then a detachment of 28 Cossacks was called. The workers refused to hand over the instigators (Neborkov and Malyavin). Up to 1,400 people gathered on the folding sands. The workers began throwing stones at the officials and put them to flight. The Cossacks opened fire on the unarmed workers and only after that they managed to suppress the unrest.
In 1850 there was a strike at the Lena gold mines. The workers of the Voznesensky mine, owned by the merchant Trapeznikov, “staged a strike among themselves.”
The protests of mine workers took the form of spontaneous strikes characteristic of the early stage of the labor movement. This was expressed in the beating of individual members of the mine administration, unorganized seizure of grain, etc. But the simultaneous cessation and then start of work, the election of some leaders, and communication between workers of different camps indicated attempts to introduce some elements of organization into the workers’ movement. The actions of mine workers did not always achieve concrete positive results. But their struggle flowed into the general flow of the popular movement, which was growing against the serfdom prevailing in the country.
A prominent place in the social movements of the first half of the 19th century. The performances of the indigenous peoples of Siberia also took place.
At the end of the 20s, a group of poor people was organized among the Taz Nenets under the leadership of Vauli Nenyanga (Piettomina). She attacked rich relatives, took their deer and divided it among the poor. In 1839, the elders managed to capture Wauli Nenyanga and hand him over to the royal administration. By court decision, Vauli Nenyan was sent to settle in Surgut. However, he managed to escape and already in the spring of 1840 he led a new movement of the Nenets poor in the lower reaches of the Taz and Pura with a fairly clear program: reducing the yasak by half, reducing prices for flour and other goods while increasing prices for furs. This program expressed the aspirations of the broad masses of the Nenets and Khanty poor. Vauli Nenyangu was joined by the Nadym and Yamal Nenets and the Lower Ob Khanty. Initially, Vauli Nenyang himself, like the leaders of earlier peasant uprisings in Russia, called himself the “great elder” - the king of nomadic tribes. He hoped to negotiate with the tsarist administration to improve the situation of his people. However, pending the satisfaction of the claims made, Wauli Nenyan called not to pay yasak to the state treasury, and he removed the elders who did not fulfill this requirement and oppressed the poor.
At the end of 1840, Vauli Nenyang went to Obdorsk. The Russian administration turned to Berezov and Tobolsk for help. However, Wauli Nenyang himself, trying to avoid bloodshed, entered into negotiations with representatives of the authorities and was treacherously captured. Wauli Nenyanga was sentenced to hard labor. In 1842-1843. Wauli's associates Myeri Khudi and Sodoma Nenyan were captured. The name of Wauli Nenyanga - a fighter against the wealthy elite and the royal administration - became legendary.
The Yakut working population opposed the seizure of the best lands by patriarchal-feudal elements - toyons. In the late 20s and 30s of the XIX century. The inhabitants of the Third Melzhakhinsky nasleg of the Meginsky ulus waged a long struggle against the main founder of the Yakut Steppe Duma, Ponomarev, and his heirs, who seized many lands from the communal lands. Yakut cattle breeders demanded an equal distribution of land, especially hayfields.
Forms of spontaneous protest of the Yakut peasants against their enslavement by the toyons were escapes in order to get rid of exorbitant debt interest and exhausting labor in the toyon farms to work off the debt, as well as raids of “simple relatives” on the estates of the toyons. Armed with rifles and palm trees, 37 they seized the property of the toyons and stole their cattle. The participants in the raids divided the spoils between themselves and the poor people of the ulus.
The threat of the Toyons was the Yakut Vasily Slobodchikov, nicknamed Manchary, who was active in the 30s and 40s of the 19th century. He and his associates attacked the estates of the Toyons, took their livestock, and seized money and valuables. Vasily Slobodchikov was arrested several times, but he escaped from prisons and hard labor. Stories about Manchara's courage, dexterity and resourcefulness, and his help to the poor spread among the people. In October 1843, Manchary was caught and thrown with his comrades into the Yakut prison stockade, and in August 1847 he was sentenced to be chained to the wall for 10 years. 38
The name of Manchara became widely known in Yakutia. Numerous stories, traditions, and legends have been passed down about him. His contemporary poet Matvey Alexandrov, who served for some time as a regional solicitor (prosecutor) in Yakutsk, wrote the poem “Yakut Manchars”.
In the Buryat steppes there was either a hidden or an overt struggle against the semi-feudal elite - the Noyons. The Arats sought to limit power and replace the hated taishas, clan elders and other commanders. Ulus suglans (gatherings) passed sentences directed against the enslavement of the people by noyons and merchant-usurers. In 1800, “subjects of the 11 Khorin clans” decided: to prohibit the purchase and sale of goods on credit, not to give sons into bondage for their father’s debts, and to establish a rate for collecting interest. Opposition to usury was expressed in refusals to pay and work off usurious debts, and in debtors escaping from their creditors.
In the materials of the Steppe Dumas there are many complaints of the Arats about the seizure of their land by the Noyons. Taking advantage of the patronage of the tsarist administration, the noyons fenced off their mowing lands “separately from the people.” For example, the Buryats who lived along the river. Khonkholoy (Transbaikalia), they complained that “rich people, officials and wealthy people, having fenced off capable good lands, own them, but we can’t see anything better, and so we are oppressed, poor people, hoping for the mercy of the authorities.” 39
In 1803-1807 in 5 clans of the Olkhon department, “disputes and litigation” lasted for four years between “simple clans” and the shulengs Aldarov and Kalak. They were accused of “immoderate spending of the money they collected from society for duties.” The Buryats subordinate to them demanded their removal from office.
In 1816, in the Shontoy ulus of the Verkholensky department, the majority of local peasants, despite the opposition of the rich, eliminated the local rich man Mandarkhan Bakaev, who held the position of ulus foreman, and elected the poor man Imeney Baheev as foreman.
In the first quarter of the 19th century. There was a struggle between the Khorin Buryats against the Taisha Dymbyl Galsanov, who wasted public money, took bribes, extorted money from the Arats under threat of arrest and corporal punishment, and took away their cattle. In 1818, the representatives of all Khorin clans decided to remove him from office and recover half of the wasted money from him. The Siberian Governor-General I.B. Pestel, fearing unrest among the Khorin Buryats, sanctioned the removal of Galsanov from the taishinship and decided to put him on trial, but the cunning taisha converted to Christianity and thereby found patrons in St. Petersburg. He was again "raised to office," but the people refused to obey him.
Fearing unrest in the Khorin and Aginsk steppes, the tsarist government was forced to take measures against the overly presumptuous taisha. In 1821, along with other elders and officials, he was accused of “various impermissible monetary transactions with people subordinate to their management” and died under investigation.
In the 40s of the XIX century. In the Khorin steppe, events took place that were called the “Dymbylovshchina.” Taisha Dymbylov, seeking the patronage of higher authorities and awards, was baptized in the St. Petersburg palace church. Nicholas I acted as the “godfather”. The government and clergy hoped, through Dymbylov, to spread Orthodoxy among the Transbaikal Buryats, but the Khorin Buryats hated Taisha and his associates and began to seek the appointment of an investigation in connection with his abuses and his elimination. Based on their complaints, investigations were ordered several times, but the Khorin Buryats “received no satisfaction.” Dissatisfaction with Dymbylov grew. The Irkutsk governor was forced “to recognize it as absolutely necessary to remove Dymbylov not only from his present position, but... from the Khorinsky department in general in order to avoid unrest and anxiety.” 40 However, this time too, the patrons of the “royal godson” hushed up the case brought against him. On December 27, 1846, a fire destroyed the premises of the Steppe Duma with all its property, and rumors began to spread in the Khorinsk steppe about the guilt of the Taisha and his associates in the fire. Suglan participants accused Taisha of stealing state and public money and setting the Duma on fire and sharply opposed his patron, missionary Stukov.
At the suglans, threats were heard that in a month the Khorin people “would have neither Taisha Dymbylov nor a missionary.”
In such a situation it was no longer possible to whitewash the “royal godson.” The investigation proved that Taisha Dymbylov stole government and public money in the amount of about 12 thousand rubles. and in order to hide the crime he burned the Steppe Duma. Taisha and his accomplices were sentenced to hard labor.
“A good start” - this was the resolution of Nicholas I on the Synod’s report on measures to spread Christianity among the Buryats after Dymbylov’s baptism, but the successfully started career of the “royal godson” had an end that was scandalous for all the patrons of the taisha. His removal and punishment was caused by popular unrest that took place in the Khorin steppe. The Khorin events made a great impression on the Transbaikal Buryats.
Actions against the Taishas and other Buryat leaders also took place in the Selenga department. The protesters refused to obey them, sought at the suglans to eliminate unnecessary taxes and duties, accused the noyons of waste, bribery, and arbitrariness, and called for efforts to replace them and expose their crimes.
In the 20s of the XIX century. The dissatisfaction of the Urulga Evenki (Eastern Transbaikalia) with the actions of their chief commander, Prince Gantimurov, intensified and began to openly manifest itself. The Evenks of the Sortotsky, Manikersky and Chilchagirsky clans complained that Gantimurov sold them gunpowder not at the government price, but at exorbitant prices. The prince annually demanded people for his own work and Cossacks for distribution to clans, and the Evenks, under the prince’s coercion, supplied them with livestock, clothing and “everyday needs costing significant sums.” The indignant Evenks refused in 1824 “to submit yasak and duties to the Duma” and filed a complaint with the Irkutsk governor “about various oppressions inflicted by the Gantimurovs on the Tungus of the Sortotsky, Manikersky and Chilchagir clans.” 41 The investigation into this case, which dragged on for three years, confirmed the validity of the complaint. Suglan of the trusted Evenki clans “released” the old prince from managing the Urulga department under the pretext of his sick condition and old age (the position was considered lifelong), but the choice of the new chief ancestor was limited: he could only be chosen from the Gantimurov family. The main founder was the son of the old prince.
Evenki tribal leaders complained about “instigators” who incited the “tribals” to disobey. In 1817, a shuleng of the Staroboyagirsky family complained about yasak Nikolai Tyukavkin, who “not only disobeys himself, but also persuades others to this evil.” 42
The Evenki and Buryat arats more than once sought to eliminate officials they hated, but this did not affect the management system itself, which was based on local patriarchal-feudal elements. Instead of the eliminated bosses, others came in, and the abuses continued. An important unique feature of the anti-feudal struggle in Siberia was that the state and mining peasants and workers in state-owned and cabinet factories and mines were opposed by the feudal-serf state represented by its administrative apparatus.
Feudal exploitation was expressed in Siberia in the collection from state and mining peasants, yasak payers of taxes and duties, the severity of which was increased by extortions from officials and usurious bondage, in the use of conscription and forced labor of workers at state-owned and cabinet enterprises. The struggle of the Siberian working population was waged against these forms of exploitation, against administrative and police arbitrariness. Essentially, it was anti-feudal in nature and formed part of the general struggle of serfs, state and appanage peasants, workers, military villagers, soldiers and sailors of Russia against the feudal-serf regime. Popular uprisings were still spontaneous and scattered. The movement of the oppressed peoples of Siberia also joined the general flow of class struggle.
The course and forms of the class struggle in Siberia were also influenced by the emerging capitalist relations. The first unrest and strikes of hired workers took place in the Siberian gold mines. The growth of social stratification violated the former patriarchy of the Siberian village.
“The peasants generally live amicably among themselves,” wrote M.V. Zagoskin, who knew the Siberian village well. - But in accordance with historical laws, which are repeated among all peoples, there are warring parties in every village - the party of aristocrats, kulaks, rich men, i.e. world-eaters, who get the best mowing and the best lands for wine and throats - the party of the poor, numerous , but meaning nothing because of poverty.” 43
Conflicts arose between owners and workers, creditors and debtors, who fell into bondage to moneylenders. The interests of the majority of peasants came into conflict with the interests of the “world-eaters” from the emerging rural bourgeoisie - the kulaks.
1 Central State Historical Archive of the USSR, f. Senate, First Department, op. 1, d. 314, l. 4.
2 Ibid., l. 6.
3 Ibid., l. 8.
4 Ibid., pp. 132, 133.
5 Ibid., l. 147.
6 GACHO, f. Nerchinsk Mining Department, house 1684, l.l. 18.152.
7 S Maksimov. Siberia and hard labor, part III. St. Petersburg, 1871, p. 363.
8 T I Agapova. The situation of the masses and the class struggle in Siberian mining enterprises (late XVIII-60s of the XIX century). Uch. zap. Kabardinsk. state, ped, inst., vol. VII, Nalchik, 1955, pp. 89-106.
9 GAOO, f. Main Directorate of Western Siberia, op. 1, d. 228, l. 10.
10 Central State Historical Archive of the USSR, f. First Siberian Committee, 398, l. 13.
11 Ibid., op. 1, no. 527, pp. 32, 33.
12 Ibid., pp. 3, 4.
13 Ibid., no. 842, l. 169.
14 Central State Historical Archive of the USSR, f. Audits of Senators V.K. Bezrodny and B.A. Kurakin of Western Siberia, op. 1, d. 79, l. 17.
15 Ibid., f. Council of the Minister of Internal Affairs, 151, op. 11, pp. 275, 276
16 GAOO, f. Main Directorate of Western Siberia, op. 1, no. 292, pp. 390.394
17 Ibid., op. 13, no. 2a, l. 43-47.
18 Ibid., op. 2, d. 1927, l. 359.
19 S Prutchenko. Siberian outskirts. St. Petersburg, 1899, page 468
20 Central State Historical Archive of the USSR, f. Department of State Property, op. 4, building 26420, ll.4-6
21 Review of the main principles of local government in Siberia. St. Petersburg, 1841, pp. 129, 130.
22 GACHO, f. Nerchinsky Mining Administration, 206, l. 15.
23 Ibid., pp. 15, 23.
24 V. I. Semevsky. Workers in the Siberian gold mines, vol. I. St. Petersburg, 1898, p. 321.
25 S. Maksimov. Siberia and hard labor, part III, p. 289. 440
26 TsGIA USSR, f. Mining Department, op. 39, D. 59, l. 2.
27 On the history of the movement of workers in the gold mines of Eastern Siberia in the first half of the 19th century. Documentary publication and introductory article by A. S. Nagaev. Historical Archive, 1959, No. 5, pp. 218, 219.
28 Central State Historical Archive of the USSR, f. Council of the Minister of Internal Affairs, op. 4, no. 112, pp. 30, 31.
29 Ibid., no. 107, l. 15.
30 On the history of the movement of gold mine workers. . ., page 221.
31 Ibid., pp. 221-223.
32 Mining Journal, 1842, No. 12, pp. IV-X.
33 On the history of the movement of gold mine workers..., p. 219.
34 Central State Historical Archive of the USSR, f. Council of the Minister of Internal Affairs, op. 4, no. 107, pp. 15-17.
35 V. I. Semevsky. Workers in the Siberian gold mines, vol. I, p. 140.
36 Central State Historical Archive of the USSR, f. Council of the Minister of Internal Affairs, op. 4, no. 124, pp. 292, 293.
37 Palma - a wide knife with a long handle.
38 O. V. Ionova. Vasily Manchary. Yakutsk, 1946.
39 V Girchenko. Social stratification among the Buryat-Mongols in the 17th-19th centuries. Life of Buryatia, No. 3, 4, 1929 pp. 61. 62.
40 History of the Buryat-Mongolian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, vol. I. Ulan-Ude, 1 54, p. 243.
41 GACHO, f. Urulginskaya Steppe Duma, no. 57, pp. 280, 291.
43 M. V. Zagoskin. A note about the life of the villagers of the Irkutsk district. Irkutsk Provincial Gazette, 1858, No. 31.
“God forbid that we see a Russian rebellion - senseless and merciless. Those who are plotting impossible revolutions among us are either young and do not know our people, or they are hard-hearted people, for whom someone else’s head is half a piece, and their own neck is a penny,” wrote A. S. Pushkin. Over its thousand-year history, Russia has seen dozens of riots. We present the main ones.
Salt riot. 1648
Causes
The policy of the government of boyar Boris Morozov, brother-in-law of Tsar Alexei Romanov, included the introduction of taxes on the most necessary goods, including salt - without it it was then impossible to store food; corruption and arbitrariness of officials.
Form
An unsuccessful attempt to send a delegation to the Tsar on June 11, 1648, which was dispersed by the Streltsy. The next day, the unrest grew into a riot, and “great turmoil erupted” in Moscow. A significant part of the archers went over to the side of the townspeople.
Suppression
By giving the archers double pay, the government split the ranks of its opponents and was able to carry out widespread repressions against the leaders and most active participants in the uprising, many of whom were executed on July 3.
Result
The rebels set fire to the White City and Kitay-Gorod, and destroyed the courts of the most hated boyars, okolnichy, clerks and merchants. The crowd dealt with the head of the Zemsky Prikaz, Leonty Pleshcheev, the Duma clerk Nazariy Chisty, who came up with the salt tax. Morozov was removed from power and sent into exile to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery (later returned), the okolnichy Pyotr Trakhaniotov was executed. The unrest continued until February 1649. The Tsar made concessions to the rebels: the collection of arrears was canceled and the Zemsky Sobor was convened to adopt a new Council Code.
Copper riot. 1662
Causes
Depreciation of copper coins compared to silver coins; the rise of counterfeiting, general hatred of some members of the elite (much of the same ones who were accused of abuses during the salt riot).
Form
The crowd destroyed the house of the merchant (“guest”) Shorin, who was collecting the “fifth of the money” throughout the state. Several thousand people went to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in Kolomenskoye, surrounded the Tsar, held him by the buttons, and when he gave his word to investigate the matter, one of the crowd struck hands with the Tsar of All Rus'. The next crowd was aggressive and demanded to hand over the “traitors for execution.”
Suppression
The archers and soldiers, on the orders of the king, attacked the crowd that threatened him, drove it into the river and partially killed it, partially captured it.
Result
Hundreds of people died, 150 of those captured were hanged, some were drowned in the river, the rest were whipped, tortured, “on investigation for guilt, they cut off their arms and legs and fingers,” they were branded and sent to the outskirts of the Moscow state for eternal settlement . In 1663, according to the tsar's decree of the copper industry, the yards in Novgorod and Pskov were closed, and the minting of silver coins was resumed in Moscow.
Streltsy riot. 1698
Causes
The hardships of serving in border cities, grueling campaigns and oppression by colonels - as a result, the desertion of the archers and their joint rebellion with the townspeople of Moscow.
Form
The Streltsy removed their commanders, elected 4 elected officials in each regiment and headed towards Moscow.
Suppression
Result
On June 22 and 28, by order of Shein, 56 “leaders” of the riot were hanged, and on July 2, another 74 “fugitives” to Moscow were hanged. 140 people were whipped and exiled, 1965 people were sent to cities and monasteries. Peter I, who urgently returned from abroad on August 25, 1698, headed a new investigation (the “great search”). In total, about 2,000 archers were executed, 601 (mostly minors) were whipped, branded and exiled. Peter I personally cut off the heads of five archers. The yard positions of the archers in Moscow were distributed, the buildings were sold. The investigation and executions continued until 1707. At the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th century, 16 streltsy regiments that did not participate in the uprising were disbanded, and the streltsy with their families were expelled from Moscow to other cities and enrolled in the townspeople.
Plague riot. 1771
Causes
During the plague epidemic of 1771, Moscow Archbishop Ambrose tried to prevent worshipers and pilgrims from gathering at the miraculous Icon of Our Lady of Bogolyubskaya at the Varvarsky Gate of Kitay-Gorod. He ordered the offering box to be sealed and the icon itself to be removed. This caused an explosion of indignation.
Form
At the sound of the alarm bell, a crowd of rebels destroyed the Chudov Monastery in the Kremlin, the next day took the Donskoy Monastery by storm, killed Archbishop Ambrose, who was hiding there, and began to destroy quarantine outposts and houses of the nobility.
Suppression
Suppressed by troops after three days of fighting.
Result
More than 300 participants were put on trial, 4 people were hanged, 173 were whipped and sent to hard labor. The "tongue" of the Spassky Alarm Bell (on the Alarm Tower) was removed by the authorities to prevent further demonstrations. The government was forced to take measures to combat the plague.
Bloody Sunday. 1905
Causes
A lost strike that began on January 3, 1905 at the Putilov plant and spread to all factories in St. Petersburg.
Form
A procession of St. Petersburg workers to the Winter Palace in order to present Tsar Nicholas II with a collective petition about workers’ needs, which included economic and political demands. The initiator was the ambitious priest Georgy Gapon.
Suppression
The brutal dispersal of work columns by soldiers and Cossacks, during which firearms were used against the demonstrators.
Result
According to official figures, 130 people were killed and 299 were injured (including several police officers and soldiers). However, much larger numbers were mentioned (up to several thousand people). The Emperor and Empress allocated 50 thousand rubles from their own funds to provide assistance to family members of those “killed and wounded during the riots on January 9th in St. Petersburg.” However, after Bloody Sunday, strikes intensified, both the liberal opposition and revolutionary organizations became more active - and the First Russian Revolution began.
Kronstadt rebellion. 1921
Causes
In response to strikes and rallies of workers with political and economic demands in February 1921, the Petrograd Committee of the RCP (b) introduced martial law in the city, arresting labor activists.
Form
On March 1, 1921, a 15,000-strong rally took place on Anchor Square in Kronstadt under the slogans “Power to the Soviets, not parties!” Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee Kalinin arrived at the meeting; he tried to calm those gathered, but the sailors disrupted his speech. After this, he left the fortress unhindered, but then the commissar of the fleet Kuzmin and the chairman of the Kronstadt Council Vasiliev were captured and thrown into prison, and an open rebellion began. On March 1, 1921, the “Provisional Revolutionary Committee” (PRK) was created in the fortress.
Suppression
The rebels found themselves “outside the law,” no negotiations were held with them, and repressions followed against the relatives of the leaders of the uprising. On March 2, Petrograd and the Petrograd province were declared under a state of siege. After artillery shelling and fierce fighting, Kronstadt was taken by storm.
Result
According to Soviet sources, the attackers lost 527 people killed and 3,285 wounded (real losses could be much higher). During the assault, 1 thousand rebels were killed, over 2 thousand were “wounded and captured with weapons in their hands,” more than 2 thousand surrendered and about 8 thousand went to Finland. 2,103 people were sentenced to capital punishment, and 6,459 people were sentenced to various terms of punishment. In the spring of 1922, the mass eviction of Kronstadt residents from the island began.
Novocherkassk execution. 1962
Causes
Supply interruptions due to strategic shortcomings of the USSR government, rising food prices and declining wages, incompetent behavior of management (plant director Kurochkin told the strikers: “There is not enough money for meat - eat liver pies”).
Form
Strike of workers of the Novocherkassk Electric Locomotive Plant and other townspeople on June 1-2, 1962 in Novocherkassk (Rostov region). It turned into mass riots.
Suppression
Troops are involved, including a tank unit. Fire was opened on the crowd.
Result
A total of 45 people went to city hospitals with gunshot wounds, although there were many more victims. 24 people died, two more people were killed on the evening of June 2 under unclear circumstances (according to official data). The authorities made some concessions, but there were mass arrests and trials. 7 “ringleaders” were shot, the remaining 105 received prison sentences of 10 to 15 years in a maximum security colony.
Poland (Polska) is a country in Eastern Europe.
Poland entered the 19th century divided into three parts between Austria, Prussia and Russia. Napoleon, having defeated Prussia, from part of the Polish lands that belonged to it, created the Duchy of Warsaw, a vassal state in relation to France. Russia recognized this principality, headed by the Saxon king Frederick Augustus handed over to Napoleon, and received the Bialystok region.
In 1809, Lesser Poland was annexed to the Duchy of Warsaw. A new division of Poland occurred in 1814-1815. at the Congress of Vienna between Austria, Prussia and Russia. The Kingdom of Poland was formed from the former Duchy of Warsaw, most of it was transferred to Russia by decision of the Congress of Vienna. Poznań region went to Prussia, which retained Silesia and Pomerania; Krakow, associated with the names of Stanislaw Lem, Józef Pilsudski, Tadeusz Kościuszko, Nicolaus Copernicus, was declared a “free city” (the Krakow Republic in 1846 was annexed to Austria, which also retained Galicia).
Created in 1815, the Holy Alliance was based mainly on the common interests of Austria, Russia and Prussia in the fight against the Polish national liberation movement. The new partition of Poland dealt a serious defeat to the national liberation movement, which, however, forced Austria, Russia and Prussia to abandon attempts to destroy the very name of Poland.
Polish uprising
On November 27, 1815, the Kingdom of Poland within Russia received its own constitution, which bound Poland and Russia in a personal union, but gave Poland the right to choose a diet, its own government and have its own army. Relatively liberal at first, the constitution became limited to Russia. A legal opposition appeared in the Polish Sejm, and secret political societies arose.
In November 1830, the Polish uprising began in Warsaw, suppressing which in 1831, Nicholas I abolished the constitution granted to Poland in 1815. National liberation uprisings took place in 1846 in Krakow, in 1848 in Poznan (suppressed by Prussia ). In the fall of 1861, martial law was introduced in Poland to stop the “unrest.” However, early in 1863, an uprising began again in the Kingdom of Poland, the reason for which was recruitment. It was the most massive and democratic in its composition uprising. It was also suppressed, and a military regime of government was established in the Kingdom of Poland. But this uprising forced Nicholas I to carry out a peasant reform in 1864 - a Decree was adopted on the organization of the peasants of the Kingdom of Poland. Uprising 1863-1864 and the reforms of 1864 became the main milestone in the history of Poland, which determined the replacement of the feudal social system with a capitalist one.
From the end of the 18th century to the 60s. 19 in Polish lands were the scene of major national uprisings. The main demand of the liberation struggle of the Polish people was the restoration of an independent Polish state and the unification of all Polish lands into one political body.
This struggle had a national character. The originality of the Polish national liberation movement was expressed in the fact that its hegemon and driving force was the gentry, and not the bourgeoisie as in the West. That is why it is called gentry. This is explained by the leading role of the gentry in the socio-political life of Poland. In the Polish national liberation movement, two stages can be distinguished:
room 18 – first third 19 did not go beyond the purely noble demands and did not address issues of breaking down social relations.
The backbone of the movement was the Polish army, the masses took a wait-and-see attitude.
40-60 years 19 A program of bourgeois reforms was put forward, the position of the gentry radicalized significantly, and at this time the participation of the masses in the movement expanded.
After the accession of Emperor Alexander II to the throne, the regime of military dictatorship in the Kingdom of Poland was weakened. Easing censorship. The Catholic Church gained independence. The opposition also gained freedom.
Thus, in 1857, the authorities approved the charter of the Society of Landowners, headed by Count A. Zamoyski, a supporter of peaceful independence. Polish leaders demanded the restoration of the constitution granted by Alexander I in 1815, the transfer of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to the Dnieper and Western Dvina and the return of full independence to the region.
The Polish clergy became the conductor of these sentiments.
In February 1861, a congress of the Society of Landowners met in Warsaw. Demonstrations and manifestos at this time. The “honorable persons” of Warsaw were introduced to the governor M.D. Gorchakov received an address addressed to the Tsar demanding that Poland be given autonomy. The administration of Warsaw passed into the hands of the Polish Delegation.
In March 1861
A decree appeared that granted autonomy to the Kingdom of Poland. The State Council of the Kingdom was created - the highest advisory and control body. The Polish civil administration and elected local self-government were formed - provincial, district and city councils.
However, bloody riots in Warsaw continued.
Anti-Russian demonstrations swept across the entire Kingdom. In the fall, the “patriots” won the elections to the councils. In Warsaw, troops were sent to suppress discontent.
In Poland, two leading forces of the revolution took shape. White- nationalist gentry - sought the revival of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth within the borders of 1772. They were supported by the Parisian emigration, influential in Europe.
No armed struggle. Reds— people from various strata, unlike whites, dreamed not only of independence, but also of social revolution. They organized their own ruling body in Warsaw - the Central National Committee (CNC), the first head of which was the bankrupt nobleman I. Khmelensky. In the spring of 1862, the government developed program for the development of Polish autonomy. Its execution was entrusted to Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, appointed governor of the Kingdom of Poland.
Soon the new governor began management reforms edge.
He separated military power from civil power, leaving for himself only general supervision of Polish institutions. Broad rights were granted to the Marquis of Wielepolsky. The governor called on the Poles to disassociate themselves from the “party of crime.” His program provided for complete autonomy for the Kingdom of Poland, the opening of elected councils in cities, districts and provinces, the transfer of peasants from corvee to quitrent, and the granting of rights to Jews.
Polish nobles demanded the creation of a purely Polish government, the return of the 1815 constitution and the transfer of the former possessions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to the Kingdom.
Meanwhile, Velepolsky appointed only “natural Poles” to all key posts in the region. Russian officials were evicted from Poland. Elected district councils were opened. But demonstrations did not stop in the cities. The CNK hatched plans for an uprising and an armed coup in Warsaw.
The underground "government" introduced the first tax - a mandatory fee for all Poles for the "insurrection".
The reason for the uprising was a recruitment drive based on pre-compiled lists of “politically unreliable” persons. In the current situation, the CNC decided to start the uprising earlier than planned, and on January 22, 1863, it proclaimed itself the Provisional National Government.
The left was well aware of the need for agrarian reform. An expression of this was the decree of the Provisional National Government, announced on the night of January 22-23, 1863, which freed all peasant land users without ransom.
The gentry was to receive compensation from the future independent state. It was also envisaged to provide landless peasants with a three-morgue plot.
The implementation of decrees in conditions of guerrilla warfare was very difficult.
At the same time, the right, which had held power for many months, disapproved of the government's radical steps. However, the provision on non-collection of feudal duties from peasants in the form of corvée, ranks and ransom was strictly observed. The gentry were punished for sabotaging these regulations. Despite the measures taken, the peasantry did not provide the expected support to the “reds”.
In February 1863
The “whites”, who had previously been its principled opponents, joined the uprising. Taking advantage of divisions among the “Reds,” they managed to take control of the foreign policy of the rebel government.
However, the hopes of the leaders of the “Hotel Lambert” for the intervention of France and England were not justified. These powers limited themselves to only diplomatic notes expressing a desire to grant autonomy to the Kingdom of Poland.
Polish question
The claims of the Western powers were rejected by Alexander II, who considered the events taking place as an internal matter of Russia.
By the end of July, the balance of power had shifted even further in favor of the Russian government.
The situation was aggravated by the fierce struggle for leadership of the uprising. Under these conditions, in October 1863, members of the National Government (as the Provisional National Government began to be called in May) transferred full power to R. Traugut, a former officer of the Russian army. Having become the dictator of the uprising, he showed extraordinary organizational skills, was distinguished by consistency in actions, responsibility and personal courage. Traugut introduced a unified organization of the armed forces of the uprising and ordered the implementation of the provisions of the decree on allocating land to the peasants.
However, despite all his efforts, the uprising gradually faded away; neither internal nor external factors favored it. Although the social composition of the participants has expanded significantly compared to previous armed uprisings, the armed protest, nevertheless, did not include the majority of the peasantry, who took a wait-and-see attitude.
The uprising was limited mainly to the borders of the Kingdom of Poland, and also covered part of the Lithuanian, Belarusian and Ukrainian lands. (But in Lithuania and Belarus the governor general became Murovyov - he seriously beat them) The movement was weakened by the lack of unity among the rebels.
The Western powers did not provide any real assistance to the rebels. Having concluded a convention with Russia in 1863, Prussia blocked the border, interned rebel troops and handed them over to the tsarist authorities. In the spring of 1864, the Traugut government was arrested, and in the summer and autumn the last partisan detachments were defeated.
A military dictatorship was established in the Kingdom of Poland. Although the 1863 uprising was suppressed, it contributed to the downfall of feudal relations in the Kingdom of Poland. Based on the bond of 1864, Polish peasants became owners of the land, retained easements, and were freed from the patrimonial power of the landowner and from duties without redemption. They received the right to choose and be elected to the volost self-government, which lost its gentry character. Some landless peasants received ownership of small plots of land confiscated from the gentry who participated in the uprising.
In April 1864, Traugut was arrested, and in the summer and autumn the last partisan detachments were defeated. Tsarism brutally dealt with the rebels, hundreds of them died in battles and were executed, thousands ended up doing hard labor in Transbaikalia, exiled to Siberia or the internal provinces of Russia.
Although the uprising of 1863-1864
and was defeated, his sacrifices were not in vain. The uprising was another important step towards national consolidation and the growth of self-awareness of the Poles. Finally, it forced tsarism to legitimize the agrarian reform, the foundations of which were formulated in the January 1863 manifesto.
Date of publication: 2015-02-03; Read: 929 | Page copyright infringement
studopedia.org - Studopedia.Org - 2014-2018 (0.001 s)…
Polish liberation movement in 1848
The revolution that broke out in Europe in 1848-1849. and called the “Spring of Nations”, also captured Polish lands.
It broke out in March 1848.
The revolution in Vienna, which forced the emperor to promise a constitution and proclaim freedom of the press, echoed in the largest cities of Galicia - Krakow and Lvov - with patriotic manifestations.
Their participants began to create Polish authorities, sent an address to the emperor, where they outlined their demands: the formation of a regional Sejm, the introduction of the Polish language in schools, institutions and courts, the elimination of all duties.
But the preemptive step of local authorities, who proclaimed the abolition of corvée on behalf of the emperor, significantly narrowed the opportunities for patriots to lead wider sections of the population.
Liberal circles in Lvov and Krakow called on the gentry to abolish corvee, but these calls found little response. Only a few decided to eliminate the duties; the mass of the gentry remained deaf to all calls. The Austrian bureaucracy took the initiative into its own hands in order to support the legend of the “good” emperor and deepen the gap between landowners and peasants.
On April 22, 1848, Governor R. Stadion, without waiting for Vienna's decision, proclaimed agrarian reform. After the fact, this act was confirmed by the emperor with an undated document dated April 17. The reform covered all categories of peasant owners.
By the end of 1848, revolutionary uprisings in Galicia were suppressed, and Polish authorities were dissolved.
The most active revolutionary movement in the Polish lands was in the Poznan region.
A National Committee was formed in Poznan, consisting mainly of representatives of the propertied classes and designed to obtain from the King of Prussia the granting of broad powers to the Grand Duchy of Poznan.
Demands were made to restore the Polish language in schools and administration and to create a Polish army. Based on the general situation in Prussia, the government accepted these demands. Polish local authorities and armed units began to form. They were led by L. Meroslavsky. The central authorities managed to take control of the situation, they went on the offensive and introduced a state of siege and strengthened their military contingent in the Grand Duchy. The dissolution of the Polish units began.
All this caused resistance from the Poles. The authorities' attempts to reach an agreement with them did not yield results. Proposals to divide Greater Poland into two parts, Polish and German, and to limit the number of Polish troops were rejected by the Poles and armed actions began at the end of April.
After the victories at Miloslav and Sokolov, volunteers from peasants and townspeople began to join the rebels. However, the superiority of the Prussian army was too great, and the leaders of the uprising did not believe in success and entered into negotiations with the Prussian command.
Mierosławski abandoned leadership, and his detachment capitulated in May.
Unable to overcome the capitulatory mood of the officers, the Prussian government brutally punished the participants in the uprising and refused to make previously promised concessions.
Many Poles, mainly emigrants of 1831, took part in the revolutionary battles of 1848-1849.
Thus, A. Mickiewicz fought with the Italians against the Austrian Empire in Sicily, and General Mieroslawski fought in Baden.
Historical memory in Poland
General J. Boehm commanded the defense of revolutionary Vienna in battles with the Austrian army, and was later appointed commander of the Hungarian revolutionary troops.
In the Polish liberation movement of the 30-50s. XIX century qualitative changes were observed, expressed in the democratization of its composition and the radicalization of the program. The liberation struggle of those years united representatives of almost all sectors of Polish society.
But in general the movement had a clearly expressed gentry character. This was determined by the active participation of both the gentry artistocracy and the small and poor gentry, intelligentsia and student youth of gentry-petty bourgeois origin in the activities of conspiratorial organizations and in various protests against the existing order.
The deep stratification of the Polish gentry, its heterogeneity had a great influence on the morals and customs of Polish society, on the appearance of the liberation movement. Representatives of all directions of this movement considered one of the decisive issues to be the restoration of an independent Polish state, as well as the problem of its borders.
The dividing line between them was the social program and its priorities. The right wing, concentrating all its attention on the national question, often relegated social issues to the background.
For the ideologists of the left wing, who also spoke about independence and borders, the democratization of social relations was no less important.
Prerequisites for the uprising of 1863 “Whites” and “Reds”
The revival of the Polish liberation movement was associated with the situation in Russia. The Poles hoped that the reforms promised by Alexander II would extend to the Kingdom of Poland. The abolition of martial law, the announcement of an amnesty for prisoners and exiles, and permission to create an Agricultural Society did not satisfy the Poles, who were counting on greater concessions.
evidenced by patriotic manifestations organized on the occasion of anniversaries of Polish historical events or in honor of prominent Poles.
Public actions, which began in the fall of 1860, continued in 1861, and only the introduction of martial law in the fall of the same year and arrests among movement participants led to the cessation of protests.
In the early 60s. There was a split in Polish society. Moderate elements, led by the leader of the Agricultural Society A. Zamoyski, hoped that it would be possible to peacefully restore the autonomy of the Kingdom of Poland.
The radicals did not rule out the possibility of an armed uprising in the future. After negotiations between the moderates and the tsarist authorities, the latter agreed to make concessions: civil administration was restored.
The Russian government tried to attract the Poles to cooperation. Marquis A. Wielopolsky joined the civil administration of the Kingdom.
He alternately headed the ministries of education and internal affairs, and from 1862 the civil administration of the Kingdom of Poland. He managed to introduce the Polish language into government institutions and schools, create the Main School (university) in Warsaw, unify taxes, and educate the peasants.
Wielopolsky advocated maintaining close ties with Russia. But within the framework of the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Poland, in his opinion, should have enjoyed greater autonomy.
Despite the fact that Wielopolski's policies brought certain benefits to the Kingdom of Poland, his cooperation with the authorities was condemned by both moderates and radicals. But on other issues these two currents in the national movement strongly disagreed.
The moderates, called “whites,” represented the interests of the propertied strata. They refused the armed struggle for freedom, considering this form of struggle ineffective and harmful. According to the “whites,” the peasants had to buy out the land plots.
The radicals, called “Reds,” united artisans and workers, students and intellectuals, small and bankrupt gentry, part of the middle gentry and the bourgeoisie, and advocated the restoration of independent Poland by armed means.
The left wing of the “Reds” sought to fight for a republican, democratic Poland, in which the peasants would be freed from feudal duties and allocated land. The right and moderate part of the “Reds” were afraid of the radicalism of the left and at decisive moments of the struggle they blocked with the “Whites”.
At the end of 1861 - the first half of 1862, a rebel organization of “Reds” took shape, led by the Central National Committee (CNC).
His task was to prepare an armed uprising. One of the leaders of the rebel organization was Ya. Dombrowski, a captain in the tsarist army, who had extraordinary military talent. He developed a plan of military action during the uprising and maintained contacts with underground fighters in the Russian troops. After his arrest in August 1862, preparations for the uprising fell on the shoulders of representatives of the left wing of the “Reds”.
The Polish Uprising of 1863-1864 (January Uprising of 1863) was a national liberation uprising of Poles against Russia, which covered the territory of the Kingdom of Poland, Lithuania and parts of Belarus and Right-Bank Ukraine.
The reason for the uprising was the desire of the leading part of Polish society to gain national independence and restore statehood.
The rise of the Polish national movement was facilitated by successes in the liberation and unification of Italy, the growth of democratic forces in European countries, and the creation and activities of secret radical democratic organizations in Russia.
Polish patriotic organizations, which arose in the late 1850s among students and officers of the Russian army, began preparing an uprising in agreement with the Russian conspirators.
At the end of 1861, two main political camps had formed in the national movement, which were called the “White” and “Red” parties.
The “Whites” represented predominantly moderate noble and bourgeois circles and advocated the tactics of “passive opposition”, which made it possible to obtain political autonomy for the Kingdom and, additionally, according to the borders of 1772, Lithuanian, Belarusian and Ukrainian lands. The “Reds” included heterogeneous socio-political elements (mainly the gentry, the petty bourgeoisie, the intelligentsia, and partly the peasantry), who were united by the desire to obtain the full independence of Poland by armed means and restore the state within the borders of 1772 (only part of the “Reds” recognized the rights of Lithuanians, Belarusians and Ukrainians to self-determination).
Conservative-aristocratic circles, headed by Margrave A.
Wielopolsky, advocated reaching an agreement with tsarism through certain concessions in favor of the autonomy of the Kingdom. In June 1862, the “reds” created the Central National Committee (CNC), in which Ya played a leading role.
Polish uprising of the early sixties of the 19th century.
Dombrowski, 3. Padlevsky, B. Schwartz, A. Giller (developed a plan for an armed uprising). Members of the “Committee of Russian Officers in Poland,” one of the founders and leaders of which was the Ukrainian A. Potebnya, took part in the preparation for the uprising. The Committee foresaw that the uprising in Poland would give impetus to the all-Russian revolution. The start of the uprising was set for the spring of 1863.
The CNC formed secret committees in the Kingdom, as well as in Lithuania, Belarus and Right Bank Ukraine, and had its representatives in European countries.
Trying to weaken the “Red” organizations, the government, on the initiative of A. Wielopolsky, announced an extraordinary recruitment according to pre-prepared lists, in which there were many conspirators, which was the reason for the uprising. On January 10 (22), 1863, the Central People's Commissariat proclaimed the beginning of a national uprising, and called itself a temporary national government. At the call of the Central Committee of People's Commissars, rebel detachments attacked the royal garrisons.
The CNK issued a manifesto to the Polish people and decrees on the abolition of corvée and the proclamation of peasants as owners of their plots with subsequent compensation to landowners for lost lands.
In February 1863, the Central People's Commissariat appealed to Ukrainian peasants to join the uprising. However, the peasants did not support the action, not sharing the encroachments of the Polish gentry on Ukrainian lands. Mostly Polish gentry took part in the armed detachments in the Kiev region and Volyn. The largest of these detachments, under the leadership of V. Rudnitsky and E. Ruzhitsky, tried to resist the tsarist troops, but already at the end of May they were forced to cross the Austrian border.
In May 1863, the TsNK turned into the National Government (NU), created an extensive underground administrative network (police, taxes, post office, etc.), and for a long time successfully operated in parallel with the tsarist administration.
From the beginning of the uprising there were significant differences between the “whites” and the “reds”. The “Whites” counted on the intervention of Western powers and opposed the radical socio-political plans of the “Reds”. Attempts to put dictators at the head of the uprising - first L. Mieroslavsky from the “Reds”, and then M. Lyangevich from the “Whites” - did not bring the desired results.
The Western powers limited themselves to diplomatic moves.
On October 17, 1863, the “Reds”, having captured NU, appointed a new dictator - General R. Traugutt. The latter's attempts to strengthen the uprising failed. Back in the summer of 1863, the Tsar appointed M. Muravyov as Governor-General of Lithuania and Belarus (North-Western Territory), and F. as Governor-General of the Kingdom.
Berg, who resorted to brutal repression and terror in order to suppress the uprising. At the same time, in early March 1864, the government announced decrees on peasant reform, which was carried out on more favorable terms for peasants than in other lands of the empire.
By September 1864 the uprising was suppressed; only individual detachments held out until the beginning of 1865.
The Russian government brutally dealt with the participants in the uprising: hundreds of Poles were executed, thousands were exiled to Siberia or conscripted into the army, and their property was confiscated. The Russian government abolished what remained of the Kingdom's autonomy.
The January uprising, becoming the most massive and democratic of all Polish national liberation uprisings of the 19th century, contributed to the growth of national consciousness among ever wider sections of Polish society.
"King Pie". Allegory of the first section of the Speech Pospo-li. Engraving by Noel Le Mire. London, 1773 The Trustees of the British MuseumYoung and not very large countries usually find one defining event in their histories, and this is usually the acquisition of independence. But Poland is a country with a very rich history, and in relation to it it is more correct to talk not about an event, but about a key motive that determines the way Poles think about history. And for Polish cultural memory, such a key issue is the attitude towards the insurgent tradition.
At the end of the 18th century, the territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was divided by three neighboring empires - Prussia, Austria and Russia. At first, the Polish gentry, although they were very upset by this, first of all tried to somehow adapt to the new situation. At the beginning of the 19th century, she began to connect hopes for the revival of Poland with Napoleon, but he was defeated, and the gentry again had to adapt to the prevailing conditions. It must be said that these conditions were not so tragic. Thus, on the territory of Russia there existed the Kingdom of Poland, or, as the Poles like to say, the Kingdom of Poland - practically a separate state with its own constitution, its own budget, its own army, connected with the Russian Empire by a kind of personal union.
But in November 1830, an uprising began in Warsaw. It was raised by young people who studied at a school for cadets (this is something like a cadet school), and the Polish elites did not support them right away: at first they doubted whether it was worth doing. The uprising was suppressed and led to very serious consequences: the Kingdom of Poland was deprived of its autonomy, a lot of people, up to 200 thousand people, went into emigration, many ended up in Siberia, many died. Indemnities were imposed on Poland, a fortress was built over Warsaw, whose cannons looked at the city, and so on. In fact, the Russian army occupied Poland: Nicholas I said that now, after the uprising, he has the right to behave there as in a conquered country.
Capture of the Warsaw Arsenal during the November Uprising of 1830. Panorama of Marcin Zaleski. 1831 In the 1840s, several attempted uprisings were carried out in the Polish territories that were ceded to Austria and Prussia, and in Krakow, which by this time had the status of a free city under the trusteeship of all three states - and as a result, having lost this status, it became part of the Austrian province of Galicia.
In the early 1860s, reforms began to unfold in Russia and serfdom was abolished. Petersburg was very concerned about preventing a new Polish uprising, and tried to come to an agreement with the Poles. To achieve this, some elements of Polish autonomy were restored anew: they were allowed to open a university, replace Russian officials with Polish ones, and so on. But in 1863, an uprising nevertheless occurred in the Kingdom of Poland. It developed differently than the uprising of 1830: Poland no longer had autonomy - and, accordingly, now not two armies fought there, but the Russian army and partisans. The uprising was again brutally suppressed.
Thus, in the 1860s, the insurgent era ended and the question of whether it was necessary to rebel at all became key for Polish society.
Criticism
As a reaction, two schools of thought about the history and, accordingly, the future of Poland arose. Firstly, the so-called Warsaw positivism is the school to which the writers Boleslaw Prus, Henryk Sienkiewicz, Eliza Orzeszko and others belonged. From their point of view, the uprisings brought the Polish nation to the brink of survival: a huge number of Polish youth were exiled to Siberia, went to the Caucasus to fight in the ranks of the Russian army, went into exile or died on the battlefields. They believed that this should be decisively stopped, and that the focus should be on what they called “organic work”: that is, work, study, develop entrepreneurship and economics, science and education, thus increasing -the “organic strength” of Polish society, and then freedom will come on its own, without desperate and reckless impulses.
This idea became popular not only in Russian Poland, but also in other parts of it. Firstly, there were also uprisings that did not help achieve anything, and secondly, the Poles there were under very severe pressure from the emerging German capitalism and rise - the Poles were afraid that they would simply be crushed.
Stanczyk. Painting by Jan Matejko. 1862 Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie / Wikimedia Commons The second version of the reaction to the uprising of 1863 arose in Galicia and was called the “Cracow historical school.”
Galicia is the most economically backward region of Poland, but it is steeped in history and has a very strong gentry tradition. And the rebel idea was very closely connected with this tradition. At the same time, one of the differences between the Polish gentry and the Russian nobility was its large number: if Russian nobles made up 1-2% of the population, then the Polish gentry made up about 10%, and in some regions, including Galicia, up to 15%. And in the 1860s, a party appeared there, whose members began to call themselves stanchiki. Stanczyk is the name of a jester who, at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries, lived at the court of the Polish king and all the time said unpleasant things to the king and the Polish nobility - he mocked their arrogance, vanity and recklessness. The Stanczyks, as if continuing such a critical tradition, question the rebel idea, considering it reckless and embodying all the negative features of the Polish gentry. At the same time, in contrast to the Warsaw positivists, who adhered to liberal views, the Stanczyks were conservatives: for them capitalism was something alien, they perceived it as an incomprehensible rotten force that deprives a person of subjectivity. From their midst came the two greatest Polish historians of the 19th century, Józef Szújski and Michal Bobrzyński, who described the history of Poland as a history of a lack of sobriety, calculation, restraint, systematic effort, a history of gentry egoism and arrogance.
Glorification
The tradition of glorifying the insurgent movement also existed, but rather at the individual level. You can see this, for example, at the famous Polish Lychakiv cemetery, which is located in Lviv: there is a section filled with identical small iron crosses, which stand in rows, like ranks of soldiers. People who took part in the uprising of 1830-1831 are buried under these crosses. If we look at the dates written on these crosses, we see that many of these people died much later—say, in the 1880s. That is, 50 years have passed since the uprising, and a person is buried as a rebel - his identity is connected exclusively with this event. And in fact, in every subsequent generation of Poles, a certain number of people were born who identified themselves with this rebel tradition.
Arthur Grotger. On the battlefield. From the series "Polonia". 1866
Arthur Grotger. Forging braids From the series "Polonia". 1863Szépműveszeti Múzeum / Wikimedia Commons
Arthur Grotger. Defense of the estate. From the series "Polonia". 1863Szépműveszeti Múzeum / Wikimedia Commons
Arthur Grotger. Shelter. From the series "Polonia". 1863Szépműveszeti Múzeum / Wikimedia Commons
Arthur Grotger. Mourning news. From the series "Polonia". 1863Szépműveszeti Múzeum / Wikimedia Commons
Immediately after the uprising of 1863, the Polish artist Arthur Grotger created vivid tragic images of the rebels. He himself did not participate in the uprising and lived in Vienna at that time, but later he helped the rebels fleeing from the authorities, and painted scenes of the uprising on engravings - that is, works intended for reproduction.
On the territory of the Russian Empire, manifestations of this tradition were practically impossible, primarily due to stricter censorship than in Austria, so artists and writers did not speak directly about the uprisings. But stories reminiscent of the heroic past of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the past triumph of Polish weapons arose very often. For example, in a painting by artist Jan Matejko, Russian boyars during the Livonian War bow to the Polish king and Grand Duke of Lithuania Stefan Batory, who besieged Pskov. Of course, in 1872, when this picture was painted, it was very pleasant to see it: it reminded us that the Poles were once stronger and should become stronger in the future.
Stefan Batory near Pskov. Painting by Jan Matejko. 1872 Zamek Królewski / Wikimedia Commons Uprising of 1944
After the end of the First World War, Poland was restored and gained independence. After this, the idea that it was the struggle - that is, the rebel tradition - that led to the restoration of independent Poland became an important motive for the historical education of youth. At the same time, no one asked the question why the Czechs, who never rebelled, gained independence in the same 1918 In 1918, the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed; many independent states were restored or created. In particular, on October 28, the creation of the First Czechoslovak Republic was proclaimed, and on November 6, the re-establishment of Poland was announced..
During World War II, Poland had one of the most developed resistance movements: the Polish Home Army actively fought the German occupation army all the time. In 1944, when Soviet troops were already approaching Warsaw, the leaders of this army decided to raise an anti-German uprising in the city. It was as reckless or even more reckless than the uprisings of the 19th century: the Poles were very poorly armed and counted only on the fact that the Red Army would continue to advance, the Germans would continue to retreat and the rebels would greet the Red Army as the masters of Warsaw. But the Red Army stopped on the banks of the Vistula, and the Germans began to systematically destroy the rebels and Warsaw. As a result, the city, which by the summer of 1944 remained more or less intact, two months later, by the end of the uprising, was destroyed by more than 90%, killing 200 thousand civilians.
