RUSSIAN EMIGRANT HISTORIOGRAPHY (1920-1930) ON THE REIGN OF NICHOLAS II

In emigration, there was a split among researchers in assessing the personality of the last tsar. The disputes often took on a sharp character, and the participants in the discussions took opposite positions from praising on the conservative right flank to criticizing the liberals and denigrating on the left, socialist flank.

The monarchists who worked in exile included S. Oldenburg, N. Markov, and I. Solonevich. According to I. Solonevich: "Nicholas II is a man of "average abilities", faithfully and honestly did everything for Russia that He could, that He could. No one else has been able to do more... "Left–wing historians speak of Emperor Nicholas II as incompetence, right-wing historians speak of an idol whose talents or mediocrity are not subject to discussion. However, a number of the simplest factual references indicate that even in the field of pure strategy, the Emperor possessed immeasurably greater creative data than all our military experts combined – and it was the military experts who technically sabotaged the strategic creativity of the Emperor." Another important thought of the famous publicist about the causes of Russia's poverty in comparison with Western countries: "And if the Russian Empire was poorer than others, it was not because of politics, but because of geography: it is difficult to get rich on land, half of which is in the permafrost zone, and the other half is in the zone of eternal invasions from outside" [1].

An even more right-wing monarchist N. Markov noted: "The sovereign himself was slandered and defamed in the eyes of his people, he could not withstand the vicious pressure of all those who, it would seem, were obliged to strengthen and protect the monarchy in every possible way." With the fall of the tsarist autocracy, the monarchy also fell, and then the entire Russian state collapsed. This great fall occurred because the ruling stratum of the Russian people, corrupted by the harmful false teachings of Jewish liberalism and rationalism, gradually lost a healthy sense of state self-preservation. That is, the aristocracy, generals, officials, and Duma politicians played a treacherous role in relation to the Sovereign, and the government showed unheard-of tolerance and weakness, did not want to stop anti-government propaganda and slander against the Sovereign. Government officials were "poisoned from a young age by the evil fumes of the dark cult of the "great" revolution, crawled before the idols of the "progressive public", groveled before the "enlightened democracies of the West" and were most afraid of appearing insufficiently liberal." P. Kurlov also wrote about the weakness of the government [2].

The largest researcher of the reign of the last Russian tsar is S. Oldenburg, whose work remains of paramount importance in the 21st century. For any researcher of the Nicholas period of the history of Russia, it is necessary, in the process of studying this era, to get acquainted with the work of S. Oldenburg "The Reign of Emperor Nicholas II". The historian writes: "In the twentieth year of the reign of Emperor Nicholas, Russia reached a level of material prosperity unprecedented in it. Only five more years have passed since Stolypin's words: "Give us twenty years of peace and you will not recognize the current Russia" – and the change was already beginning to take its toll. After the abundant harvests of 1912 and 1913, the period from the summer of 1912 to the summer of 1914 was truly the highest point of the heyday of the Russian economy. Neither the intelligentsia, who doubted their former faith and did not find a new one, nor the primitive socialist semi-intelligentsia had either political experience or a broad state outlook. Among the shapeless public, as before, only the tsarist government, relying on strong traditions and long experience of government, possessing experienced personnel who fulfilled their destinies, could guide the life of a diverse country"[3].

A special place in historiography is occupied by the memoirs of imperial ministers, generals, persons from the inner circle of the tsar V. N. Kokovtsev, A. Mosolov, P. Kurlov, V. N. Voeikov. The first, before the February revolution of 1917, was a moderate conservative, a supporter of cooperation with the State Duma. V. Kokovtsov remained loyal to the tsar, which was reflected in his memoirs. P. Kurlov and V. Voeikov then occupied more right-wing positions, which is shown in particular by P. Kurlov and N. Markov's criticism of V. N.'s pre-revolutionary activities. Kokovtseva, considering it destructive for Russia, the monarchy and the Russian people. N. Markov called V. Kokovtsev a "liberal ministerial trifle".

According to the moderately liberal researcher S. Pushkarev, the young Emperor Nicholas II, who ascended the throne in October 1894, was "a deeply religious man, a sincere patriot, modest and friendly in personal relations, but his government talents did not stand up to the level of those requirements that the turbulent and difficult era of the early XX century imposed on the ruler of the All-Russian Empire" . Summarizing the material on the pre-war history of Russia at the end of the book, p. Pushkarev notes: "So, in all areas of life — in the field of state—building, public organization, economic activity and cultural creativity - Russia in the pre-war era was moving forward quickly and successfully, overcoming its backwardness and its shortcomings" [4].

The left–liberal trend was represented by P. N. Milyukov, who stated in the book "The Second Russian Revolution": "Concessions to power (Manifesto of October 17, 1905 – author's note) not only could they not satisfy society and the people because they were insufficient and incomplete. They were insincere and deceitful, and the power that gave them did not look at them for a minute as ceded forever and finally. "Emperor Nicholas II wanted to preserve the autocracy as it was "of old." P. Milyukov retold dirty gossip and rumors about the tsar and his ministers.

The socialist A. F. Kerensky wrote in The History of Russia: "The reign of Nicholas II was fatal for Russia due to his personal qualities. But he was clear about one thing: having entered the war and linked the fate of Russia with the fate of the countries allied with it, he did not go to any tempting compromises with Germany until the very end, until his martyrdom. The king carried the burden of power. She weighed him down internally…There was no will to power in him. He kept it by oath and tradition" [5].

In the 1920s and 1930s, many works dedicated to Nicholas II appeared. However, the activities of the last emperor and his entourage continued to be interpreted in the key of pre-and post-February propaganda. The October Revolution led to the mass departure from Russia of the best representatives of bourgeois historical science [6].

Thus, in the early 1920s, a large group of historians and social scientists outside Russia turned out to be the flower of Russian science, who continued to investigate the cause-and-effect relationships that led Russia to collapse. A large number of works were devoted to Nikolai Romanov as the main participant in the tragic events.

Russian Russian historians wrote about Nicholas II even before the revolution, but in the 1920s, interest in the personality of the last Russian emperor increased significantly. It seems that this growth of interest was caused by attempts to explain the phenomenon of Bolshevism, the establishment of power by a small Bolshevik party. In general, the history of the overthrown regime was covered during the Soviet period.