Black Hundred 1905. Landowner-monarchist (Black Hundred) organizations and parties. Terror against the Black Hundreds

| | | | |
Black Hundreds Wikipedia, in. Kozhinov Black Hundreds and revolution
Black Hundreds- a collective name for representatives of extreme right-wing organizations in Russia in 1905–1917, who acted under the slogans of monarchism, great-power chauvinism and anti-Semitism.

Initially they called themselves “true Russians”, “patriots” and “monarchists”, but then (through Gringmut) quickly adapted this nickname, tracing its origins to the Nizhny Novgorod “black (grassroots) hundreds” of Kuzma Minin, who brought Russia out of the Time of Troubles .

The Black Hundred movement did not represent a single whole and was represented by various associations, such as, in particular, the “Russian Monarchist Party”, “Black Hundreds”, “Union of the Russian People” (Dubrovin), “Union of the Archangel Michael”, etc.

In 1905-1907, the term “Black Hundred” came into widespread use to refer to far-right politicians and anti-Semites. “Small Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language” by P. E. Stoyan (Pg., 1915) Black Hundred or Black Hundred - “Russian monarchist, conservative, ally.”

The social basis of these organizations was made up of heterogeneous elements: landowners, representatives of the clergy, large and petty urban bourgeoisie, merchants, peasants, workers, burghers, artisans, Cossacks, police officers who advocated the preservation of the inviolability of autocracy on the basis of Uvarov’s formula “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality” . The period of special activity of the Black Hundreds occurred in the years 1905-1914.

1 Ideology
2 History
3 Activities of the Black Hundred movement
4 Role in pogroms
5 Terror against the Black Hundreds
6 Weakening and end of the Black Hundred movement
7 Modern Black Hundreds
8 Notes
9 Literature
10 Links
- 10.1 Early 20th century editions
- 10.2 Websites of modern Black Hundred organizations

Ideology

The ideology of the Black Hundreds was permeated with the spirit of great power and xenophobia.

In the economic sphere, the Black Hundreds advocated a multi-structural system. Some Black Hundred economists proposed abandoning the commodity backing of the ruble.

Some of the Black Hundred ideas - both programs of organizations and topics discussed in the Black Hundred press - assumed a conservative social structure (there were significant disputes over the admissibility of parliamentarism and generally representative institutions in an autocratic monarchy), and some curbing of the “excesses” of capitalism, as well as strengthening social solidarity, a form of direct democracy.

Story


Organizations
Russian collection
Union of the Russian People
Union of Michael the Archangel
All-Russian Dubrovinsky Union of the Russian People
Russian monarchical the consignment
Union of Russian People
Holy squad
All-Russian Congress of Russian People
Tsarist-People's Muslim Society
Largest representatives
Pavel Bulatzel
Georgiy Butmi
Ioann Vostorgov
Vladimir Gringmut
Alexander Dubrovin
Nikolay Zhevakhov
Ivan Katsaurov
Emmanuel Konovnitsyn
John of Kronstadt
Pavel Krushevan
Andrey Kukarnikov
Nikolay Markov
Mikhail Menshikov
Vasily Orlov
Vladimir Purishkevich
Rafail Rizpolozhensky
Alexander Solovyov
Anthony Khrapovitsky
Seraphim Chichagov
Georgy Shechkov
Alexey Shmakov
Nikolai Yuskevich-Kraskovsky
Modern times
Konstantin Dushenov
Leonid Ivashov
Vyacheslav Klykov
Mikhail Nazarov
Oleg Platonov
Alexander Turik
Alexander Shtilmark

The Black Hundreds trace their origins to the grassroots Nizhny Novgorod militia of the Time of Troubles, led by Kuzma Minin, who “stood for the house of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Orthodox Christian faith, took up arms against the destroyers of the Russian land for the sake of saving the father’s faith and the fatherland from destruction” (In Russia in the 14th-17th centuries, “blacks” "the land plots of the black-growing peasants and tax-paying urban population were called. In historical sources, the “black” lands are contrasted with the “white” lands, which were in the possession of the feudal lords and the church).
The Black Hundred movement came out at the beginning of the 20th century under the slogans of defending the Russian Empire and its traditional values of “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.”

The first Black Hundred organization was the Russian Assembly, created in 1900.

A significant source of funding for the Black Hundred unions were private donations and collections.

According to a number of scientists, the participation of famous figures in Black Hundred organizations was subsequently significantly exaggerated. Thus, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor Sergei Lebedev believes that

Modern rightists... like to increase this already long list at the expense of those figures of Russian culture who were not formally members of the Black Hundred unions, but did not hide their right-wing views. These include, in particular, the great D. I. Mendeleev, the artist V. M. Vasnetsov, the philosopher V. V. Rozanov...

The “Black Hundred” of 1905-1917 are several large and small monarchist organizations: “Union of the Russian People”, “Union of the Archangel Michael”, “Russian Monarchist Party”, “Union of Russian People”, “Union for the Fight against Sedition”, “Council” United Nobility", "Russian Assembly" and others.

The Black Hundred movement at various times published the newspapers “Russian Banner”, “Zemshchina”, “Pochaevsky Listok”, “Bell”, “Groza”, “Veche”. Black Hundred ideas were also preached in the major newspapers Moskovskie Vedomosti, Kievlyanin, Grazhdanin, and Svet.

Among the leaders of the Black Hundred movement, Alexander Dubrovin, Vladimir Purishkevich, Nikolai Markov, and Prince M.K. Shakhovskoy stood out.

In October 1906, various Black Hundred organizations held a congress in Moscow, where the Main Council was elected and unification under the roof of the United Russian People organization was proclaimed. The merger did not actually happen, and a year later the organization ceased to exist.

The Black Hundred organizations, which were small in number, were nevertheless able to create the appearance of popular support for the monarchy. Thus, shortly before the February Revolution, when the Chairman of the IV State Duma M.V. Rodzianko tried to draw the tsar’s attention to the growing discontent in the country, Nicholas II showed him a large stack of telegrams from the Black Hundreds and objected: “This is wrong. I also have my own awareness. These are the expressions of popular feelings that I receive daily: they express love for the Tsar.” The loyal telegrams of the Black Hundreds to Empress Alexandra Feodorovna had a particularly convincing effect.

After the February Revolution of 1917, Black Hundred organizations were banned and partially remained underground. During the Civil War, many prominent leaders of the Black Hundreds joined the White movement, and in exile they loudly criticized the emigrant activities. Some prominent Black Hundreds eventually joined various nationalist organizations.

Activities of the Black Hundred movement

Role in pogroms

Members of the Black Hundred carried out raids (with unofficial government approval) against various revolutionary groups and pogroms, including against Jews.

Researcher of the “Black Hundred”, historian Maxim Razmolodin, believes that this issue is debatable and requires further study.

Black Hundred organizations began their formation not before, but after the first, most powerful wave of pogroms. Doctor of Historical Sciences, historian of the Black Hundred movement Sergei Stepanov writes that in the subsequent period, the combat squads of the “Union of the Russian People” and other extreme right-wing organizations became a weapon of Black Hundred terror. Maxim Razmolodin argues that as the activities of the Black Hundred organizations unfolded, the wave of pogroms began to subside, which was pointed out by many prominent figures of this movement and recognized by political opponents.

Black Hundred organizations were most active in regions with a mixed population - in Ukraine, Belarus and in 15 provinces of the Pale of Settlement, where more than half of all members of the Union of Russian People and other Black Hundred organizations were concentrated. After the organization of the Black Hundred movement, only two major pogroms were recorded. Both of them occurred in 1906 on the territory of Poland, where the Russian Black Hundreds had no influence. The leaders of the Black Hundred movement and the charters of organizations declared the law-abiding nature of the movement and condemned the pogroms. in particular, the chairman of the Union of the Russian People, A.I. Dubrovin, in a special statement in 1906, defined pogroms as a crime. Although the fight against “Jewish dominance” was one of the foundations of the movement, its leaders explained that it should not be waged by violence, but by economic and ideological methods, that is, mainly by increasing discrimination against Jews. Razmolodin claims that the Black Hundred newspapers, despite their general anti-Semitic orientation, did not publish a single direct call for a Jewish pogrom.

However, Sergei Stepanov argues that policy documents and actual activities were very different from each other. There are facts indicating the active propaganda of anti-revolutionary violence by the Black Hundreds. J. D. Klier and Shlomo Lambroso quote the words of M. Dubrovin, spoken in front of 300 members of the Odessa organization of the RNC:

The extermination of rebels is a sacred Russian cause. You know who they are and where to look for them... Death to the rebels and the Jews!

Original text (English)

The Holy Russian cause is the extermination of the rebels. You know who they are and where to find them… Death to the rebels and the Jews.

Terror against the "Black Hundred"

Radical socialist parties launched a campaign of terror against the Black Hundreds. The leader of the Social Democrats, V. I. Lenin, wrote in 1905:

Detachments of the revolutionary army must immediately study who, where and how the Black Hundreds are composed, and then not limit themselves to preaching alone (this is useful, but this alone is not enough), but also act with armed force, beating the Black Hundreds, killing them, blowing up their headquarters etc. etc.

On behalf of the St. Petersburg Committee of the RSDLP, an armed attack was carried out on the Tver teahouse, where workers of the Nevsky Shipyard, who were members of the Union of the Russian People, were gathering. First, two bombs were thrown by Bolshevik militants, and then those running out of the tea shop were shot with revolvers. The Bolsheviks killed two and wounded fifteen people.

Revolutionary organizations carried out many terrorist acts against members of right-wing parties, mainly against the chairmen of local departments of the Union of the Russian People. So, according to the police department, only in March 1908, in one Chernigov province in the city of Bakhmach, a bomb was thrown at the house of the chairman of the local union of the RNC, in the city of Nizhyn the house of the chairman of the union was set on fire, and the whole family was killed, in the village of Domyany the chairman of the department was killed, In Nizhyn, two department chairmen were killed.

Weakening and end of the Black Hundred movement

Despite massive support among the urban bourgeoisie and the sympathy of the Russian Orthodox clergy and influential aristocrats, the Russian radical right movement remained underdeveloped from its very appearance on the Russian public scene for the following reasons:

The Black Hundred movement failed to convince Russian society of its ability to offer a positive program according to the then demands for political ideology; the explanation of all the problems and ills of society by the subversive activities of the Jews seemed overly one-sided even to those who did not sympathize with the Jews;
The Black Hundred movement failed to offer an effective alternative to the liberal and revolutionary, radical left ideas that had won wide circles of the intelligentsia in Russia;
Continuous splits and internal strife in the Black Hundred movement, accompanied by numerous scandals and mutual accusations (including serious criminal offenses) undermined public confidence in the movement as a whole; for example, the most famous figure in the right-wing movement, Fr. Ioann Vostorgov was accused by right-wing political competitors of poisoning right-wing political figure P.A. Krushevan, murdering his own wife out of a desire to become a bishop, stealing sums from monarchical organizations;
A strong public opinion has formed that the Black Hundred movement is secretly financed from secret sums of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and all conflicts in the movement are caused by the struggle for individuals’ access to these sums;
The latter's participation in the murders of Duma deputies M.Ya. had an unfavorable impact on public opinion about the Black Hundreds. Herzenstein and G.B. Yollosa; as well as those put forward by former Prime Minister Count S.Yu. Witte is accused of attempting to kill him by blowing up his house;
The activities of deputies of the right faction in the Third State Duma, primarily V.M. Purishkevich and N.E. Markov 2nd, was provocative, shocking in nature and was accompanied by numerous scandals that did not contribute to the formation of respect for these political figures; activities of A.N. Khvostov's tenure as Minister of Internal Affairs ended in a loud scandal related to his alleged attempt to organize the murder of G.E. Rasputin and subsequent quick resignation.

Despite certain political successes, after the Russian Revolution of 1905, the Black Hundred movement was unable to become a monolithic political force and find allies in the multi-ethnic, multi-structured Russian society. But the Black Hundreds managed to turn against themselves not only influential radical left and liberal centrist circles, but also some of their potential allies among supporters of the ideas of Russian imperial nationalism.

Some competition with the Black Hundred movement came from the All-Russian National Union and the associated nationalist faction in the Third Duma. In 1909, the moderate-right faction merged with the national faction. The new Russian national faction (in common parlance “nationalists”), unlike the right, managed to position itself in such a way that their votes, together with the Octobrists, formed a pro-government majority in the Duma, while the government had no need for the votes of the right. Right-wing deputies compensated for the insignificance of their faction's votes during voting with aggressive, provocative behavior, which further turned faction members into political outcasts.

The elections to the Fourth Duma took place in a favorable environment for the Black Hundred movements: nationalists competing with them due to a personal conflict between the faction leaders and Prime Minister V.N. The Kokovtsovs lost government support, and significant administrative resources during the elections were directed to supporting right-wing candidates. However, although the number of the right-wing faction increased to 65 deputies (versus 49-53 in the Third Duma), it again failed to take a significant position in the Duma. After the formation of the Progressive Bloc, which united the majority of the Duma, the importance of the right in parliamentary politics fell sharply.

Frightened by the radical rhetoric and episodic violence of the Black Hundreds, the powers in power saw Russian ethnic nationalism as a threat to the Russian state. They managed to convince Tsar Nicholas II, who sympathized with the “allies,” and court circles to turn away from the Black Hundred movement, which contributed to the weakening of the Black Hundreds on the Russian political scene on the eve of the 1917 revolution. The First World War, to which many ordinary people and activists of Black Hundred organizations volunteered, also contributed to some weakening of the movement.

In the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Black Hundred movement played virtually no role; In essence, the self-liquidation of the Black Hundred movement occurred. The Provisional Government did not perceive the Black Hundreds as viable political rivals to such an extent that it did not undertake any significant repression against them (while former right-wing government figures were promptly arrested). After the victory of the Bolsheviks, who saw Russian ethnic nationalism as one of the main threats to the Soviet system created on the basis of proletarian internationalism, the remnants of the Black Hundred movement were mercilessly destroyed, regardless of the degree of their active participation in post-revolutionary political life.

Modern Black Hundreds

The revival of the Black Hundred movement was observed at the end and after perestroika. So, in 1992, a member of the “Memory” society A. R. Shtilmark began publishing the newspaper “Black Hundred”, at the same time his group “Black Hundred” separated from the “Memory” society. Since 2003, “Orthodox Alarm” has been the main publication of the Black Hundred movement, led by Shtilmark. The Black Hundreds include the “Union of the Russian People”, recreated in 2005, the newspaper “Orthodox Rus'”, organizations led by Mikhail Nazarov, founded by Konstantin Kinchev among fans of the Alice group “Red-Black Hundred”, as well as many small organizations. A significant part of modern Russian nationalism, if it does not directly derive itself from the Black Hundreds of the early 20th century, does not at least deny the ideological influence of this movement.

There are Black Hundred organizations in many cities in Russia and abroad: Moscow, St. Petersburg, Tikhvin, Kostroma, Novosibirsk, Kyiv and others. In the cities of Efremov and Tomsk, musical ensembles called “Black Hundred” were created.

Notes

Sharova V. L. Right-wing radical ideology in Russia: origins and continuity // Political and philosophical yearbook. - M.: Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2008. - V. 1. - P. 121.
S. Stepanov “THE BLACK HUNDRED”
"Black Hundreds" article in Encyclopedia Britannica
article “Black Hundreds” in TSB
Sergey Stepanov. "Black Hundred in Russia"
Bizyukin S.S. Economic views of the right-wing monarchist (Black Hundred) movement in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century // View from the third millennium: Collection of abstracts. Ryaz. state ped. University named after S. A. Yesenina - Ryazan, 2003.
Information about the organization on the Chronos website
The ideology of right-wing radicalism at the beginning of the 20th century
Kulikov S.V. Emperor Nicholas II during the First World War. St. Petersburg 2000. P. 285
Black Hundreds
Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History
Black Hundreds
1 2 3 4 Razmolodin M. L. Some thoughts about the so-called. "Jewish pogroms". Chronos website. Retrieved April 11, 2012. Archived from the original on May 15, 2012.
1 2 Black Hundred Terror 1905-1907
Lambrozo S. Klier J.D. Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History. - Cambridge University Press, 1992. - P. 224. - ISBN 978-0-521-40532-4.
Compare: The Times, October 9, 1906; In their monograph, J. D. Klier and Shlomo Lambroso refer to the next day's issue of the Times, October 10, which published the end of the "Russia" article. The name of Dubrovin was again mentioned by a correspondent for the London Times in the article “Russian Black Hundred” dated March 8, 1911.
Lenin. Tasks of the units of the revolutionary army
The first militant organization of the Bolsheviks. 1905-1907 - M., 1934. - P. 221.
Circular of the Police Department dated March 8, 1908 // Political police and political terrorism in Russia (second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries): Collection of documents. - M.: AIRO-XXI, 2001. - ISBN 5-88735-079-2

Literature

Kiryanov Yu. I. Right parties in Russia. 1911-1917. - M.: ROSSPEN, 2001. - 472 p. - ISBN 5-8243-0244-8.
Lavrikov S.V. Right-wing monarchist movement in the Tver province, 1905-1915: dissertation. ...cand. ist. Sciences: 07.00.02. - Tver, 1996. - 204 p.
Razmolodin M. L. Black Hundred organizations of the provinces of the Upper Volga region in 1905-1914. (based on materials from the Yaroslavl, Kostroma and Vladimir provinces. - Yaroslavl: Alexander Rutman Publishing House, 2001;
Razmolodin M. L. On the conservative essence of the Black Hundred / Ed. prof. Yu. Yu. Ierusalimsky. - Yaroslavl: Nuance, 2010.
Razmolodin M. L. The Russian question in the ideology of the Black Hundred / Ed. prof. Yu. Yu. Ierusalimsky. - Yaroslavl: Nuance, 2010.
Stogov D.I. Black Hundreds: Life and Death for Great Russia / Rep. ed. O. A. Platonov. - M.: Institute of Russian. civilization, Algorithm, 2012. - 672 p. - ISBN 978-5-4261-0004-6.

Black Hundreds Information About

Ally."

The social basis of these organizations consisted of heterogeneous elements: landowners, representatives of the clergy, large and petty urban bourgeoisie, merchants, peasants, workers, burghers, artisans, police officials who advocated the preservation of the inviolability of autocracy on the basis of Uvarov’s formula “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality.” The period of special activity of the Black Hundreds occurred between 1914 and 1914.

Ideology

Part of the Black Hundred movement arose from the popular temperance movement. Temperance was never denied by Black Hundred organizations; moreover, some Black Hundred cells were formed as temperance societies, tea houses and reading rooms for the people.

In the economic sphere, the Black Hundreds advocated a multi-structural system. Some Black Hundred economists proposed abandoning the commodity backing of the ruble.

It should be noted that the constructive part of the Black Hundred ideas (this refers to both the programs of organizations and the topics discussed by the Black Hundred press) assumed a conservative social structure (there were significant disputes over the admissibility of parliamentarism and generally representative institutions in an autocratic monarchy), and some curbing of excesses capitalism, as well as strengthening social solidarity, a form of direct democracy.

Story

Black Hundreds
Organizations
Russian collection
Union of the Russian People
Union of Michael the Archangel
All-Russian Dubrovinsky Union of the Russian People
Russian monarchical the consignment
Union of Russian People
Holy squad
All-Russian Congress of Russian People
Tsarist-People's Muslim Society
Leaders
Alexander Dubrovin
Anthony Khrapovitsky
Vladimir Gringmut
Vladimir Purishkevich
Ivan Katsaurov
Ioann Vostorgov
Orlov, Vasily Grigorievich
John of Kronstadt
Nikolay Markov
Pavel Krushevan
Seraphim Chichagov
Emmanuel Konovnitsyn
Successors
Vyacheslav Klykov
Leonid Ivashov
Mikhail Nazarov
Alexander Shtilmark

The Black Hundreds trace their origins to the grassroots Nizhny Novgorod militia of the Time of Troubles, led by Kuzma Minin, who “stood for the house of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Orthodox Christian faith, took up arms against the destroyers of the Russian land for the sake of saving the father’s faith and the fatherland from destruction” (In Russia of the XIV-XVII centuries "black" were the land plots of the black-growing peasants and the tax-paying urban population. In historical sources "black" lands are opposed "white" lands that were in the possession of feudal lords and the church).
The Black Hundred movement came out at the beginning of the 20th century under the slogans of defending the Russian Empire and its traditional values of “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.”

The first Black Hundred organization was the “Russian Assembly,” created in 1900.

A significant source of funding for the Black Hundred unions were private donations and collections.

Modern rightists... like to increase this already long list at the expense of those figures of Russian culture who were not formally members of the Black Hundred unions, but did not hide their right-wing views. These include, in particular, the great D. I. Mendeleev, artist V. M. Vasnetsov, philosopher V. V. Rozanov...

Among the leaders of the Black Hundred movement, Alexander Dubrovin, Vladimir Purishkevich, Nikolai Markov, and Prince M.K. Shakhovskoy stood out.

Black Hundred organizations began their formation not before, A after the first, most powerful wave of pogroms. Nevertheless, Black Hundred organizations were most active in regions with a mixed population - in Ukraine, Belarus and in 15 provinces of the Pale of Settlement, where more than half of all members of the Union of Russian People and other Black Hundred organizations were concentrated. As the activities of the Black Hundred organizations unfolded, the wave of pogroms began to subside, as many prominent figures of this movement pointed out and were recognized by political opponents. After the organization of the Black Hundred movement, only two major pogroms were recorded. Both of them took place in 1906 on the territory of Poland, where the Russian Black Hundreds had no influence.

The leaders of the Black Hundred movement and the charters of organizations declared the law-abiding nature of the movement and condemned the pogroms. In particular, the chairman of the Union of the Russian People, A.I. Dubrovin, in a special statement in 1906, defined pogroms as a crime. Although the fight against “Jewish dominance” was one of the foundations of the movement, its leaders explained that it should not be waged by violence, but by economic and ideological methods. Black Hundred newspapers did not publish a single direct call for a pogrom against the Jews.

Terror against the "Black Hundred"

Radical socialist parties launched a campaign of terror against the Black Hundreds. The leader of the Social Democrats V. I. Lenin wrote in 1905

Detachments of the revolutionary army must immediately study who, where and how the Black Hundreds are composed, and then not limit themselves to preaching alone (this is useful, but this alone is not enough), but also act with armed force, beating the Black Hundreds, killing them, blowing up their headquarters etc. etc.

Weakening and end of the Black Hundred movement

The Black Hundred movement failed to convince Russian society of its ability to offer a positive program according to the then demands for political ideology; the explanation of all the problems and ills of society by the subversive activities of the Jews seemed overly one-sided even to those who did not sympathize with the Jews;
The Black Hundred movement failed to offer an effective alternative to the liberal and revolutionary, radical left ideas that had won wide circles of the intelligentsia in Russia;
Continuous splits and internal strife in the Black Hundred movement, accompanied by numerous scandals and mutual accusations (including serious criminal offenses) undermined public confidence in the movement as a whole; for example, the most famous figure in the right-wing movement, Fr. Ioann Vostorgov was accused by right-wing political competitors of poisoning right-wing political figure P.A. Krushevan, killing his own wife out of a desire to become a bishop, stealing sums from monarchical organizations;
A strong public opinion has formed that the Black Hundred movement is secretly financed from secret sums of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and all conflicts in the movement are caused by the struggle for individuals’ access to these sums;
The latter's participation in the murders of Duma deputies M.Ya. had an unfavorable impact on public opinion about the Black Hundreds. Herzenstein and G.B. Yollosa; as well as those put forward by former Prime Minister Count S.Yu. Witte is accused of attempting to kill him by blowing up his house;
The activities of deputies of the right faction in the Third State Duma, primarily V.M. Purishkevich and N.E. Markov 2nd, was provocative, shocking in nature and was accompanied by numerous scandals that did not contribute to the formation of respect for these political figures; activities of A.N. Khvostov's tenure as Minister of Internal Affairs ended in a loud scandal related to his alleged attempt to organize the murder of G.E. Rasputin and subsequent quick resignation.

Notes

Links

Molodtsova M. S. Black Hundred unions: in defense of autocracy
Molodtsova M. S. Black Hundreds in the fight against the revolutionary movement in 1905-1907. Lessons from the First Russian Revolution."
Molodtsova M. S. Black Hundred Unions in Networks of Contradictions (1907-1913)
Molodtsova M. S. Black Hundreds: leaving the political arena
Lebedev S. V.
Omelyanchuk I. V. Social composition of the Black Hundred parties at the beginning of the 20th century
Alekseev I. E. Chuvash Black Hundreds. “Staging” notes on the activities of the Chuvash departments of Russian right-wing monarchist organizations
Stepanov S. A."Black Hundred Terror 1905-1907"
Stepanov S. A. RUSSIAN CIVIL SOCIETY - OPRICHNA MONARCHY
Ganelin R. Tsarism and the Black Hundreds
Ganelin R. From Black Hundreds to Fascism // Ad hominem. In memory of Nikolai Girenko. St. Petersburg: MAE RAS, 2005, p. 243-272
Lebedev S. V. The ideology of right-wing radicalism at the beginning of the 20th century
Krotov Ya. G. BLACK HUNDRED broadcast “From a Christian point of view” from 07/07/2005 on Radio Liberty
Vitukhnovskaya M. The Black Hundred under Finnish court Neva Magazine No. 10 2006
Langer Jacob. CORRUPTION AND THE COUNTERREVOLUTION: THE RISE AND FALL OF THE BLACK HUNDRED
Review of the book by S. A. Stepanov “The Black Hundred” in the magazine “People of Books in the World of Books”
Razmolodin M. L. Conservative foundations of political issues in the ideology of the Black Hundred (Russian). Chronos website. Archived
Razmolodin M. L. Foreign issues in the ideology of the Black Hundred (Russian). Chronos website. Archived from the original on May 15, 2012. Retrieved April 11, 2012.
Razmolodin M. L. Imperial issues in the ideology of the Black Hundred (Russian). Chronos website. Archived from the original on May 15, 2012. Retrieved April 11, 2012.
Razmolodin M. L. Defense of the Christian tradition as the main function of the Black Hundred (Russian). Chronos website. Archived from the original on May 15, 2012. Retrieved April 11, 2012.
Razmolodin M. L. The Jewish question in the ideology of the Black Hundred (Russian). Chronos website. Archived from the original on May 15, 2012. Retrieved April 11, 2012.
Razmolodin M. L. On the criteria for inclusion in the Black Hundred segment (Russian). Chronos website. Archived from the original on May 15, 2012. Retrieved April 11, 2012.
Razmolodin M. L. Some thoughts about the so-called “Jewish pogroms” (Russian). Chronos website. Archived from the original on May 15, 2012. Retrieved April 11, 2012.

Black Hundreds program. Power: Inviolability and strengthening of autocracy Strengthening Orthodoxy and the positions of the Russian Orthodox Church Peasant question: Inviolability of private property Sale of state-owned and redeemable lands to peasants Preservation of the peasant community Work question: Reduction of the working day Improving working conditions Insurance National question: Preservation of a single indivisible Russia Nationalism. “Russia is for Russians” Anti-Semitism.

Slide 28 from the presentation “Political parties of the early 20th century”

Dimensions: 720 x 540 pixels, format: .jpg. To download a slide for free to use in class, right-click on the image and click “Save Image As...”. You can download the entire presentation “Political parties of the early 20th century.pptx” in a zip archive of 1178 KB in size.

Parties

"Russian political parties" - Personnel parties. Boris Efimovich Nemtsov. The main stages in the formation of a multi-party system in Russia. Signs of political parties. Alexander Ivanovich Lebed. Political parties. Functions of political parties. Just Russia. Reformist - strive for gradual changes. Public association.

“Political parties and party systems” - United Russia. Political Party. Communist Party of the Russian Federation. Main stages. Political parties and party systems. Party systems. Political parties. The consignment. Legal registration. Organization. Republican Party. Party system. Several stages. Functions of political parties.

“Political parties” - Parties - cadre and mass. Party system in Russia. Socio-political movements. Centrist - moderate parties. Functions of parties. Content of political ideologies? The movements are gaining momentum. The growing role of the media. What are the functions of parties and development trends? The party in the system of government is officials in the state apparatus.

“Modern party systems” - Radical parties. Movement type parties. Veterans movement. Socialist parties. The fundamental difference between political parties. Classification of parties according to various principles. Special position in society. The essence and fundamental difference between ideologies. Small number of members.

“Political parties and movements” - The party seeks to create a base to achieve support in elections. Social and political movements. Ways to influence power. Directly. The parties' focus is on winning the state. Procedure for holding rallies. The party sets long-term goals. Three party levels. Capitalists are workers. Referendum.

Ally."

Ideology

In the economic sphere, the Black Hundreds advocated a multi-structural system. Some Black Hundred economists proposed abandoning the commodity backing of the ruble.

Story

Black Hundreds
Organizations
Russian collection
Union of the Russian People
Union of Michael the Archangel
All-Russian Dubrovinsky Union of the Russian People
Russian monarchical the consignment
Union of Russian People
Holy squad
All-Russian Congress of Russian People
Tsarist-People's Muslim Society
Leaders
Alexander Dubrovin
Anthony Khrapovitsky
Vladimir Gringmut
Vladimir Purishkevich
Ivan Katsaurov
Ioann Vostorgov
Orlov, Vasily Grigorievich
John of Kronstadt
Nikolay Markov
Pavel Krushevan
Seraphim Chichagov
Emmanuel Konovnitsyn
Successors
Vyacheslav Klykov
Leonid Ivashov
Mikhail Nazarov
Alexander Shtilmark

The Black Hundreds trace their origins to the grassroots Nizhny Novgorod militia of the Time of Troubles, led by Kuzma Minin, who “stood for the house of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Orthodox Christian faith, took up arms against the destroyers of the Russian land for the sake of saving the father’s faith and the fatherland from destruction” (In Russia of the XIV-XVII centuries "black" were the land plots of the black-growing peasants and the tax-paying urban population. In historical sources "black" lands are opposed "white" lands that were in the possession of feudal lords and the church).
The Black Hundred movement came out at the beginning of the 20th century under the slogans of defending the Russian Empire and its traditional values of “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.”

The first Black Hundred organization was the “Russian Assembly,” created in 1900.

A significant source of funding for the Black Hundred unions were private donations and collections.

Modern rightists... like to increase this already long list at the expense of those figures of Russian culture who were not formally members of the Black Hundred unions, but did not hide their right-wing views. These include, in particular, the great D. I. Mendeleev, artist V. M. Vasnetsov, philosopher V. V. Rozanov...

Among the leaders of the Black Hundred movement, Alexander Dubrovin, Vladimir Purishkevich, Nikolai Markov, and Prince M.K. Shakhovskoy stood out.

Terror against the "Black Hundred"

Radical socialist parties launched a campaign of terror against the Black Hundreds. The leader of the Social Democrats V. I. Lenin wrote in 1905

Detachments of the revolutionary army must immediately study who, where and how the Black Hundreds are composed, and then not limit themselves to preaching alone (this is useful, but this alone is not enough), but also act with armed force, beating the Black Hundreds, killing them, blowing up their headquarters etc. etc.

Weakening and end of the Black Hundred movement

The Black Hundred movement failed to convince Russian society of its ability to offer a positive program according to the then demands for political ideology; the explanation of all the problems and ills of society by the subversive activities of the Jews seemed overly one-sided even to those who did not sympathize with the Jews;
The Black Hundred movement failed to offer an effective alternative to the liberal and revolutionary, radical left ideas that had won wide circles of the intelligentsia in Russia;
Continuous splits and internal strife in the Black Hundred movement, accompanied by numerous scandals and mutual accusations (including serious criminal offenses) undermined public confidence in the movement as a whole; for example, the most famous figure in the right-wing movement, Fr. Ioann Vostorgov was accused by right-wing political competitors of poisoning right-wing political figure P.A. Krushevan, killing his own wife out of a desire to become a bishop, stealing sums from monarchical organizations;
A strong public opinion has formed that the Black Hundred movement is secretly financed from secret sums of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and all conflicts in the movement are caused by the struggle for individuals’ access to these sums;
The latter's participation in the murders of Duma deputies M.Ya. had an unfavorable impact on public opinion about the Black Hundreds. Herzenstein and G.B. Yollosa; as well as those put forward by former Prime Minister Count S.Yu. Witte is accused of attempting to kill him by blowing up his house;
The activities of deputies of the right faction in the Third State Duma, primarily V.M. Purishkevich and N.E. Markov 2nd, was provocative, shocking in nature and was accompanied by numerous scandals that did not contribute to the formation of respect for these political figures; activities of A.N. Khvostov's tenure as Minister of Internal Affairs ended in a loud scandal related to his alleged attempt to organize the murder of G.E. Rasputin and subsequent quick resignation.

Notes

Chapter 1 Who are the “Black Hundreds”?

Who are the “Black Hundreds”?

As already said, the capital letter in the word “Revolution” is used to emphasize: we are not talking about any revolutionary explosion (December 1905, February 1917, etc.), but about the entire grandiose cataclysm, shook Russia in the 20th century. The word “Black Hundreds” also has a broad meaning. Often, instead, they prefer to talk about “members of the Union of the Russian People,” but in this case the matter comes down to only one (albeit the largest) patriotic and anti-revolutionary organization that existed from November 8, 1905 until the February Revolution of 1917. Meanwhile, “Black Hundreds” with good reason were and are called many very different figures and ideologists who spoke out much earlier than the creation of the Union of the Russian People, as well as those who were not part of this Union after its emergence and who were not even members of any organizations or associations at all. Therefore, the word “Black Hundreds,” despite its odious meaning, that is, having an extremely “negative” and, moreover, imbued with hatred meaning, is still most appropriate when studying the phenomenon to which this chapter of my essay is devoted.

Yes, the word “Black Hundreds” (derived from “Black Hundred”) appears as an openly abusive nickname. True, in the newest “Dictionary of the Russian Language” (1984) an attempt was made to give a more or less objective interpretation of this word (I quote it in its entirety): “Black Hundreds, - itsa. Member, participant in pogrom-monarchist organizations in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, whose activities were aimed at fighting the revolutionary movement.”

It is useful to understand this definition. The strange double epithet “pogrom-monarchist” is clearly intended to preserve an abusive flavor in the interpretation of this word (such is the very word “pogrom”). It would be more correct to say “extremely” or “extremist monarchist” (that is, not recognizing any restrictions on monarchical power); the definition of “pogroms” is inappropriate here, if only because some obviously “Black Hundred” organizations - for example, the Russian Assembly (as opposed to the same Union of the Russian People) - no one has ever associated with any violent ones - that is, those that could be attributed to “pogrom” - with shares.

Secondly, in the given dictionary definition it is unlawful to limit it to the concept of “monarchism”; should have been said about “organizations” that defended the traditional threefold, triune principle - Orthodoxy, monarchy (autocracy) and nationality (that is, original relations and forms of Russian life). In the name of this triad, the “Black Hundreds” waged an irreconcilable, uncompromising struggle against the Revolution, and much more consistent than many of the then officials of the monarchical state, whom the “Black Hundreds” constantly and sharply criticized for reconciliation or even direct opportunism with the revolutionary - or at least with purely liberal tendencies. More than once, “Black Hundred” criticism even turned to the monarch himself, and to the head of the Orthodox Church, and to the greatest creators of national culture (most of all, Tolstoy, although in his time it was he who created “War and Peace” - one of the most magnificent and full-blooded embodiments of what is denoted by the word “nationality”).

Further, the dictionary definition being analyzed did not quite clearly outline those, so to speak, boundaries within which the “Black Hundreds” existed; it refers to both “members” and “participants” of the relevant organizations. This shows a desire to somehow distinguish between the direct, immediate “functionaries” of these organizations and, on the other hand, those who “sympathize” with them and, to one degree or another, share their aspirations - that is, rather “accomplices” than “participants.” So, for example, the authors and editorial staff of the famous newspaper “Novoe Vremya” (unlike, say, the editorial staff of the newspapers “Moskovskie Vedomosti” or “Russkoe Znamya”) were not members of any “Black Hundred” organizations and even often and sometimes very They were strongly criticized, but nevertheless, the “New Times” were and are still quite thoroughly included in the camp of the “Black Hundreds”.

Finally, the dictionary definition classifies only figures of the “early 20th century” as “Black Hundreds”; Meanwhile, this designation is often - and again with good reason - applied to many figures of the previous, 19th century, although they are called that, of course, in hindsight. But, be that as it may, starting at least from the 1860s, ideologists appeared on the public stage who clearly represented the direct predecessors of those “Black Hundreds” who were active in the 1900s and 1910s. As a matter of fact, the beliefs of those belonging to senior generations of the most prominent figures of the “Black Hundred” organizations - such as, for example, D. I. Ilovaisky (1832–1920), K. F. Golovin (1843–1913), S. F. Sharapov (1850–1911), V. A. Gringmut (1851–1907), L. A. Tikhomirov (1852–1923), A. I. Sobolevsky (1856–1929) - were fully formed even before the beginning of the 20th century.

So, the general contours of the phenomenon known as “Black Hundreds” have been outlined. However, we cannot remain silent about the fact that this word - or, more precisely, the nickname - has been used most actively over the past few years in relation to certain modern, today's figures and ideologists. But this is a completely separate question, which can be discussed only after understanding the actual nature of the pre-revolutionary “Black Hundreds”.

As has been said, the word “Black Hundreds” - as well as the phrase “Black Hundred” from which it is derived - was and is used, in fact, as an abusive nickname, a kind of curse (although in the newest dictionaries one can find examples of a more “calm” interpretation). Back in 1907, the famous “Encyclopedic Dictionary” of Brockhaus-Efron (2nd additional volume) “laid the foundations” of just such word usage (italics in the quoted text, and also in the future, except for specially stated cases, mine. - VC.):

“The Black Hundred is a current name that has recently begun to be applied to scum population... The Black Hundreds appeared on the historical stage under different names (for example, in Italy - Camorra and mafia)… At cultural forms of political life, the Black Hundreds usually disappear..." And further: "... the Black Hundreds themselves willingly accepted this nickname, it becomes the recognized name of all elements belonging to the extreme right parties and opposing themselves " Red Hundreds" In No. 141 of the Moskovskie Vedomosti for 1906, the “Leadership of the Black Hundred Monarchist” was published... The pamphlet by A. A. Maykov “Revolutionaries and Black Hundreds” (St. Petersburg, 1907) has the same character...”

In this dictionary entry, by the way, a different, non-abusive definition of “Black Hundreds” is given: we are talking about “elements”, that is, simply speaking, about people (the author of the dictionary entry did not seem to want to call them “people”), “ belonging to extreme right-wing parties"; the expression “extreme right” could be replaced by a more “scientific” one - “extremely conservative” or, ultimately, “reactionary” (though this word in Russia has long become “abusive”). But the dictionary has a clear preference for the designation “Black Hundreds,” deftly referring to the fact that “the Black Hundreds themselves willingly accepted this nickname,” as if they were ready to accept such definitions contained in the dictionary entry as “scum” and “ mafia,” as well as accusations of complete incompatibility with culture (after all, according to the dictionary, “with cultural forms of political life, the Black Hundreds disappear”), etc.

In itself, the fact that the “Black Hundreds” did not object to the “nickname” imposed on them is not so surprising. More than once in history the name of a movement has been accepted from hostile or at least alien lips; for example, Khomyakov, Kireevskys, Aksakovs, Samarin did not disavow the name “Slavophiles,” which was used in relation to them as a deliberately ironic, mocking (albeit not charged with such ardent hatred as “Black Hundreds”) nickname.

At the same time, the ideologists of the “Black Hundreds” were well aware of the actual history of the word that became their “nickname” - a history traced, for example, in the classic course of lectures by V. O. Klyuchevsky “Terminology of Russian History”, the lithographic edition of which appeared back in 1885. The phrase “Black Hundred” entered Russian chronicles starting from the 12th century (!) and played a primary role until the era of Peter the Great. In medieval Rus', V. O. Klyuchevsky showed, “society was divided into two categories of people: “service people” and “blacks.” Black people... were also called zemstvo... They were city dwellers... and villagers - free peasants.” And “black hundreds are ranks or local societies” formed from “black”, “zemstvo” people” (1).

So, the “black hundreds” are associations of “zemstvo” people, people of the earth, in contrast to the “servicemen”, whose life was inextricably linked with the institutions of the state. And by calling their organizations “Black Hundreds,” the ideologists of the early 20th century sought to revive the ancient, purely “democratic” order of things: in a difficult time for the country, the unification of “Zemstvo people” - the “Black Hundreds” - were called upon to save its main foundations.

The founder of the organized “Black Hundreds” V. A. Gringmut (we will talk about him later) in his already mentioned “Manual of the Monarchist Black Hundreds” (1906) wrote:

“The enemies of the autocracy called the “Black Hundred” the simple, black Russian people who, during the armed rebellion of 1905, stood up in defense of the autocratic Tsar. Is this name honorable, “Black Hundred”? Yes, very honorable. The Nizhny Novgorod Black Hundred, gathered around Minin, saved Moscow and all of Russia from the Poles and Russian traitors" (2).

From this it is clear, in particular, that the ideologists of the “Black Hundreds” accepted this “nickname” and even valued it because of its deeply popular meaning and significance, imbued with true democracy. To some, the last statement may seem purely paradoxical, since it was precisely the irreconcilable enemies, the antipodes of the “Black Hundreds” who declared themselves the only real “democrats”. But here is a very interesting confession from an ideologist who cannot be suspected of seeking to “whitewash” the extreme opponents of the Revolution: “There is one extremely important feature in our Black Hundreds that has not received enough attention. This is dark peasant democracy, the crudest, but also the deepest” (3). This is what V.I. Lenin wrote in 1913. Moreover, the definition of “dark” that he gave must be understood correctly. We are, undoubtedly, talking about those layers of the people who have not yet been touched by the “light”, “enlightenment” emanating from the pages of revolutionary newspapers and from the mouths of militant rally agitators. But in our time it is not difficult, I believe, to understand that the absence of such “enlightenment” also provided considerable advantages. For people who were not “enlightened” in this regard understood more deeply and clearly, or at least felt, what the destruction of the basic foundations of Russian existence would lead to - that is, Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality. We felt and tried to resist the destructive work...

In a word, V.I. Lenin was absolutely right when he spoke about the “deepest democracy” inherent in the “Black Hundreds.” And at the same time, Lenin’s definition of “peasant” is false. “Black Hundreds” differed from all other political movements in its, if you like, “nationality”; it developed across the boundaries of classes and estates. From the very beginning, the most noble Rurik princes (for example, the great-grandson of the Decembrist M.N. Volkonsky and D.N. Dolgorukov), and the workers of the Putilov plant (1500 of them were members of the Union of the Russian People) (4), the most prominent figures, took direct part in it from the very beginning culture (which will be discussed later) and “illiterate” peasants, enterprising merchants and hierarchs of the Church, etc. This “all-class” nature in the context of the most acute “class struggle” characteristic of the beginning of the 20th century already in itself attracts interested attention.

Here it is appropriate to recall that we are generally talking about mysterious pages of history. And isn’t it mysterious in itself the fact that so many of today’s popular authors and speakers, striving to expose and curse the Revolution as “selflessly” as possible, at the same time clearly greater furiously curse the "Black Hundreds", who from the very beginning of the Revolution, with remarkable, it must be said, accuracy, foresaw its monstrous consequences and were, in essence, the only one a public (that is, not directly belonging to state institutions) force that really sought (albeit in vain) to stop the course of the Revolution?...

This is a rather complex “mystery” that I will try to clarify throughout this essay, but it is important that readers keep it in mind.

It is also worth paying attention to the fact that the purely abusive use of the word “Black Hundreds” (and, of course, “Black Hundred”) is greatly facilitated by the new semantic content of the epithet “black”, present in it in addition to its direct meaning - that is, the meaning of a certain color. We have seen that at one time “black” was synonymous with the word “zemsky”. The army of Dmitry Donskoy, as reported by “The Tale of the Massacre of Mamayev,” fought on the Kulikovo field under black banner, and this may have meant that not only “service” people, but also “zemstvo” people - that is, the entire Russian Land - were participating in the battle. Let me also remind you that the monks were called “black clergy” (and to this day the phrase “black clergy” - that is, monasticism) is still used. Thus, the word “black” was quite ambiguous. However, in modern times, it has become dominated by semantic shades that speak of something purely “gloomy,” “hostile,” or even “satanic”... And these overtones of the meaning of the word “black” are used, emphasized by intonation when pronouncing the word “Black Hundreds,” so that in fact it is not easy to “whitewash” (this play on words involuntarily suggests itself) the phenomenon he designates. And yet, let’s try to understand who the “Black Hundreds” really were?

It is advisable to start with the necessary foundation on which any social movement is created - problems culture(philosophical, scientific, political culture, etc.). Of course, there are social movements based on a very or even extremely poor, undeveloped and narrow cultural foundation, but one way or another it is still necessarily present.

In ideas about the “Black Hundreds,” the dominant assessment is their cultural level as extremely low; they are depicted as sort of “black-dark” subjects, living by a set of primitive dogmas and cliché slogans. This is how, for example, the constantly mentioned - usually with a purely ironic intonation - fundamental triad for the Black Hundreds is interpreted: “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.”

Of course, in the minds of certain ordinary people, this triple idea - as, indeed, any idea in general - existed as a flat slogan without any significant meaning. But it is hardly possible to seriously challenge the assertion that in the spiritual works of Ivan Kireevsky, Khomyakov, Tyutchev, Gogol, Yuri Samarin, Konstantin and Ivan Aksakov, Dostoevsky, Konstantin Leontyev, the centuries-old realities of the Russian Church, the Russian Kingdom and the Russian People themselves appear as phenomena filled with the richest and the deepest historical content, which in its cultural and spiritual value is in no way inferior to, say, the historical content embodied in Western European self-awareness.

Despite this, both in the West and in Russia, of course, there were and are numerous ideologists who are trying in every possible way to belittle the content of the Russian historical path that has developed over the centuries, declaring it something obviously and much less significant than the content imprinted in Western European self-awareness . However, such attempts, I repeat, are simply not serious.

They, in particular, find themselves in a truly absurd contradiction with the obvious fact that the legacy of the Russian writers and thinkers just listed has long been highly valued in the West - sometimes (even if it sounds somehow shameful for the Russian people...) more highly, than in Russia itself. And attempts to devalue the understanding of the triple idea “Orthodoxy - autocracy - nationality” expressed in their heritage testify either to the wretchedness of those who make such attempts, or to their unscrupulous tendentiousness (by the way, to discredit the “triple idea” the following technique is used: here, they say , Dostoevsky is truly an incomparable genius, but he had a strange Achilles heel: faith in the Church, the Tsar and the People).

It is impossible not to notice that the most “intelligent” opponents of the triple idea acted and act differently. They give high or even the highest honors to the Russian thinkers of the 19th century, especially the pre-reform period, who were inspired by this idea, but they argue that by the 20th century this idea “decayed” or “degenerated” and began to turn into a vulgar dogma.

Vladimir Solovyov, who, by the way, began his career precisely among the faithful Slavophiles and their heirs, in close connection with Ivan Aksakov, Dostoevsky, Leontiev, by the mid-1880s very sharply changed his positions and criticized more and more irreconcilably (often to the surprise of lightly) of his recent like-minded people. In 1889, he published a lengthy article with an expressive title: “Slavophilism and its degeneration.” Here he, while appreciating the Slavophiles of the 1840s–1850s quite highly, almost completely rejects the contemporary successors of Slavophilism.

Further, the leader of liberalism P. N. Milyukov in 1893 (that is, also before the appearance of “Black Hundreds” in the literal sense of the word) came out with the article “The Decomposition of Slavophilism”; Regardless of the author’s intentions, this name implied that at one time “Slavophilism” was something significant, but by 1893 it had “decayed” and, therefore, had lost its former meaning.

In 1911, the cultural historian M. O. Gershenzon prepared the works of Ivan Kireyevsky for publication and, declaring him in his preface as one of the deepest universal thinkers of the 19th century, at the same time complained that some of his ideas had by now turned into something insignificant and outrageous.

Of course, in the three quarters of a century that have passed since the emergence of Slavophilism and before this Gershenzon “accusation”, much has changed in Russian self-awareness. However, this was not due to some kind of “degeneration” of the idea, but to a significant change in historical reality itself: it was impossible to think in Russia and about Russia in the 1900–1910s in exactly the same way as in the 1840–1850s...

To more fully identify the problem, I will note, looking ahead, that in our time, in the 1990s, the “process” I outlined continues to develop, and those ideologists who immediately reject the current successors of Slavophilism are quite respectful not only of the “classical” Slavophiles of the first half of the 19th century, but also to such their heirs as Leontyev or Nikolai Strakhov, and often later ones - like Rozanov or Florensky. But these ideologists still completely “deny” any contemporary to them continuation of Slavophilism (in the broad sense of the word). However, we will return to this topic later.

Let us now turn directly to the “Black Hundreds” of the early 20th century. It is already clear from the above considerations that even the most determined opponents of the “Black Hundreds” one way or another recognized its direct connection with the long and significant previous development of Russian thought, claiming, however, that by the 20th century this thought had “decayed” and “degenerated.” “Degenerated” to such an extent that it seemed to have completely lost its cultural status. And the idea clearly prevails that the “Black Hundreds” of the early 20th century have nothing to do with true culture with its necessarily inherent height, richness, diversity and sophistication; culture, they say, is absolutely incompatible with “Black Hundreds.”

This idea has become so firmly established in the minds of the overwhelming majority of people that when they get seriously acquainted with real representatives of the “Black Hundreds”, they experience a feeling of real amazement. For example, modern archivist S.V. Shumikhin, who prepared a number of interesting publications, was, by his own admission, “amazed” when he had the opportunity to get acquainted with the heritage and the very personality of one of the most prominent “Black Hundred” figures of the beginning of the century - a member of the Main Council of the Union of Russian People B.V. Nikolsky (1870–1919). The archivist “happened” to find out about this man, since he was studying the valuable legacy of the half-forgotten poet, prose writer and literary critic Boris Sadovsky (who, however, as it turned out, was also a “Black Hundred” - though not by belonging to any organization, but out of internal convictions), but having discovered a whole series of letters from B.V. Nikolsky in Sadovsky’s archive, S.V. Shumikhin involuntarily became interested in this close companion of his idol. And this is the impression this man made on the archivist (certain words are highlighted in the text by me):

“First of all, in this extraordinary personality amazes what ideas seem to be us(it would be worth clarifying who these “we” are? - VC.) in historical retrospect incompatible, were completely combined in Nikolskoye organically, without a shadow of any mental discomfort. On the one hand, he was a multi-talented person: an admirer and deep researcher of Fet’s work... a major expert on the work of Guy Valery Catullus; Pushkinist, poet, critic, marked by undoubted talent; in addition, he is one of the best speakers of his time... On the other hand, we have before us an active member of the “Union of the Russian People” (the archivist clearly did not dare to say: “one of the main leaders.” - VC.) and no less odious (just about! - VC.) “Russian Assembly”... an orthodox monarchist" (5), etc. (so, being a monarchist is already a crime in itself...).

To this we could add that B.V. Nikolsky was a major lawyer who deeply studied Roman and modern law, that he collected one of the largest and most valuable private libraries of that time, for which he had to rent an entire separate apartment, which... however, It’s even difficult to list everything here. I will only say one more thing about the following fact. In 1900, Alexander Blok brought his youthful, but already wonderful poems to the magazine “World of God”, which seemed to have a wide program, where N. A. Berdyaev and F. D. Batyushkov, I. A. Bunin and V. I himself were published. Lenin... But, having become acquainted with the poems, the purely liberal editor of the magazine V.P. Ostrogorsky told Blok: “Shame on you, young man, to study this, when at the university God knows what’s going on” (6) (we were talking about the then struggle of students for “freedom.” - VC.).

The next time, Blok gave his poems to B.V. Nikolsky, and he (and he was already one of the most active figures in the “Black Hundred” Russian Assembly), impartially criticizing the young poet for “decadentism,” nevertheless sent his talented poems to print. This episode throws light on the level of aesthetic culture among liberals and Black Hundreds.

Blok recalled with satisfaction in his autobiography of 1915 that after the failure with Ostrogorsky, he and his poems “didn’t go anywhere for a long time, until in 1902 I was sent to B. Nikolsky” (ibid.).

It should be emphasized that modern archivist S.V. Shumikhin’s perception of the legacy of a prominent cultural figure and at the same time an active “Black Hundred” member B.V. Nikolsky is only one expressive “example” that helps to understand the problem. It would be completely wrong to understand my reasoning as some kind of reproach or at least polemic addressed specifically to S.V. Shumikhin. I repeat once again that the overwhelming majority of today’s readers, faced with the “phenomenon” of B.V. Nikolsky, would perceive it in exactly the same way as the named archivist, for the majority are enslaved by the myth of the “Black Hundreds”. In a word, S.V. Shumikhin is just a typical modern reader (and researcher) at a rendezvous, on a date with a “Black Hundred” member.

And this reader is convinced that the personality of B.V. Nikolsky, a member of the Main Council of the Union of the Russian People, decisively contradicts the completely dominant idea of the “Black Hundreds”. However, maybe this is just some exceptional case that so amazed the modern observer? And the highly cultured B.V. Nikolsky is a kind of black sheep in the “Black Hundreds”, who ended up in its ranks for some ridiculous reason? The archivist - although he is generally a knowledgeable and informed person - perceives B.V. Nikolsky in exactly this way (this is clearly evident from his statements). The idea of the “Black Hundreds” hammered into his consciousness truly fatally clouds his eyes and prevents him from seeing the real state of affairs, which, in essence, exactly the opposite the "generally accepted" view.

Prominent cultural figures (as well as the Church and the state) rarely entered into direct, immediate contact with any political movements. And yet, the comrade (that is, the deputy - the second most important person) of the chairman of the Main Council of the Union of the Russian People was one of the two most outstanding philologists of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, Academician A. I. Sobolevsky (the second of these two philologists, Academician A. A. Shakhmatov, on the contrary, was a member of the Central Committee of the Cadet Party). Alexey Ivanovich Sobolevsky (1856–1929) had the highest worldwide recognition, and after 1917, when many active “Black Hundreds” were - moreover, as a rule, without any investigation or trial - shot (including B.V. . Nikolsky), they did not dare to touch him, and his classic works were published in the USSR even after his death.

The most active (although he did not agree to occupy leading positions) participant in the “Black Hundred” organizations was the bishop, who had the highest spiritual culture of all the then church hierarchs, and in 1917, Metropolitan Anthony (in the world - Alexey Pavlovich Khrapovitsky; 1863–1934). In his youth, he was close to Dostoevsky and was - which, of course, says a lot about him - the prototype of the image of Alyosha Karamazov. The four-volume collection of his works, published in 1909–1917, appears as the embodiment of the peaks of theological thought of the 20th century, as convincingly stated in the fundamental treatise by Fr. Georgy Florovsky “The Way of Russian Theology”, published here in 1991 (see pp. 427–438 and especially p. 565, where G.V. Florovsky shows how the understanding of the essence of the Church in the works of Metropolitan Anthony was deeper and higher than in works on this topic belonging to the famous V.S. Solovyov). By the way, Bishop Anthony constantly communicated and corresponded with the mentioned B.V. Nikolsky.

At the All-Russian Local Council in November 1917, Archbishop Anthony was one of the two main candidates for the post of Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'; Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow (V.I. Belavin) received only 12 more votes than Anthony when he was elected Patriarch (the vote ratio was 162:150). But Tikhon, now (in 1990) canonized by the Church, was, apparently, more ready for the difficult moral feat that he accomplished as Patriarch in 1917–1925 (Antony emigrated and became the head of the Russian Synod Orthodox Church Abroad).

And one cannot help but recall that the future Patriarch Tikhon, holding the post of Archbishop of Yaroslavl and Rostov in 1907–1913, at the same time quite officially headed provincial department of the Union of the Russian People (Antony, as already mentioned, did not agree to occupy a leadership position in the “Black Hundred” organizations, although he very actively participated in their activities).

The ascetic tragic fate of St. Tikhon is quite widely known today, but when glorifying him, the fact that he was the most prominent “Black Hundred” is hushed up, just like the luminous Archpriest John of Kronstadt, who was canonized at the same time. V.I. Lenin was completely accurate when, during his brutal struggle with Patriarch Tikhon and his associates, he constantly called them the “Black Hundred clergy.”

As already mentioned, many prominent figures of the Church, state and culture of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century did not consider it possible or necessary to directly associate themselves with “Black Hundred” organizations. Nevertheless, in the lists of members of the main of these organizations published at the beginning of the 20th century - such as the Russian Assembly, the Union of Russian People, the Russian Monarchist Party, the Union of the Russian People, the Russian People's Union named after Michael the Archangel - we find many names of the most prominent cultural figures of that time (moreover, some of them even held leadership positions in these organizations).

Here are at least a few of these names (all of them, by the way, are presented in any modern encyclopedic dictionary): one of the most authoritative philologists, Academician K. Ya. Grot, an outstanding historian, Academician N. P. Likhachev, a wonderful musician, creator of the first orchestra in Russia folk instruments V.V. Andreev, one of the greatest physicians Professor S.S. Botkin, the great actress M.G. Savina, the world-famous Byzantinist academician N.P. Kondakov, excellent poets Konstantin Sluchevsky and Mikhail Kuzmin and no less excellent painters Konstantin Makovsky and Nicholas Roerich (later famous for his spiritual initiatives), one of the luminaries of botanical science, academician V. L. Komarov (later president of the Academy of Sciences), outstanding book publisher I. D. Sytin, etc., etc.

We are talking, I repeat, about people who were directly involved in the “Black Hundred” organizations. If we turn to the names of prominent figures in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, who to one degree or another shared the “Black Hundred” ideology, but for one reason or another did not join the corresponding organizations, we will have to come to a conclusion that is unexpected for many, many modern readers.

It would be advisable to formulate this conclusion immediately, even before the presentation of substantial evidence. There is every reason to assert (although this statement, of course, will cause distrust and even, in all likelihood, outright protest) that predominant part of the most deep And creative in its spirit and - this is absolutely indisputable - the most visionary in its understanding of the course of history of the figures of the early 20th century, one way or another, in essence, found themselves in line with the “Black Hundreds”. We are talking, in particular, about people who not only were not members of the “Black Hundred” organizations, but sometimes even dissociated themselves from them (which had its own good reasons). Nevertheless, if we “try on” the views and sentiments of these people to the parties and political movements that existed at that time, it becomes absolutely clear that only What was close to them was precisely and only “Black Hundreds,” and their opponents quite rightly stated this more than once.

It is appropriate to begin with the question of historical foresight, and here I will turn to a truly remarkable document - a note submitted in February 1914 to Nicholas II. Its author, P. N. Durnovo (1845–1915), from October 23, 1905 to April 22, 1906, was the Minister of Internal Affairs of Russia (he was replaced in this post by P. A. Stolypin), and then took a much more “calm” position. » position as a member of the State Council (it is worth noting that P. N. Durnovo, like almost all Russian ministers of internal affairs of the early 20th century, was sentenced to death by left-wing terrorists).

If only by virtue of his official position, P. N. Durnovo did not belong to any organizations, but no one doubted his “Black Hundred” beliefs. His note to the Tsar is imbued with such an amazing spirit of foresight that the modern historian A. Ya. Avrekh (1915–1988), the author of seven detailed books published from 1966 to 1991 about the political ups and downs of the early 20th century - books in which he appears as a selfless apologist of the Revolution and an equally selfless detractor of all her opponents - still could not resist a kind of dithyramb addressed to Pyotr Nikolaevich Durnovo. Having stated that this figure is “an extreme reactionary in his views” (and this, as noted above, is synonymous with “Black Hundreds”), A. Ya. Avrekh immediately characterizes him as the creator of “a document which, as subsequent events showed, turned out to be real prophecy, fulfilled in all its main aspects."

In February 1914, the looming threat of war with Germany was already obvious, and P. N. Durnovo, convincing Nicholas II to prevent this war at any cost, wrote: “... it will begin with the fact that all failures will be attributed to the government. A violent campaign against him will begin in legislative institutions, as a result of which revolutionary uprisings will begin in the country. These latter will immediately put forward socialist slogans, the only ones that can raise and group broad sections of the population, first a black redistribution, and then a general division of all values and property. ...The army, having lost ... during the war the most reliable personnel, captured for the most part spontaneously by the general peasant desire for land, will turn out to be too demoralized to serve as a bastion of law and order. Legislative institutions and intellectual opposition parties, deprived of real authority in the eyes of the people, will be unable to restrain the diverging popular waves that they themselves raised, and Russia will be plunged into hopeless anarchy, the outcome of which cannot even be predicted.” Further, P. N. Durnovo further explained: “Behind our opposition (meaning Duma liberals. - VC.) there is no one, it has no support among the people... our opposition does not want to take into account the fact that it does not represent any real force” (7).

This is a surprisingly clear prediction of everything that happened then in Russia right up to the establishment of the Bolshevik dictatorship (precisely speaking about the “hopeless anarchy” that actually engulfed the country by October 1917, P. N. Durnovo did not undertake to foresee what would happen next), quite literally puts to shame all the “liberal” and “progressive” ideologists of that time (starting with the more “left” P.N. Milyukov and ending with the least “left” Octobrist A.I. Guchkov), who believed that the transfer of power into their hands - and it really happened in February 1917 - will be a strong guarantee of solving the main Russian problems (in fact, the same Miliukov and Guchkov remained in power for only two months...).

So, the historian A. Ya. Avrekh calls P. N. Durnovo “an extreme reactionary in his views” and at the same time calls the note he compiled “a real prophecy, fulfilled in all its main aspects.” It is clear from the context that the historian sees a direct “contradiction” here (just as S.V. Shumikhin contrasts the higher culture of B.V. Nikolsky and his “Black Hundreds”). Meanwhile in reality exactly those qualities, which, in the terminology of A. Ya. Avrekh, were “extreme reactionary”, determined the prophetic power of P. N. Durnovo and his other like-minded people.

One of the most important cadet leaders, V. A. Maklakov, unlike the overwhelming majority of his comrades, honestly admitted in his memoirs published in 1929 by the Parisian “Modern Notes” (vol. 38, p. 290) that “in their predictions the right ( the right in general, and not just P. N. Durnovo or anyone else. - VC.) turned out to be prophets. They predicted that the liberals in power would only be the forerunners of the revolution and would surrender their positions to it. This was the main argument why they fought so hard against liberalism.”

So, the struggle of the right (V.A. Maklakov in this case was clearly embarrassed to use the nickname “Black Hundreds”) against liberalism was determined, dictated by the true understanding the future path of Russian history; the cadet ideologist even considered it possible to sublimely call these irreconcilable opponents of his “prophets.” The very definition of “right” suddenly acquires the most valuable meaning here: “right” are those who - in contrast to liberals, who to one degree or another belonged to the "left" - were are right in their understanding of the course of history.

And opponents of the “right” can, of course, find in them a variety of negative, bad traits and call them “conservatives”, “reactionaries” and, finally, “Black Hundreds”, putting rejection and hatred into these names, but still one cannot help but recognize , that it was precisely these figures and ideologists who really understood where Russia was moving at the beginning of the 20th century...

Before going further, it is necessary to at least briefly characterize the actual meaning of the definition “reactionary”. It is based on a Latin word meaning “reaction.” Deprived, in essence, of any specificity, the terms “reaction”, “reactionary”, “reactionary”, etc. have developed as antonyms (that is, words of the opposite meaning) to the terms “progress”, “progressive”, “progressive” etc., coming from the Latin word meaning “moving forward.”

The term “progress” in modern times has become the most important for most ideologists, who put into it a purely “evaluative” meaning: not just “movement forward,” but movement towards a fundamentally better, ultimately towards a perfect society - a kind of earthly paradise.

The idea of progress took hold during the period of the spread of atheism and became a replacement (or rather, substitution) religion. True, in the last decades of the 20th century, even unconditional “progressives” seemed forced to stipulate that “progress” is more or less “relative” in nature. Thus, in the corresponding article of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (vol. 21, published in 1975), it is first stated that progress is “the transition from lower to higher, from less perfect to more perfect” (p. 28), and then it is said, that “the concept of progress is not applicable to the Universe as a whole, since there is no clearly defined direction of development” (p. 29). It seems that this should be understood in such a way that in the development of human society (as opposed to the Universe as a whole) one completely “definite” direction of development reigns (towards perfection), but elsewhere in the article it is said that “in pre-socialist formations... some elements of the social whole systematically progress at the expense of others,” that is, to put it simply, something is improving, and something is getting worse at the same time... And even “a socialist society... does not abolish the inconsistency of development.”

If you think about it, these reservations, in fact, deny the idea of progress, for it turns out that gains at the same time lead to losses. And the very “derivation” of the existence of people from the existence of the Universe as a whole is extremely doubtful, where, even from the point of view of the progressives themselves, there is no progress (in the sense of “improvement”); after all, people, in particular, represent not only a special - public, social - phenomenon, but also a natural phenomenon, an element of the Universe as a whole. And today it is clear to any thinking person, for example, that the colossal progress of technology has brought the very existence of humanity to the brink of disaster...

In a word, one can talk about progress as a certain development, change, transformation of society, but the idea of progress as some kind of fundamental “improvement”, “perfection”, etc. is only myth modern times - from the 17th–18th centuries (a good reason for reflection is given by the fact that previously the opposite myth dominated in the minds of people, according to which the “golden age” remained in the past...).

The myth about the ever-increasing “improvement” of human society is clearly refuted by a simple comparison of specific and integral incarnations of this society at different stages of its development, separated by centuries and millennia: who, in fact, would dare to assert that Plato and Phidias, Christ’s apostles and Emperor Mark Aurelius, Sergius of Radonezh and Andrei Rublev are less “perfect” than the most “perfect” people of our time, which was preceded by so much human “progress”? But the true reality of society is not the amount of energy consumed, not the nature of the political system, not the education system, etc., but the people themselves, one way or another absorbing all aspects and elements of the social life of their time. And one more thing: who will dare to prove that people living in a later, more “progressive” era are happier than people of previous eras? Art, which in one way or another captures the spiritual and mental life of people of any era, will in no way confirm such a thesis...

But, speaking about all this, we cannot remain silent about a truly acute problem. Despite the fact that the myth of progress has recently been noticeably discredited, it still remains the property of the majority (or perhaps even the overwhelming majority) of “civilized” people. After all, as already said, faith in progress was a replacement for faith in God, and people cannot live at all without faith. And the mass of people are imbued with the completely illusory conviction that by “improving” the existing society, they - or at least their children - will find true satisfaction and happiness.

Particularly dangerous, of course, are the diverse ideologists who are convinced not only that this goal is achievable, but also that they know how to achieve it. At the same time, what comes to the fore, naturally, is not even the task of creating a more perfect social structure, but a preliminary radical alteration or even complete elimination of the existing structure.

Now we can return directly to our topic. At the beginning of the 20th century, countless “progressives” were exceptionally active in Russia - both liberal, striving to radically reform Russian society, and revolutionary, convinced of the need for its complete destruction (which, in itself, would ensure the good and prosperity of Russia). They called their opponents “reactionaries” (that is, literally “opposing”); this word, in essence, became a swear word and was directly adjacent to the nickname “Black Hundreds”.

Of course, there were different people among the “reactionaries” (this will be discussed below). But let’s focus on the most significant of them - those whom the “progressives” themselves were sometimes embarrassed to call “reactionaries” (and even more so “Black Hundreds”), preferring the less harsh designation “conservative”, that is, “protector” (by the way, this Russian equivalent the word “conservative” was much more “abusive”: “guardian” seemed to be close to “tsarist secret police”).

The “reactionaries” included those who clearly understood the illusory nature of the idea of progress, clearly saw that the weakening and destruction of the centuries-old foundations of Russia would lead to innumerable troubles and suffering and, in the end, would fatally “disappoint” even the “progressives” themselves.

There has already been talk about the amazing power of foresight that the “reactionaries” possessed. The fact is that the “progressives,” enslaved by their myth, obviously could not see the real course of history. Their view of the future was, as it were, obscured by their own facile projections and inevitably turned out to be superficial and primitive.

And, of course, not only foresight as such, but also spiritual depth and wealth in general are most often organically connected with the so-called “right” beliefs. It is appropriate to start with the name of the greatest scientist of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, D. I. Mendeleev, who in his mature years professed strong “right-wing” convictions. One of his very “liberal” students, V.I. Vernadsky, curiously recalled this. Having spoken about the obviously “conservative” (the word “reactionary” Vernadsky did not want to use, but “protective” would suffice. - VC.) political views" of D.I. Mendeleev, he at the same time testified: "... brightly and beautifully, figuratively and powerfully, he painted before us the endless area of exact knowledge, its significance in life and in the development of mankind... We seemed to be freed from the grip, entered into a new, wonderful world... Dmitry Ivanovich, raising us up and arousing the deepest aspirations of the human personality for knowledge and its active application, aroused in so many such logical conclusions and constructions that were far from himself" (8) .

Here we are once again faced with an imaginary - imposed by a liberal myth - “contradiction” between “conservatism” and the depth and richness of spiritual culture. In Soviet times, even a kind of “concept” of the so-called despite the evil, with the help of which they tried to prove that great thinkers, writers, and scientists who professed unconditionally “conservative” and “reactionary” beliefs - such as Kant, Hegel, Goethe, Carlyle, Balzac, Dostoevsky - achieved greatness due to a certain paradox - “ contrary to his own views. But this artificial “concept” is simply frivolous, and the opposite is true, of course.

The “superiority” of conservatism is especially clear when it comes to foreseeing the future (as has already been mentioned). From the very beginning of the Revolution, and moreover, even in the 19th century, the Russian “rightists” predicted its results with amazing foresight. And the following is quite obvious: the figures and ideologists who opposed the “right” proceeded from a deliberately untenable and, moreover, essentially primitive worldview, according to which it is possible, supposedly, by rejecting and destroying the centuries-old foundations of the existence of Russia, more or less quickly gaining a certain if and not a heavenly, but in any case a fundamentally more grace-filled life; at the same time, they were convinced that their minds and their will were quite suitable for the implementation of this venture.

From the book 1905. Prelude to disaster author Shcherbakov Alexey Yurievich

Chapter 11. These are the things: war Both Russian revolutions began during the war - and an unsuccessful war. But if you take a closer look, it’s not even about the specific course and results of the hostilities, but about how the people and

From the book The Great Russian Revolution, 1905-1922 author Lyskov Dmitry Yurievich

6. Balance of power: who are the “whites”, who are the “reds”? The most persistent stereotype regarding the Civil War in Russia is the confrontation between “whites” and “reds” - troops, leaders, ideas, political platforms. Above we examined the problems of establishing

From the book The Forbidden Truth about Russians: Two Nations author Burovsky Andrey Mikhailovich

Chapter 1 WHO ARE EUROPEANS? Never, never, never will an Englishman be a slave. English anthem What is Europe? Actually, Europe is not a geographical concept. There is no such continent - Europe. Europe is such a “part of the world,” that is, a certain conditional, historical

From the book Hittites and their contemporaries in Asia Minor author McQueen James G

Chapter II. Who are the Hittites? In 1902, the Norwegian scientist I. A. Knudson announced, puzzling the whole world of skeptics, that he had discovered a new, hitherto unknown Indo-European language. He claimed to have discovered it on two cuneiform clay tablets found fifteen years ago in

From the book Farewell, Russia! author Chiesa Giulietto

Chapter 4. We are so cunning At the end of February 1996, First Deputy Prime Minister Oleg Soskovets continued to head the All-Russian Headquarters for the Presidential Elections. It’s too long and probably uninteresting to talk here about even a small part of the intrigues associated with his

From the book Satirical History from Rurik to the Revolution author Orsher Joseph Lvovich

Black Hundred spies Among the tsar's henchmen, the greatest role in recent times has been played by the palace commandant, Gen. Voeikov. Son of the chief chamberlain at the court of Alexander II and Alex. III, that is, the son of the holder of that most honorable court title that was recently granted

From the book The True History of the Templars by Newman Sharan

Chapter three. Who are these Saracens? In the first paragraph of the Latin Charter of the Templars, the purpose of the order was defined as “the defense of the poor and the churches” of the Holy Land. And although the charter did not indicate from whom all this should be protected, everyone understood that the greatest danger was for the “poor and

From the book Legends of the Moscow Metro author Grechko Matvey

Chapter 20 Who are Diggers? The Diggers of Moscow should not be confused with representatives of the extreme left peasant movement in the English Revolution, who bear the same name. The Russian word “digger” comes from the English digger - digger. This is what they call people who are addicted to

From the book The Road Home author Zhikarentsev Vladimir Vasilievich

From the book Rus' against the Varangians. "Scourge of God" author Eliseev Mikhail Borisovich

Chapter 1. Who are you? Where did you come from? You can safely start with this question in almost any article that talks about Rus' and the Varangians. For for many inquisitive readers this is not an idle question at all. Rus' and the Varangians. What is this? Mutually beneficial

From the book Hyperboreans. Children of the Sun author Fomina Olga

Chapter 12. So who are the Slavs? According to the official version, which, unfortunately, is still taught in educational institutions, the history of the Slavs begins somewhere in the 6th–7th centuries, when these same Slavs allegedly began to leave their caves for some inexplicable reason,

From the book United States of America. Confrontation and containment author Shirokorad Alexander Borisovich

Chapter 1. WHO ARE AMERICANS The United States is often called a “nation of immigrants.” There are two good reasons for this. First, the country was created, settled and developed thanks to successive generations of immigrants and their descendants. The second - even today

Popular

Parthenogenesis - technique of the immaculate conception

« The concept of parthenogenesis During fertilization, the sperm releases the egg from its dormant state and it begins to develop. But in nature there are cases... »

The Tale of the Three Brothers Who gave the three brothers Harry Potter accessories

« Once upon a time there lived Three Brothers of a Wizard, and one day they needed to cross a river; they couldn’t swim across it, it was too wide and deep. And brothers... »

De Broglie hypothesized that particles of matter

« O.S.Ageeva, T.N.Stroganova, K.S.Chemezova ELEMENTS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS AND SOLID STATE PHYSICS Tyumen. 2009 UDC 537(075):621.38 Ageeva O.S.,... »