Big encyclopedia of oil and gas. Polish national liberation movement, nature and main stages

4. NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENT AND THE STRUGGLE FOR REUNITY WITH THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE WITHIN RUSSIA The struggle against oppression in the field of education. The ruling classes of the Habsburg Empire feared the eternal desire of Western Ukrainian workers for

6. “Liberation” movement In 1816 there were no organizations yet. At first there were just conversations “with the restless Nikita, with the cautious Ilya,” they discussed books, exchanged opinions, etc. Then some ideas began to form, some general programs - that

Napoleon's defeat led to another division of Polish lands at the Congress of Vienna (1814–1815). Most of the Duchy of Warsaw became part of Russia under the name of the Tsardom (Kingdom) of Poland. Its western and northwestern parts were given to Prussia and received the name of the Duchy of Poznan, part of Lesser Poland was returned to Austria. Krakow, with its small surrounding lands, formed a special republic, placed under the control of the monarchies that divided Poland. The Kingdom of Poland received some political and national autonomy, enshrined in the constitution of 1815. It had a Sejm, a government and a small army.

National liberation movement in Polish lands. From the end of the 18th century. to the 60s of the XIX century. Polish lands were the scene of major national uprisings. The originality of the Polish national liberation movement was expressed in the fact that its main driving force was the gentry, and not the bourgeoisie, as in Western European countries. Two main stages can be distinguished in the Polish national liberation movement.

The first stage (the end of the 18th – the first third of the 19th centuries) in its content and nature did not go beyond the framework of purely noble demands and did not address issues of breaking down social relations. At this stage, the backbone of the movement and its striking force was the Polish army. The masses, especially the peasants, took little part in the movement and took a mostly wait-and-see attitude. The uprising of 1794, the activities of secret organizations at the end of the 18th - first quarter of the 19th century, and one of the largest Polish uprisings of the 19th century belong to this stage. – uprising 1830–1831

At the second stage (40-60s of the 19th century), a program of bourgeois-democratic reforms was put forward. At this time, the region of the uprising and the participation of the masses were expanding, and guerrilla methods of struggle were spreading.

The first plans to restore the independence of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth arose at the turn of the 18th–19th centuries, when part of the Polish nobility, led by A. Czartoryski, began to focus on Alexander I, counting on the restoration of the Polish state, bound by a personal union with Russia. However, the majority of the nobility counted on France, hoping that, having defeated Prussia, Austria and Russia, it would help restore Poland.

In 1797, with the sanction of Napoleon, Polish legions began to be formed in Italy, led by General G. Dombrowski. In 1817–1820 The first secret organizations appeared among the gentry youth. In 1821, the Patriotic Society arose among the officers. The goal of the patriots was to fight for the restoration of Polish independence on the basis of the constitution of May 3, 1791. The uprising that broke out in 1830 in Poland was suppressed in 1831. The Kingdom of Poland lost its autonomy. The Constitution of 1815 was repealed.

In February 1846, a national liberation uprising broke out in Krakow. Austrian, Prussian and Russian troops entered Krakow. The Krakow Republic was liquidated, and its territory was included in Austria.

The revolution that broke out in Europe in 1848 also set the Polish people in motion. The center of the revolutionary movement was the Poznan region, where the created National Committee called on the people to act on the basis of “legality.” He sent a deputation to Berlin, seeking the creation of a Polish administration and troops. Soon the Prussian reaction went on the offensive, introducing martial law. Despite the successes, the leadership of the uprising soon capitulated. The events in Galicia and Lvov ended just as quickly and tragically.

At the end of January 1863, a new uprising broke out in the Kingdom of Poland, in the Belarusian and Lithuanian lands, the most massive and democratic in its composition and program. It forced the tsarist government to carry out peasant reform in 1864. Polish peasants became the owners of the land that was in their use, were freed from the patrimonial power of the landowner and duties without redemption, and received the right to choose and be elected to the volost self-government. Some landless peasants received small plots of land as their property.

Kingdom of Poland at the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th century. After the suppression of the uprising of 1863–1864. Tsarism pursued a policy of repression and national oppression in the Kingdom of Poland. He sought to unify the system of administration, judiciary, and education in the Kingdom in accordance with the all-Russian system, without, at the same time, extending all-Russian reforms to it. The institutions of governorship, the State and Administrative Councils, and government commissions of the Kingdom of Poland, which was renamed the Vistula Region, were liquidated. Russian bureaucracy was implanted in institutions. There was a Russification offensive against higher and secondary education, rural schools and communes. A number of measures were directed against the Catholic Church, and the Uniates were forcibly converted to Orthodoxy.

The tightening of national and religious oppression occurred against the backdrop of a general offensive of reaction in Russia, especially since the 80s. XIX century Revolution 1905–1907 forced the autocracy to make concessions, including to the oppressed peoples. However, during the period of rampant reaction, all democratic institutions were closed. In 1907, the number of deputies in the Duma from the Kingdom of Poland decreased from 37 to 14. The Kholm region, populated by Poles, was torn away from the Kingdom.

Social and political movement in Polish lands at the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th century. After the defeat of the 1864 uprising in the Kingdom of Poland, a long stage of regrouping of social and political forces began. Its manifestation was the formation of modern political parties. The organizational development of working class parties took place earlier than others. In 1882, the Social Democratic Party was created in Galicia, in 1893 the Polish socialist parties in the Prussian part and in the Kingdom of Poland (PPS). The Social Democratic Party, which arose in 1894 in the Russian part of Poland, after uniting with the Lithuanian Social Democracy in 1900, became known as the Social Democratic Party of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania (SDKPiL).

These parties did not have a nationwide character. All of them defended the political and economic rights of workers, recognized socialism as the ultimate goal of the struggle, but differed in their approach to the national question. SDKPiL, unlike other parties, did not recognize the task of the working class to fight for national independence and believed that with the victory of the socialist revolution in Europe the national question would disappear. She advocated close cooperation with the labor movement of Austria-Hungary, Germany and especially Russia.

In 1895, a peasant party (“Stronnitstvo Ludove”) was created in Galicia, which put forward demands to protect the interests of the peasantry, democratize social and political life, and restore national independence. In other parts of Poland, the peasant movement did not acquire strong organizational forms until the World War.

The largest and most influential among the bourgeois parties was National Democracy (Endeki), which emerged in 1897 and soon became an all-Polish party. The Endeks believed that the path to Polish independence did not lead through a social revolution, as the socialists believed, but through political upheavals in Europe, which were sure to occur. In this regard, they considered their main task to be the unity of the Polish people and their political education in order to make them ready to take advantage of the results of these coups.

At the turn of the century, the Christian Democratic movement began to gradually gain strength in various parts of Poland. As for the old parties - positivists, “pleasers” (supporters of an agreement with the invaders), conservatives, their influence gradually weakened.

The formation of political parties based on a mass social base created more favorable conditions for defending national interests and protecting the rights of the Polish people. For this purpose, the parliamentary tribunes of Austria-Hungary, Germany, and then Russia, periodicals, rallies, demonstrations, strikes, protests against the assimilationist policies of Germany and Russia, etc. were widely used.

Social and political life in the Polish lands at the beginning of the century was determined by the desire of the entire people for national independence, the struggle of workers against capitalist exploitation, and the struggle of peasants for land and against the remnants of feudal remnants in agriculture. Common forms of workers' struggle were strikes of industrial and agricultural workers, held under economic slogans, and peasant resistance to attempts to eliminate easements (i.e. the right to joint use of forests and pastures by landowners and peasants).

Political situation in the Polish lands on the eve of the First World War . This struggle acquired its most acute forms in the Kingdom of Poland, whose economy was heavily affected by the global industrial and financial crisis of 1901–1903. The response to rising unemployment and declining wages was mass protests by workers in Lodz, Czestochowa, and Warsaw. In the autumn of 1904, the Kingdom of Poland was swept by a wave of protests against the mobilization into the army, announced by the government in connection with the Russo-Japanese War.

The revolutionary crisis in Russia spread to the Kingdom of Poland. In January 1905, a general strike covered industrial enterprises, transport, and communications. The strike was called by secondary and higher education students, demanding the democratization of learning and teaching in Polish.

Tsarism tried to stop the growing revolution. Troops and police shot at May Day demonstrators in Lodz and Warsaw. But this did not bring the expected effect. The protests of the Lodz workers were especially persistent, and in June 1905 they escalated into barricade battles. A new wave of strikes in October-November 1905 became the climax of the revolution in the Kingdom of Poland.

The events of 1905 intensified political life and contributed to the influx of new members into the party. Part of the working class supported the SDKPiL and the left wing of the PPS, which were focused on the fight against the autocracy together with the proletariat of other parts of the Russian Empire. But support was also enjoyed by right-wing socialists led by Józef Pilsudski (1867–1935), who relied on an anti-Russian national uprising, as well as national democrats and their leader Roman Dmowski (1864–1939), who sought from the autocracy to grant autonomy to the Kingdom of Poland and did not stop at terror against socialists.

From the end of 1905, the revolutionary wave in the Kingdom of Poland began to wane. Martial law was introduced, the reaction went on the offensive, and persecution of active participants in the revolution began. The decline in industrial production further aggravated the already difficult financial situation of workers. Therefore, in 1906–1907. economic rather than political strikes predominated.

The revolution in the Kingdom of Poland led to a regrouping of political forces. In the fall of 1906, a split occurred in the teaching staff. Its left wing achieved the expulsion of J. Pilsudski and his supporters from the party. The result of the split was the formation of two parties: the PPS-leftist party, which gradually became closer to the SDKPiL, and the PPS revolutionary faction, which counted on the restoration of Polish statehood with the help of Austria-Hungary during the war against Russia. Supporters of this concept have established close cooperation with political parties in the Austrian part of Poland, forming the so-called. camp of "independents".

After the revolution, national democracy even more actively sought to achieve concessions from tsarism on the Polish question and grant autonomy to the Kingdom of Poland as the first step on the path to state independence.

For 50 years after the uprising of 1863–1864. changes took place in the world that were of great importance for the whole of Europe and for the states that seized Polish lands. The main trend of European development was the transition of capitalism to the monopoly stage and the formation at the beginning of the twentieth century. military-political blocs preparing for world war. They included the powers that divided Poland and found themselves in opposing camps. Russia weakened and lost its role as the “gendarme of Europe,” while Austria stabilized through its transformation into a dualist Austria-Hungary in 1867, and Prussia achieved the strengthening of the union of German states and the creation of the German Empire in 1871. These changes took place against the background of the developing struggle for national and social liberation in Europe.

The Polish people entered the 20th century. deprived of its own statehood and divided between Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia. However, more than a century of being part of foreign empires did not lead to the loss of a sense of national community, although it affected the state of the economy, lifestyle, culture and even the mentality of the Polish population in certain regions.

LECTURE VI. CZECH AND SLOVAK LAND IN MODERN TIMES

Reforms of Joseph II. After the abolition of personal dependence of peasants (1781), the decomposition of feudalism and the development of capitalist relations in the Czech lands accelerated. Although the main goal of the Habsburg policy was to strengthen absolutism, the reforms they carried out objectively contributed to the development of capitalist relations.

Joseph II limited the privileges of the Czech feudal estates, concentrating all power in the central Viennese institutions. Cities began to be governed by magistrates. Primary education became almost universal. Corporal punishment was abolished and censorship was relaxed. German is becoming the language of instruction in a number of gymnasiums and the University of Prague instead of Latin.

In general, Joseph II's reforms were progressive. They contributed to the economic development of the Czech lands. These reforms expressed the desire of the absolute monarchy for a “rational” order in the spirit of the ideas of the Enlightenment, to deprive the feudal aristocracy of privileges, and to subordinate the gentry and the church to state control. All this could not but cause resistance to reforms on the part of the gentry and the church. Joseph II himself, at the end of his reign, and especially his successor Leopold II, were forced to abandon the further implementation of many of the previously proclaimed reforms.

Joseph II patronized the development of industry and trade, supported manufacturing, and limited the import of foreign goods. The continental blockade eliminated competition from the most developed European countries. However, due to the temporary loss of the foreign market, the linen and glass industries of the Czech Republic suffered damage.

Development of capitalism in the Czech and Slovak lands . The reforms carried out during the reign of Maria Theresa and Joseph II became a catalyst for the development of capitalist relations in the Czech and Slovak lands. Significant successes have been achieved in agriculture and animal husbandry. Livestock was moved to stabling, new pastures were plowed up, agricultural technology was improved, and progressive crops were introduced. Three-field farming began to be replaced by multi-field farming, and yields increased. At the beginning of the 19th century. The industrial revolution begins in textile production, giving a strong impetus to the development of the country's productive forces.

The first stage of the industrial revolution in the Czech lands lasted until the 30s of the 19th century. This stage is characterized by the proliferation of simple machines. Serious changes took place in mechanical engineering, iron processing, mining, food industry, and sugar production. The second stage of the industrial revolution lasted until 1848. It was characterized by the spread of steam engines. In 1829, the first workshop for their production was opened, then a number of factories arose; by 1846 the number of machine-building factories had increased to 22. A network of railways was developing. In metallurgy, coke begins to be used instead of charcoal, and the entire metallurgical process changes. Paper production is also being improved.

Thus, in the first half of the 19th century. Industrial production in the Czech Republic has made a leap in its development. The social structure of society changed, as new social classes emerged: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. At the same time, the predominance of German capital in the country gave class contradictions the character of a national struggle.

Czech National Renaissance. The beginning of the Czech National Renaissance is associated with the aggravation of national contradictions. At its first stage (the end of the 18th century - the 20s of the 19th century), the “awakeners” (as educators were called in the Czech Republic) came out in defense of the Czech language. Using science, literature, and theater, the “awakeners” sought to revive national identity and defend the cultural identity of the Czechs.

At the second stage (late 20s of the 19th century - 1848), scientific and scientific-educational societies were created in the Czech Republic. The national movement acquires a political character. A radical democratic movement was emerging, most clearly manifested in the activities of the secret political society “Czech Ripil” (founded in 1845), which considered its main goal to be the fight against Habsburg absolutism and the privileges of the nobility. A national liberal movement emerged, the ideologist of which was F. Palatsky. The political program of this movement was based on the ideological concept of Austroslavism, which envisioned the reconstruction of the Habsburg Empire into a federal state and provided for the provision of broad autonomy to the Czechs and other Slavic peoples within the framework of the Austrian Empire.

Revolution of 1848–1849 in the Czech lands. In the second half of the 40s. XIX century The Habsburg monarchy was gripped by a deep economic and socio-political crisis. In February 1848, radical democrats launched a political campaign, calling for a change in the political situation in the country. On March 2, 1848, in Prague, in the building of St. Basil’s Baths, a people’s meeting was held, which developed a petition to the emperor. It contained a number of revolutionary demands, including demands for a closer unification of the lands of the Czech Crown, the elimination of feudal remnants, and the introduction of democratic freedoms. The petition was rejected by the Viennese government.

Soon the National Committee was created, which effectively became the central legislative and executive political body. The Slavic Congress, which met in Prague in June 1848, developed a project for creating a union of Slavic peoples for mutual protection and support. The “Manifesto to the Peoples of Europe” was adopted, which put forward the principle of equality of peoples within the empire. In addition, the congress proposed convening a general European congress to resolve international issues. The Prague Uprising of 1848, which began on June 12, interrupted the work of the Slavic Congress.

The reason for the uprising was the shooting of a peaceful demonstration. The rebels agreed to end the uprising only subject to the withdrawal of troops from Prague, the formation of armed detachments from the townspeople to maintain order and the creation of a Provisional National Government. However, the rebels were unable to resist the Austrian regular troops. On June 17, Prague capitulated.

The imperial diet, convened under the pressure of the revolution, on August 31, 1848, decided on agrarian reform. Corvee was abolished, peasants were recognized as legally full-fledged people. The land became the property of the peasants for a ransom, and all local administration was entrusted to state institutions. The destruction of the feudal-serf system in the countryside contributed to the development of capitalist relations in the Czech lands.

After the suppression of the Prague Uprising, Czech radicals supported the uprising in Vienna in October 1848. Having suppressed this uprising, in March 1849 the Austrian government dispersed the imperial Diet, and repressions began against the participants in the protests. The Slavic peoples did not receive national rights, the gentry retained their lands and political privileges, and the poorest peasantry remained in economic bondage. Despite this, the revolution of 1848–1849 destroyed the remnants of feudal relations in the Czech Republic.

Social movement in the Czech lands in the 60-90s of the XIX century . Since the 60-70s, the Czech lands became the most economically developed among the regions of Austria-Hungary. Until the First World War, the Czech lands remained the “industrial workshop” of the Habsburg Monarchy. In the early 60s. Austria was defeated in the war with France and Piedmont. This caused a political and economic crisis in the empire. The national liberation movement intensified in the country. In 1860, the Czech National Party (1860–1918) was formed, whose leaders were F. Palacky and L. Rieger. The basis of its activities was the program of granting autonomy to the Czech Republic, Moravia and Silesia while maintaining the supreme power of the emperor.

In 1874, members of the opposition movement, led by K. Sladkovsky and E. Gregr, left the Czech National Party, whose members from that time began to be called Old Czechs, and formed the National Party of Freethinkers (1874–1918), its members were called Young Czechs. Expressing the interests of the Czech industrial bourgeoisie and wealthy peasants, the Young Czechs came forward with demands for the transformation by legal means of the dual Austria-Hungary formed in 1867 into a triune Austro-Hungarian-Czech monarchy with the Habsburgs at its head.

Since the beginning of the 90s. XIX century The leadership of political life in the Czech lands passed to the liberal party of the Young Czechs, who led the fight for universal suffrage here. In 1896, the government was forced to reform the electoral law of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The reform for the first time gave the right to participate in elections to workers and peasants, but retained the advantages of landowners and the big bourgeoisie.

Socio-economic development of the Slovak lands . From the second half of the 18th century. The development of capitalist manufactories began in Slovakia. The economic, social and cultural development of Slovakia was to a certain extent favored by the reforms of Maria Theresa and Joseph II. The economic recovery was accompanied by increased scientific and educational activities. Since the 90s XVIII century In the Slovak educational movement, the struggle against Magyarization played an increasingly significant role. Bratislava became the center of the movement. Scientific and educational Slovak societies emerge. In 1861, a Memorandum of the Slovak people was drawn up, including demands for autonomy and free use of the Slovak language. The memorandum was rejected by the government of the Kingdom of Hungary.

Czech and Slovak society in conditions of dualism . The Austro-Hungarian agreement of 1867 secured Slovakia within Hungary, considering the Slovaks as an integral element of the “Magyar people”. In the Slovak national-bourgeois movement there was a split between conservatives, who were guided by the Habsburgs in solving the national question and united in the National Party, and liberals, who linked the achievement of national autonomy for Slovakia with an agreement with the Hungarian ruling circles.

National movement in Slovakia in the 60-80s. XIX century was predominantly of a “linguistic” nature in the struggle for equal rights of the Slovak language with the Hungarian language. Weak economically, with no experience of political struggle, the Slovak bourgeoisie did not act actively. Short periods of national upsurge were followed by decades of passivity.

The strongest rise of the Slovak national movement occurred in the early 60s. XIX century At a meeting of representatives of urban and rural communities in Turčanský Martin, a Memorandum was adopted, which put forward demands for autonomy for Slovakia, the creation of Slovak schools, and the introduction of the Slovak language in the administration and courts. The conservative bourgeois intelligentsia, who stood at the head of the movement, managed to obtain permission from the emperor to found the scientific, educational and literary society “Matica Slovakskaya” in Turčanský Martin in 1863. In the 70s XIX century The process of Magyarization intensified again. Under these conditions, in 1875 the Hungarian government closed Matica Slovakia. As a sign of protest, Slovak deputies left the Hungarian Sejm and withdrew from participating in its activities for 20 years.

Czech and Slovak lands at the turn of the 19th – 20th centuries. At the turn of the 19th–20th centuries. in the Austrian part of the empire there were 60 concerns in the metallurgical, mechanical engineering, electrical, construction and textile, sugar and brewing industries. The largest Czech concerns were the Prague and Vitkovice metallurgical companies.

Czech financial capital developed rapidly. At the end of the 19th century. Prague became the second banking center of the empire after Vienna. Czech banks took part in the export of capital to Slovakia, Slovenia and Croatia, as well as abroad. Austria-Hungary as a whole lagged behind in its economic development in the international monopolies in which it acted in alliance with Germany, its share was insignificant. Austria-Hungary itself, including the Czech lands, became the object of the import of German capital.

At the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th centuries. The social structure of Czech society underwent a number of changes: a monopolistic Czech industrial and agrarian bourgeoisie was formed, and at the same time a process of proletarianization of the middle strata of the city and countryside took place. Shifts took place among the working class: a relatively small layer of labor aristocracy began to form, and the working class was replenished with people from the ruined petty-bourgeois strata. In the village, the kulaks grew at one pole, and the landless peasantry at the other. In 1902, more than half of the land-poor peasants were tenants of landowners' lands. On the eve of the war, about 1 million people in the village were employed.

At the turn of the 19th–20th centuries. social contradictions intensified. The first all-Austrian strikes of textile workers and miners took place. The miners' strike of 1900 was the most persistent in nature, which lasted more than two months and ended in their victory. They achieved an increase in wages, a reduction in working hours and the adoption in 1901 of a law introducing a 9-hour working day in the mining industry. From that time on, Kladno became the center of the labor movement of the Czech lands. In 1897, the Austrian Social Democratic Party was transformed into a federation of national autonomous parties, which created their own governing bodies. The disintegration of united trade unions along national lines began.

The emergence of new political parties in the Czech Republic . At the turn of the 19th–20th centuries. New political parties emerged to reflect socio-economic changes. The most influential force in the Czech Republic was the agrarian party formed in 1899. The traditions of the Old Czechs were continued by the petty-bourgeois Catholic People's Party that emerged at the same time. She was closely connected with the Vatican and based her activities on the propaganda of clericalism. The beginning of T. Masaryk’s political activity dates back to this time. The German bourgeoisie rejected cooperation with Czech parties and sought support in circles in Austria and Germany.

Inspired by the first Russian revolution, the workers of the Czech lands rose up in 1905 to fight for social and national rights. Universal suffrage became the most popular slogan of the revolutionary and democratic movement. In early November 1905, after the shooting of a peaceful demonstration, barricades began to be erected in Prague. The government was forced in 1907 to pass a law on universal suffrage. In 1907, in the elections to the Reichsrat in the Czech lands, the agrarians took first place in terms of the number of votes received, and the Social Democrats took second place.

The eve of the war was marked by the rise of the strike movement. The government's response was the refusal to convene the Reichsrat and the abolition of constitutional freedoms. Individual bourgeois figures and groups, fearing Germany, focused on Russia and in the summer of 1908 convened a congress of Slavic organizations in Prague to rally supporters of the neo-Slavist trend in politics. Most of the Czech bourgeoisie supported the Austro-German bloc.

Political life of Slovakia. At the turn of the 19th–20th centuries. most of Slovakia was under the control of Budapest banks, which in turn depended on Austrian capital. The import of capital into Slovakia did not significantly change its economy; it continued to remain agricultural. Constant need, agricultural overpopulation, and the inability to find work in the city with its underdeveloped industry were the reasons for mass emigration. From Slovakia 1900–1914 Almost a quarter of the population left.

At the beginning of the 20th century. political life in Slovakia intensified. All parties and political groupings existed in isolation from each other; they failed to achieve concessions on the national issue. Their joint campaigns with parties of other peoples of Hungary for the expansion of suffrage and other democratic freedoms did not yield results.

At the end of the 19th century. ties between Czech and Slovak Social Democrats became closer. On the eve of and during the first Russian revolution in Slovakia, the rise of the labor movement began, the first general economic and political strikes took place, and the agricultural proletariat was involved in active struggle. In 1905, the Social Democratic Party was created in Slovakia, which in 1906 joined the Social Democratic Party of Hungary.

Page 1

The Polish national liberation Movement found a wide response in Russia - the Polish uprising - the Liberal-serf camp, denying any right of Poland to independence and national autonomy, demanded the decisive suppression of the uprising in the Kingdom of Poland and the establishment of a military dictatorship there. The revolutionary democratic camp defended the demand for the independence of Poland and supported the liberation struggle of the Polish people. You cannot begin an era of freedom in your homeland by tightening a rope around your neighbor’s neck, wrote Herzen. From the pages of the Bell, revolutionary proclamations, censored organs of revolutionary democracy - Sovremennik and Russian Word - the ideas of Polish independence and the joint struggle of the Russian and Polish peoples against tsarism were propagated.

Oriental newspaper) is a daily democratic newspaper published in 1849 in Poznan by a leader of the Polish national liberation movement, a member of the Pozian National Committee V.

In the Workers' Association, Marx devoted his time to justifying the internationalist position on the Polish question, which, of all international problems, most worried democratic and proletarian circles at that time. Marx continued to attach great importance to the Polish national liberation movement, considering it as a revolutionary force that should be supported in every possible way by the working class . At the same time, he considered it necessary to defend the independent position of the proletarian organization in this matter, as opposed to the views of bourgeois radicals - the leaders of the National League for the Independence of Poland, founded in 1863 in London.

The international unity of the international proletariat was also facilitated by the practical activities of Marx: his participation in the early 60s in the work of the London Educational Society of German Workers, speeches in defense of Blanka, support for rallies organized by English workers in solidarity with the Polish national liberation movement, with fighters against slavery in the USA, connections with advanced revolutionary elements in the General German Workers' Union.

He took an active part in the Polish national liberation movement, was arrested and exiled to Vologda for 3 years, but was amnestied in 1905.

Marx continued to attach great importance to the Polish national liberation movement, viewing it as a revolutionary force that should be supported in every possible way by the working class.

Jozef (1738 - 1794) - Bishop of Lifland; member of the Targovitsa Confederation; executed during the Kosciuszko Uprising. Kosciuszko Tadeusz (1746 - 1817) - an outstanding figure in the Polish national liberation movement of the 90s of the 18th century; in 1776 - 1783 participant in the struggle for independence of the North American colonies; leader of the Polish uprising of 1794. Cotton Sir Robert Bruce (1571 - 1631) was an outstanding English collector of manuscripts who created the so-called Cotton Library, containing more than 900 volumes of the most important diplomatic documents. Since 1757, this collection has been kept in the British Museum. Kotzebue August, von (1761 - 1819) - German reactionary writer and publicist; secret agent (since 1781) of the tsarist government; killed as an enemy of freedom by student Karl Sand. Kochubey Viktor Pavlovich, prince (1768 - 1834) - Russian statesman and diplomat; Minister of the Interior (1802 - 1807, 1819 - 1823); in 1813 president of the Central Council, since 1827 chairman of the State Council. Felix Anthony Kraszewski (1797 - 1870) - Polish politician; Poznan landowner; participant in the Polish uprising of 1830 - 1831; Member of the Prussian National Assembly in 1848; member of the Polish delegation to Frederick William IV on March 23, 1848; member of the commission for the reorganization of the Grand Duchy of Poznan; supporter of an agreement with the Prussian authorities.

Marx insisted on including the demand for the restoration of Poland in the agenda of the congress. Marx and Engels attached great importance to the Polish national liberation movement, as they saw in it a force capable of undermining the power of Russian tsarism and accelerating the development of the revolutionary democratic movement in Russia itself. Demanding the restoration of Poland's independence, Marx emphasized that this restoration must occur on the basis of social and democratic changes.

In 1836 - 1840 he was a member of the circle of N.V. Stankevich, was familiar with V.G. Belinsky and A.I. Herzen, but remained alien to the advanced revolutionary-democratic views of that time. In 1840 he emigrated abroad, lived in Germany, Switzerland, and France. Abroad, he sharply criticized the tsarist autocracy and serfdom in Russia, sympathized with the Polish national liberation movement, for which in 1844 the Tsar's Senate was deprived of the title of nobility and all rights of fortune and sentenced in absentia to exile to Siberia for hard labor.

Acts of the future congress) (Paris, 1863) Proudhon opposed the revision of the reactionary decisions of the Vienna Congress of 1815 on Poland and against the support of the Polish national liberation movement by European democracy.

Representatives of the left wing of the Reds, who played the most active role in preparing the uprising, clearly understood that it was impossible to achieve success in the struggle for freedom and independence of Poland without an alliance with the Russian revolutionary movement. Unlike the Russian revolutionaries, representatives of the Central Committee considered the peasant question to be of secondary importance for Poland. They highlighted the national issue, and some of them insisted on restoring Poland within the borders of 1772. However, under the influence of A. I. Herzen, representatives of the committee agreed to recognize as the main task of the general liberation struggle the endowment of land to peasants and the self-rights of peoples. They recognized the right of the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian peoples to decide their own fate. By concluding an agreement with Polish revolutionaries, Russian revolutionary democrats understood that the decisive condition for the success of the Polish national liberation movement was its transformation into an integral part of the all-Russian uprising against the autocracy.

Pages:      1

8. National liberation movement of the Polish people in the 30-40s of the 19th century.

Uprising 1830-1831 in the Kingdom of Poland

The French Revolution of 1830 gave impetus to the struggle for Polish independence. The decisions of the Congress of Vienna consolidated the division of Polish lands between Prussia, Austria and Russia. On the territory of the former Grand Duchy of Warsaw that was transferred to Russia, the Kingdom (Kingdom) of Poland was formed. Unlike the Prussian king and the Austrian emperor, who directly included the Polish lands they captured into their states, Alexander I, as the Polish king, issued a constitution for Poland: Poland received the right to have its own elected diet (of two houses), its own army and a special government headed by the royal governor. In an effort to rely on broad circles of the gentry, the tsarist government proclaimed civil equality, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience, etc. in Poland. However, the liberal course of tsarist policy in Poland did not last long. The constitutional order was not respected, and arbitrariness reigned in the administration of the kingdom. This caused widespread discontent in the country, in particular among the gentry and the emerging bourgeoisie.

Back in the early 20s, secret revolutionary organizations began to emerge in Poland. One of them was the “National Patriotic Society”, which consisted mainly of the gentry. The investigation into the case of the Decembrists, with whom members of the society maintained contact, enabled the tsarist government to discover the existence of the National Patriotic Society and take measures to liquidate it.

By 1828, a “Military Union” was formed in Poland, which began direct preparations for the uprising. The revolutions of 1830 in France and Belgium, having inspired Polish patriots, accelerated the revolutionary explosion in the Kingdom of Poland; on November 29, 1830, at the call of the “Military Union”, thousands of workers, artisans, and small traders of Warsaw rose up to fight. Grand Duke Constantine fled the city.

The leadership of the movement was in the hands of the aristocracy. Soon power passed to the protégé of the aristocratic elite, General Khlopitsky. He did everything to last the reconciliation with the tsarist government. Khlopitsky's policies caused great discontent among the masses and among democratically minded groups of the bourgeoisie and the left wing of the gentry. Under their pressure, the Sejm announced the deposition of Nicholas I as King of Poland. The regime of military dictatorship was replaced by a national government (Zhond Narodny) led by the wealthy magnate Prince Adam Czartoryski; The government also included representatives of democratic circles, for example the historian Lelevel.

The tsar's refusal to make any concessions to the rebel Poles and the deposition of Nicholas I by the Warsaw Sejm meant the inevitability of war with tsarism. Rising to fight against him, the progressive people of Poland saw their ally in the Russian people and sacredly honored the memory of the Decembrists. Then the wonderful slogan of the Polish revolutionaries was born: “For our and your freedom!”

At the beginning of February 1831, large forces of tsarist troops (about 115 thousand people) entered Poland to suppress the uprising. The Polish revolutionaries put up courageous resistance, but the strength of the Polish army did not exceed 55 thousand people, and they were scattered throughout the country. At the end of May, Polish troops suffered a heavy defeat at Ostroleka, losing more than 8 thousand people.

The most revolutionary elements of the movement, led by the Patriotic Society, sought to involve the peasantry in the uprising. But even a very moderate draft law on agrarian reforms, which provided for the replacement of corvée with quitrent, and even then only on state-owned estates, was not adopted by the Sejm. As a result, the masses of the peasantry did not actively support the uprising. This circumstance was the main reason for the defeat of the Polish uprising. The ruling circles, fearful of the activity of the masses, dissolved the Patriotic Society and refused to arm the people to fight against the troops of Tsarist Russia. On September 6, 1831, the army under the command of Prince I.F. Paskevich, which far outnumbered the Polish troops, began an assault on Warsaw. On September 8, Warsaw was surrendered. The uprising was soon suppressed in other parts of Poland.

Uprising 1830-1831 played a big role in the development of the revolutionary liberation movement of the Polish people; Although the uprising was led by conservative elements of the gentry, it pointed to the forces that could lead Poland to liberation. At the same time, the Polish uprising had great international significance: it dealt a blow to the reactionary forces of Europe - tsarism and its allies - Prussia and Austria, distracted the forces of tsarism and thus thwarted the plans of international reaction, which, led by tsarism, was preparing an armed intervention against France and Belgium.

After the defeat of the uprising, the left revolutionary-democratic wing strengthened in the Polish liberation movement, putting forward a program for eliminating landlordism and involving peasants in the national liberation struggle. One of the leaders of this wing was the young talented publicist Edward Dembowski (1822-1846), an ardent revolutionary and patriot. In 1845, Polish revolutionaries developed a plan for a new uprising in all Polish lands, including those that were under the rule of Austria and Prussia. It was scheduled for February 21, 1846. The authorities of Prussia and Russia, through arrests and repressions, managed to prevent a general Polish uprising: it broke out only in Krakow.

COURSE WORK

Polish national liberation movement, nature and main stages.

• Introduction
• Chapter I. The crisis of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and its divisions at the end of the 17th century.
• 1.1. Bar Confederation and the first section.
• 1.2. Second and third sections 1793, 1795
• Chapter II. The beginning of the national liberation movement.
• 2.1. Uprising led by T. Kosciuszko
• 2.2. Activities of the Patriotic Club
• 2.3. November uprising 1830-1831
• Chapter III. National liberation movement 40-60.
• 3.1. Krakow uprising of 1846
• 3.2. The 1863 uprising and its significance
• Conclusion
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Application

Introduction

The Kingdom of Poland was predominantly an agrarian country, the landowner economy dominated here almost undividedly (the land was personally cultivated by free peasants-corvées). Landownership as a result of the Napoleonic wars, the decline of the grain trade and frequent in-kind obligations to support the troops was severely ruined, the nobility was entangled in debt. Agriculture could only be brought out of this difficult, crisis state by bourgeois agrarian reforms, but their implementation was hampered by the Polish nobles themselves and the entire serfdom regime of the Russian Empire.

Industry developed more successfully. Decade 1820--1830 It turned out to be a time of revival of Polish manufacturing, and the tsarist authorities strongly supported the efforts of the Polish administration aimed at encouraging crafts, for example, the immigration of foreign artisans and industrialists. The construction of roads and canals was carried out using treasury funds. A bank was created that provided loans to entrepreneurs. With his funds, the first Polish railway from Warsaw to Vienna was subsequently built (1845).

The growth of Polish manufacturing was facilitated by protective customs tariffs, which made it difficult to import Western European goods, and connections with the Russian market, especially the low (until 1832) customs tariff between the Kingdom of Poland and Russia. Polish cloth was exported to Russia, and through it to China. Polish merchants also profited from the resale of German goods to Russia.

Polish landowners began intensively raising sheep, expanding the area of ​​pastures, driving peasants from the plots that were in their use. The growth of industry did not ease the situation of the Polish countryside, which was increasingly suffering from land shortages and experiencing cruel feudal oppression.

In the mid-eighteenth century, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth entered a period of severe political crisis. Continuous wars at the beginning of the eighteenth century and military defeats led to the economic ruin of the country and the weakening of its international position. The interference of foreign powers in the internal affairs of Poland increased, which was facilitated by the position of large feudal lords who sought support outside the country.

As a result of the partitions, the Polish people found themselves under political and national oppression, which held back the economic, political and cultural development of Poland for many years. Under these conditions, a national liberation movement emerges in the country. Its originality lay in the fact that the movement was led by the gentry, and not by the bourgeoisie, as was the case in Western Europe.

The nineteenth century in the history of Poland was filled with dramatic events in the struggle of the Polish people for independence. The Polish national liberation movement was directed against the decisions of the Congress of Vienna and the Holy Alliance. The fragmentation of the state by foreign powers shocked the leading people of Poland, as a result of which discontent was expressed in the form of an armed struggle for independence.

The relevance of this topic lies in the fact that the national liberation movement in Poland can be considered not only from the position of liberation from foreign yoke. Events of the first half of the 19th century. In essence, they were a failed national-bourgeois revolution; this fact brings it closer to revolutions in Europe.

Geographically, the Polish state was formed by the middle of the 18th century. was a conglomerate of lands of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania and, in fact, Poland. These lands included Courland, White Rus', Lithuania, Black Rus', Podlasie, Volhynia, Malarosia, Podolia Chervonnaya (Red Rus'), Galicia, Lesser Poland, Greater Poland. The Polish state bordered in the north with Livonia, in the northeast and east with Russia, in the middle and lower reaches of the Dnieper, the border between Russia and Poland ran along the Dnieper River, in the lower reaches, the river separated the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Crimean Khanate. In the south and southeast, Poland's neighbors were the Moldavian principalities and the Crimean Khanate. On the Western border, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was adjacent to Austria with Silesia and Pomerania. Thus, Poland was, on the one hand, a Western European state, and on the other hand, almost half of the Polish lands were East Slavic lands with a predominant Orthodox population.

The chronological framework of the course work covers the period of the late eighteenth century - the second half of the nineteenth century. This period is characterized by an increase in the pace of production and trade, the accelerated development of markets and the completion of the formation of nations, primarily in Europe and America. This determined both national states and the strengthening of the struggle of emerging nations against a foreign state for their independence. This happened especially clearly in the Polish state.

The period of Polish uprisings, covering a relatively short period of time, constantly attracts the close attention of historians. The problem of the Polish national liberation movement is a constant subject of heated scientific debate. This interest is not accidental. It is determined, first of all, by the objective place that the Polish liberation movement occupies in the history of Poland as a whole.

A large number of researchers and scientists were involved in the study of the national liberation movement in Poland, as well as the political processes occurring during the period under study, in particular we can name the following scientists: Dyakov V.A., who was engaged in research in the field of the history of the Polish social movement, Smirnov A. O.F., who examined in his works the revolutionary ties of the peoples of Russia and Poland, O.P. Morozova, in particular, sanctified the Polish revolutionary democrats, Yu. Kowalski, who studied the uprisings in Poland in 1863, B.M. Tupolev, who gave an analysis of the sections Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

The purpose of this course work is to study the period of formation of the bourgeois-democratic movement in Poland and the influence of the national liberation factor on it.

The objectives of our research are to determine the role of political decisions of the leading powers in the formation of the Polish national idea and the implementation of this idea by the mid-nineteenth century.

The structure of the course work includes: introduction, three chapters, conclusion, note and bibliography.

Chapter I. The crisis of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and its divisions at the end of the 17th century.

1.1 Bar Confederation and first partition

Tsarist Russia for a long time opposed the division and liquidation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which was under its influence. However, Empress Catherine II (1762-1796) saw a threat to this influence from the reform movement that began in Poland. In an effort to put pressure on the ruling circles of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the tsarist government used as a pretext the so-called dissident question, that is, the question of the oppressed situation in Poland of the Ukrainian and Belarusian population professing Orthodoxy. In the 60s and 70s, Catherine II presented Poland with a demand for equal rights for Orthodox Christians and other dissidents with Catholics.

The tsarist government's policy towards the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth irritated the ruling circles of Prussia and Austria, which sought to destroy Russian influence in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and achieve Catherine II's consent to the division of Poland.

Austria, with the tacit support of the Prussian court, blackmailed the tsarist government with the threat of concluding an alliance with Turkey. Subsequently, Prussia also resorted to this technique. Austria and Prussia, in turn, took advantage of the dissident issue, trying by all means to strengthen anti-Russian sentiments in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Austrian court openly acted as a defender of Catholicism and supported opponents of the equal rights of Orthodox Christians with Catholics. The Prussian king gave secret instructions to his representatives in Poland to counteract Russian influence.

Hoping for support from Prussia and Austria, the ruling circles of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth took the path of open resistance to the tsarist government. The Diet of 1766 opposed the equalization of the rights of Catholics and dissidents. After the end of the Sejm, the Russian government proposed to the Czartoryskis to resolve the issue of dissidents, as well as to conclude a defensive-offensive alliance with Russia. Having received a refusal, the government of Catherine II put pressure on the Sejm convened in the fall of 1767. It achieved a decision to equalize the civil rights of Catholics and dissidents and to cancel almost all the reforms carried out in 1764. Russia took upon itself the guarantee of preserving the free election of kings, the “liberum veto” and all the privileges of the gentry, recognizing them as the “cardinal morals” of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

These decisions were opposed by the confederation organized in February 1768 in Bar (Ukraine). The Bar Confederation was very diverse in its composition. In addition to ardent clerics and generally conservative elements, it was also joined by patriotic circles of the gentry, dissatisfied with Russia’s interference in the internal affairs of Poland and becoming its opponents. The Confederation proclaimed the abolition of equal rights for dissidents and Catholics and began to fight against others. Resolution of the Sejm of 1767. The tsarist government sent military forces to Poland, which, together with the troops of Stanislav August, defeated the Confederates in the summer of 1768.

The troops of the lordly confederation oppressed the population, which served as the impetus for a series of peasant uprisings. In May 1768, the Ukrainian peasantry rose up to fight, seeing their long-time oppressors in the organizers of the lordly confederation. The peasants' demand to restore the Orthodox Church was only a religious expression of the anti-feudal and national liberation movement.

Back in 1767, a manifesto appeared in the village of Torchin, which was distributed in Polish and Ukrainian. The manifesto called on the Polish and Ukrainian peasantry to jointly fight against a common enemy - the magnates and gentry. The peasant movement of 1768 covered much of the territory of right-bank Ukraine.

The scope of the peasant movement, called Koliivshchyna (from the stakes with which the rebels armed themselves), became so significant that it alarmed both the Polish and tsarist governments. Tsarist troops under the command of General Krechetnikov and a detachment of Polish troops led by Branicki moved against the rebels. As a result of punitive actions, already in the summer of 1768, the forces of the rebels were defeated and their leaders were executed. But the struggle did not stop, and individual peasant detachments continued to operate.

The Koliyivshchyna showed that the magnates and gentry were no longer able to suppress anti-feudal movements on their own. By turning to the tsarist government for help against the rebellious masses, the Polish feudal lords thereby admitted their dependence on tsarist Russia.

Prussia and Austria took advantage of the tense situation in Poland and began to seize the Polish border regions. At the same time, in the fall of 1768, Turkey declared war on Russia, as a result of which significant Russian military forces were diverted to a new theater of military operations. The government of Catherine II feared the possible intervention of Austria on the side of Turkey. In addition, Catherine II had reason not to trust the neutrality of Prussia, and most importantly, she could not hope for the strength of her influence in Poland itself. Under these conditions, she agreed to the division of Poland. The first partition of Poland was secured by a special treaty between the three powers, signed in St. Petersburg on August 5, 1772. Prussia received the Pomeranian Voivodeship (West Prussia without Gdansk), Warmia, the Malbork and Chelmin Voivodeships (without Torun), part of Kuyavia and Greater Poland. Austria occupied all of Galicia, part of the Krakow and Sandomierz voivodeships and the Russian voivodeship with the city of Lvov (without the Kholm land). Part of Belarus - the Upper Dnieper, Podvinia and part of the Latvian lands - Latgale went to Russia.

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was powerless to defend its borders, and the Sejm of 1773 approved the act of partition. This section meant the complete subordination of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth by neighboring states, predetermined as a result of two subsequent sections, 1793 and 1795. her final death.

1.2 Second and third sections 1793, 1795

In Eastern Europe, the most important event of the last decade of the 18th century; was the end of Poland's existence as an independent state. The threat of a complete loss of independence had been hanging over Poland for a long time, but after the first partition carried out by Austria, Prussia and Russia in 1772, it became a reality. The social and economic backwardness of Poland and the reactionary policies of its ruling circles intensified this threat.

In general, the country's economy experienced the heavy oppression of serfdom; there were not enough free workers. The arbitrariness of the magnates, the disorderly system of duties, the weak network of roads, the lack of well-established credit, and finally, the political lack of rights of the townspeople and merchants retarded the growth of industry and trade.

The weak Polish bourgeoisie sought to achieve the satisfaction of its interests through an agreement with the gentry. Part of the nobility, convinced of the inevitability of reforms, went towards these desires. The influence of the French Revolution also played a major role. A gentry-bourgeois bloc emerged under the predominant leadership of the nobility. This bloc outlined some transformations in order to preserve the country's independence and prevent social upheaval.

The implementation of this program began during the work of the so-called four-year Sejm (1788-1792). Representatives of the gentry-bourgeois bloc (Kolontai, Pototsky I., Malakhovsky, Czartorysky, etc.) achieved on May 3, 1791. the adoption by the Sejm of a new constitution, according to which Poland was transformed into a centralized monarchy. The authors of the constitution sought to weaken the position of the magnates and eliminate feudal anarchy. The election of kings was abolished, and only in the event of the end of the dynasty was the election of a new one provided for. The principle of mandatory unanimity in the Sejm (liberum veto) was abolished. All issues had to be decided by a simple majority. The tycoons who disagreed with the decisions taken were deprived of the right to disrupt the work of the Sejm, relying on force of arms.

Confederations of the gentry were prohibited, and the central executive power was strengthened. The army was brought to a strength of one hundred thousand. However, the foundations of the serf system were affected by the constitution. The nobility retained all economic privileges and political rights. The peasantry still remained deprived of personal freedom and land. The interests of the urban lower classes were also treated. Only the rich philistinism received representation in the Sejm, the right to acquire land property, and occupy officer, clergy, and bureaucratic positions. He was also given access to acquiring nobility.

But, despite its limitations, the constitution of 1791 was an undoubted step forward for Poland. She curbed the tycoons and contributed to the development of new, capitalist relations. Therefore, internal and external reaction took up arms against her.

Polish magnates created the so-called Targowica Confederation in May 1792 and started a rebellion. Catherine II supported the rebels. Prussia joined Russia, meaning to prevent Catherine II from taking advantage of the struggle in Poland alone. The Polish king Stanislaw Poniatowski, who swore allegiance to the constitution, also went over to the side of the confederation. As a result, the resistance of the Polish army was soon broken. On January 13, 1793, an agreement on the second partition of Poland was signed between Russia and Prussia. Belarus and Right-Bank Ukraine went to Russia, part of Greater Poland, Torun and Gdansk went to Prussia.

In 1795, the victorious powers carried out the third, and this time final, partition of Poland. Prussia received the capital of the country and the bulk of the Stavropol lands, Austria - Krakow and Lublin with the surrounding territory, Russia - Western Belarusian and Western Ukrainian lands (without Lvov), most of Lithuania and Courland. A significant part of the Lithuanian lands that were previously part of the Polish state (including Suwalki) went to Prussia.

In 1795, the victorious powers carried out the third, and this time final, partition of Poland. Prussia received the capital of the country and the bulk of the Stavropol lands, Austria - Krakow and Lublin with the adjacent territory, Russia - Western Belarusian and Western Ukrainian lands (without Lvov), most of Lithuania and Courland. A significant part of the Lithuanian lands that were previously part of the Polish state (including Suwalki) went to Prussia.

Chapter II. The beginning of the national liberation movement

2.1 Uprising led by T. Kosciuszko

The country's patriotic forces, led by Tadeusz Kosciuszko, came out to defend the independence of Poland. A military engineer by training, Kosciuszko participated in the war of the North American colonies of England for independence for about seven years and received the rank of general. Returning to his homeland, Kosciuszko took part in military operations against the Confederates in 1792.

In the spring of 1794, the detachment led by Kosciuszko began an armed struggle. In the first battles of the rebels, peasants took an active part, ensuring their success. The uprising in Warsaw liberated the capital. Kosciuszko understood that in order to win the uprising it was necessary to make it popular, that is, to provide it with the support of the peasantry. “I will not fight for the gentry alone, I want the freedom of the entire nation and only for it will I sacrifice my life,” he said. On May 7, the so-called Polanetsky universal was published, promising the peasants liberation from serfdom. However, the implementation of the universal was thwarted by the nobility, and Kosciuszko did not dare to start a fight with the nobles who sabotaged his orders. He limited himself to appealing to the patriotic feelings of the gentry, hoping to unite the entire nation around the banner he raised. The instability and hesitation of the gentry-bourgeois bloc that led the uprising contributed to its defeat. The gentry reformers continued to collaborate with the traitorous king, prevented the transformation of the uprising into a democratic revolution, and alienated the peasantry from participating in it. In addition, Count I. Potocki, who led the foreign policy relations of the rebels, was guided by Prussia. Meanwhile, Austria, bypassed under the second section, and Prussia, which did not want to lose its share of the spoils, sought, perhaps, to liquidate the uprising as soon as possible, fearing that the intervention of Catherine II would bring benefits only to Tsarist Russia. In May 1794, the Prussian army invaded Poland, and on June 15 it captured Krakow. Russian and Prussian troops besieged Warsaw. The rebels successfully defended themselves, and in the rear of the Prussian troops the uprising spread city after city. The Prussians had to retreat from Warsaw, but in the decisive battle with the tsarist troops at Maciewice on October 10, the rebels were defeated. Kosciuszko was wounded and taken prisoner in an unconscious state. At the beginning of November, tsarist troops captured Warsaw.

2.2 Activities of the patriotic club

The French Revolution of 1830 gave impetus to the struggle for Polish independence. The decisions of the Congress of Vienna consolidated the division of Polish lands between Prussia, Austria and Russia. On the territory of the former Grand Duchy of Warsaw that was transferred to Russia, the Kingdom (Kingdom) of Poland was formed. Unlike the Prussian king and the Austrian emperor, who directly included the Polish lands they captured into their states, Alexander I, as the Polish king, gave Poland a constitution: Poland received the right to have its own elected diet (of two chambers), its own army and a special government headed by the royal governor. In an effort to rely on broad circles of the gentry, the tsarist government proclaimed civil equality, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience, etc. in Poland. However, the liberal course of tsarist policy in Poland did not last long. The constitutional order was not respected, and arbitrariness reigned in the administration of the kingdom. This caused widespread discontent in the country, in particular among the gentry and the emerging bourgeoisie.

Back in the early 20s, secret revolutionary organizations began to emerge in Poland. One of them was the “National Patriotic Society”, which consisted mainly of the gentry. The investigation into the case of the Decembrists, with whom members of the society maintained contact, enabled the tsarist government to discover the existence of the National Patriotic Society and take measures to liquidate it.

At the end of the 20s, the situation in Europe began to heat up. The July Revolution of 1830 in France, the victory of the Belgian people in the struggle against the rule of the Netherlands, the rise of the national liberation movement in Italy - all these events inspired Polish fighters for independence. The secret military society in Poland in 1830 grew rapidly. An armed uprising was brewing. Rumors spread about the government's awareness of the society's activities prompted its leaders to start an armed uprising, which broke out on November 29, 1830.

The population of Warsaw honored the memory of the five Decembrists executed by Nicholas I: Pestel, Muravyov-Apostol, Bestuzhev-Ryumin, Ryleev and Kakhovsky, who accepted martyrdom for a common cause, for Polish and Russian freedom. Mass participation in the memorial service clearly demonstrates how popular the Decembrists were among the Polish people; about the Poles’ understanding that the Decembrists fought for the common cause of the Russian and Polish peoples. The memorial service resulted in a powerful demonstration of solidarity with the ideas for which the Decembrists fought. This happened on the very day when the Polish Sejm proclaimed the dethronization of Nicholas I. Honoring the memory of the Decembrists was organized on the initiative of the Polish Patriotic Society, which had been restored before the uprising. This is how eyewitness Mokhnatsky describes this event. “The day came on January 25, a day memorable in all respects, when the population of Warsaw honored the memory of the dead Russian republicans Pestel and Ryleev, and the Sejm overthrew the living Nicholas from the throne. In the morning, the markets and squares were filled with people, and the chambers with deputies... Members of the Student Guard, those who were imprisoned in the Carmelite prison before November 29, carried the coffin on carbines folded crosswise. The coffin was black; on it lay a laurel wreath intertwined with tricolor ribbons. Great names are inscribed on five shields: Ryleev, Bestuzhev-Ryumin, Pestel, Muravyov-Apostol and Kakhovsky. The procession moved from Casimir Square. On the mourning headboard, instead of a crown or orders, there was a tricolor cockade in front - the motto of European freedom. She was carried by a young captain of the guard. Next came three other captains, recent university students. These were the misters of the ceremony; following them, with weapons lowered as a sign of mourning, marched a detachment of students... In the middle of them fluttered the blue banner of the university tied with a cross, several detachments of guards walked behind the coffin... An innumerable mass of people of different classes and gender filled the streets and windows of the premises where the procession took place. She was accompanied by several dozen officers of the National Guard, as well as a detachment of free riflemen... On the way to the eastern chapel in Podvalie; where the clergy of the Greek-Uniate rite served a funeral mass, the procession lingered at Zygmunt’s column...”

Thanks to a surprise attack on the Belvedere - the palace of Grand Duke Constantine, the arsenal and barracks of the Russian Uhlan regiment, Warsaw fell into the hands of those who rebelled after the flight of Constantine and other tsarist officials, power passed into the hands of the Polish Administrative Council, headed by aristocrats. More radical participants in the uprising, led by Joachim Lelewel, created the Patriotic Club, which opposed the aristocracy's attempts to negotiate with the royal authorities and thwart the uprising. The Administrative Council appointed dictator, i.e. commander of the troops, General Khlopitsky. He began his activities by closing the Patriotic Club, and then sent a delegation to negotiate with Nicholas I. But the enraged emperor refused to accept the “rebellious subjects”, and the delegation returned from St. Petersburg with nothing, which caused Khlopitsky’s resignation. The Sejm, which resumed its activities under the influence of the restored Patriotic Club, responded to the tsar’s military preparations with his dethronement (dethronization) in January 1831. The “National Government” (“Zhond Narodovy”) became the body of executive power. It was headed by Prince Adam Czartoryski and other aristocrats.

The new government declared war on Tsarist Russia. Along with the establishment of independence, the Polish aristocrats considered the main goal of the war to be the restoration of the “historical” (1772) borders of Poland in the east, that is, the seizure of Lithuanian, Belarusian and Ukrainian lands. The leaders of the uprising counted on the military and diplomatic support of powers hostile to Russia - England and France. Significant sections of the population of large cities took part in the uprising, but the gentry did nothing to attract peasants to the uprising, not wanting to abolish the landowner order. Vel. book Konstantin was not a supporter of forceful measures, because he considered the Kingdom of Poland his “patrimony” and sought to maintain good relations with the Poles. Therefore, at first he did not take decisive action and, having released a number of military units that remained loyal to him, retreated from near Warsaw to the borders of the empire. Nicholas I also did not initially strive for a bloody suppression of the uprising. When the representative of the dictator of the uprising, Gen. Yu. Khlopitsky Vylezhinsky arrived in St. Petersburg, Nicholas I stated: “the constitution in the form in which I found it upon my accession to the throne and as it was bequeathed to me by my brother, Emperor Alexander I, this constitution was invariably and strictly preserved by me without any changes . I myself went to Warsaw and was crowned King of Poland there; I did everything in my power for Poland. Of course, there may have been some shortcomings in some institutions of the Kingdom of Poland, but this was not my fault, and one should have understood this when entering my position and had more confidence in me. I always wanted the best and, undoubtedly, did everything for her good.” But the Polish rebels did not seek to make any compromises. The Sejm delegation demanded that the Belarusian-Lithuanian and Ukrainian lands be annexed to the Kingdom of Poland, and the Polish state be restored within the borders of 1772. At the same time, the Poles referred to the “promise” of Alexander I (i.e., to the clause in the text of the Women’s Treatise about the possible expansion of the borders of the Kingdom). The Russian government, naturally, did not intend to implement such an ultimatum. As a result, in January 1831, the Sejm issued an act of “detronization” of Nicholas 1, according to which not only he, but the entire House of Romanov was deprived of the Polish throne. The Russian government was left to suppress the uprising by military force.

Nicholas I sent an army of 120 thousand people against the gentry army. The rebel forces (50-60 thousand) first stopped the tsarist offensive, but were defeated on May 26, 1831 near Ostroleka (north of Warsaw). The threat of suppression of the uprising led to the protest of the democratic lower classes of the Polish capital against the ruling conservative elite. This belated activity of the people, who hanged several traitorous generals and spies on the lanterns, frightened the gentry and further increased the discord in its ranks. Despite the fact that almost the entire Polish army joined the uprising, Russian troops under the command of Field Marshal I.I. Dibich-Zabalkansky, and then Field Marshal I.F. Paskevich-Erivansky won a victory in a number of battles and 25-26 August 1831 Warsaw was taken by storm. The uprising cost the Polish people dearly: 326 thousand people died. (during the storming of Warsaw only 25 thousand people), material damage amounted to 600 million zlotys.

In Soviet historiography, the uprising of 1830 was assessed as “gentry” (see, for example, the work of V.P. Drunin). Indeed, the aristocratic party in Ch. from the book A. Czartoryski led the uprising, but military personnel, students and ordinary patriotic citizens took part in it. The reasons for the uprising lie not only in the economic and political claims of the gentry and not only in the influence of European revolutionary ideas and the revolution of 1830. The November uprising was in largely caused by the remnants of the imperial thinking of Polish nationalists, who dreamed of restoring power over all the territories that were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. As noted by Prof. Sh. Askenazi, the desire to achieve the former borders of the Kingdom of Poland, to annex primarily Lithuania, “became one of the main factors of the November revolution.”

After the suppression of the uprising, the constitution of 1815 and the Polish army were abolished, and the so-called Organic Statute of 1832, introduced in its place, which promised limited autonomy, was not actually implemented. All control was concentrated in the hands of the governor and commander - the executioner of the uprising, General Paskevich. Many participants in the movement were resettled deep into Russia, exiled to hard labor in Siberia, and handed over to the active army in the Caucasus.

The uprising was defeated due to the fact that the Polish aristocrats and wealthy gentry, who became the leaders of the uprising, were inclined to make a deal with tsarism. The bulk of the population - the peasantry - remained indifferent to the uprising, since the gentry who led the movement refused to free the peasants from feudal duties. The conservative leaders of the uprising, including the majority of the Polish Sejm, did not think about any social reforms, they were imbued only with the idea of ​​​​restoring Poland within the borders of 1772. It is remarkable that the left wing of the uprising proclaimed the same ideals for which the Decembrists fought - the elimination of feudalism. serfdom system. In December 1830, revolutionary-minded participants in the uprising, mainly young people, opened the Patriotic Society (Patriotic Club), of which Lelewel was elected chairman. The society united the left-wing elements of the uprising, who sought to establish contact with the urban lower classes and the peasantry and involve them in the liberation struggle. The most consistent and decisive supporter of this idea was Lelevel. Based on the conviction of the need to combine the national liberation struggle with the implementation of social reforms, he made a proposal to allocate land to the peasants at a meeting of the Patriotic Society in the press and before the Sejm.

Lelewel sought the adoption by the Sejm of a special appeal to the Russians with a call to unite forces in the fight against tsarism, recalling the example of the Decembrists. The draft address stated that the rebel Poles "willingly accede" to the principles set out in the agreement concluded by Prince Jablonowski on behalf of the Polish secret society with the Russian secret society. “Rise up for our depot,” Lelevel called, “and we, defending ours, will help you.” “We... declare in the face of God and people that we have nothing to do with the Russian people, that we never think of encroaching on their integrity and security, we long to remain in fraternal harmony with them and enter into a fraternal union.”

Polish revolutionaries who emigrated abroad after the defeat of the uprising continued to defend the freedom and independence of their homeland. At the same time, they constantly turned their attention to Russian freedom fighters, not giving up hope of a joint action against tsarism. The Polish emigrant National Committee, created in France, headed by Lelewel, wrote in its appeal to the Russians in August 1832 that the names of the Decembrists who died for the freedom of the Russian and Polish peoples “will forever remain in the memory of the Russians, exactly dear to the heart of the Pole.” All further struggle, waged by representatives of the revolutionary-democratic wing of the Polish emigration, was carried out under the slogan “For our and your freedom!”, Born during the days of the uprising. After the defeat of the uprising of 1830---1831. Polish emigrants - supporters of the revolutionary-democratic wing of the Polish national liberation movement - founded the community (community) "Grudzenz" and a new group of the society "Polish People", which later took the name "Uman", which united, along with revolutionary intellectuals, also emigrated soldiers of the insurgent armies, former Polish peasants and workers. These organizations were the immediate predecessor of the future revolutionary labor movement. Their main task was to fight against the feudal-serf system. The revolutionary figures of the November uprising, Tadeusz Krempowiecki, were active figures in the communities.

Stanislav Worzel and others in 1835, the community issued a manifesto, which proclaimed “the freedom of the Polish peasant, the freedom of all workers” of Poland. The manifesto said: “Our fatherland is the Polish people, it has always been separated from the fatherland of the gentry. And if there were any relationships between the Polish gentry and the Polish people, they were relationships like those that exist between a murderer and a victim.” A manifesto released later promoted the idea of ​​unity and alliance with the revolutionary movement in Russia: “Russia, which suffers the same thing as we do... - will not it unite its forces with us against the common evil? Russia, which was with us in 1825; Russia, which, like elder brothers, welcomed us into the depths of Siberia in 1831; Russia, which in 1839 wanted to bring Poland back to life and help it against its oppressors, will it really be against us now? Will she refuse the name of Pestel, Muravyov, Bestuzhev, who, together with Zawisza and Konarsky, amid the egoism of that time, sparkle like stars with their sacrifice in the East?

Chapter III. National liberation movement 40-60.

3.1 Krakow uprising of 1846

Krakow, a major economic, political and cultural center of Poland, was declared a “free city” by the decision of the Congress of Vienna. In reality, the “independence” of Krakow was imaginary: it was occupied by Austrian troops.

On February 20, 1846, an uprising against Austrian oppression began in Krakow. The main driving force behind the uprising were workers, small artisans and peasants from nearby villages. The initiative came from a group of Polish revolutionary democrats, in which Edward Dembowski played a major role. In the program of this group, the desire to liberate Poland from foreign oppression was combined with the desire to satisfy the anti-feudal demands of the peasantry, in which the democratic revolutionaries rightly saw the main force of the national liberation movement.

On February 22, Austrian troops fled the city. On the same day, the Krakow rebels declared the independence of Poland and formed the national government of the Polish Republic.

The national government issued an appeal “To all Poles who can read.” This document proclaimed the abolition of corvée and all feudal duties, the transfer to peasants of all the lands they cultivated, the allocation of land to landless peasants and farm laborers (from the “national property” fund), the organization of national workshops for artisans, and the abolition of all privileges of the gentry.

The Krakow rebels did nothing to spread the uprising beyond Krakow. The Austrian government managed, through false promises to the peasants, to isolate Krakow from Galicia, where at that time the peasant anti-feudal struggle was taking place. A small detachment sent under the command of Dembowski with the aim of winning over the peasants to the side of the uprising was defeated in a battle with more numerous Austrian troops, and Dembowski fell in battle.

At the beginning of March, Austrian troops occupied Krakow. The uprising was suppressed. A few months later, the “free city” of Krakow was finally incorporated into the Austrian Empire.

Revolt of 1846 caused a rapid rise in the national movement and political activity in all the Slavic lands of the Empire. From the very first days it found a response in Galicia. The movement of peasants revived, hoping for a radical change in their plight. The events of 1846 -1849 stand apart in the history of the Russian movement in Galicia. From being persecuted and left to the mercy of local Polish landowners, the Galician awakeners for a short time suddenly became allies of the shaky empire to the Rusyn national movement. The Galician national intelligentsia turned out to be completely unprepared for such a turn of events. Y. Golovatsky, N. Ustianovich, I. Vagilevich sat in their remote parishes, Zubritsky was already old and was not a politician. There was no political program for the Rusyns - and it was easy for the “order” to find the most flexible representatives of the recently persecuted tribe. The initially outlined rapprochement between leading Rusyn leaders and Polish democrats soon turned out to be impossible, because the latter generally denied the Rusyns an independent national existence and classified them among the Polish tribes. Only Vagilevich went to the Polish camp. On May 2, 1848, the political body of the Galician Rusyns took shape - the “Head Russian Rada” of 66 people was created, it included minor officials, intelligentsia, representatives of the lower and higher clergy, and students. Bishop Grigory Yakhimovich was elected chairman; as we will see later, he was a liberal figure, but very cautious. The newspaper “Zorya Galitskaya”, the first newspaper of the Rusyns, became the press organ of the Rada. At the call of the Rada, local branches began to be created, local radas, sometimes more decisive than the Head Rada. About 50 of them were organized.

In the revolutionary years 1846 - 1848, pressing issues of the economic, national and cultural life of Galicia were acutely raised. In its economic program, the “Head Russian Rada” provided for a number of moderate progressive reforms. During the revolutionary years, the issue of the impossibility of the Rusyns and representatives of the Polish bourgeois-gentry circles, who denied the national rights of the Rusyns, being able to act as a united front was finally resolved. The agitation of the leaders of the pro-Polish Russian Council, despite the participation of Vagilevich in its work, did not receive the support of the peasants, who were tried to convince that the lords had been benefactors to the peasants before the arrival of the Germans, Prussians and Muscovites, i.e. before the partitions of Poland, nor the awakeners who were frightened by Moscow. It is significant that it is precisely from the materials of the Russian Council that one can see how the Polish gentry circles in Galicia adopted the theory of Ukrainian nationalism, which was then only gaining strength. On the pages of the Council's organ "Russian Diary" we find a large article signed with the initials F.S., which gives a unique concept of the history of Rus', beginning with Kievan Rus. The Tatar yoke brought the division of Rus' into two parts, of which one vegetated under the Turkish yoke, and the other flourished under Polish-Lithuanian auspices.

3.2 Rebellion of 1863 and its significance

In the fall of 1861, on the basis of revolutionary circles in Warsaw, a city committee was created, later renamed the “Central National Committee” - the leading center of the “Red” party.

The Central National Committee and its program put forward demands for the abolition of estates and estate privileges, the transfer of the plots they cultivate to the ownership of peasants, the proclamation of independent Poland within the borders of 1772, followed by granting the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian population the right to determine their own destiny. This program, despite its ambiguity in resolving the peasant question (the question of the situation of the landless peasantry was left unanswered) and vagueness in the national question, was of a progressive nature: it proclaimed the liberation of the Polish people from the oppression of tsarism, the creation of an independent Polish Republic. On the basis of this program, preparations were made for the uprising. Yaroslav Dąbrowski, who arrived in Warsaw at the beginning of 1862, became the leader of the Warsaw organization of the “Reds” and an influential member of the Central Committee. At the suggestion of Dombrovsky, an armed uprising was scheduled for the summer of 1862.

Dombrowski and his like-minded people wanted to act together with the Russian officer organization in the Kingdom of Poland, with which they maintained close contact. Revolutionary-minded Russian officers conducted propaganda among the soldiers and were ready to support the Polish liberation movement. But the tsarist authorities managed to uncover one of the cells of the officer organization. Three of its members (Arngoldt, Slivitsky, Rostkovsky) were shot, several officers were sentenced to prison, many were transferred to other units. Soon Ya. Dombrovsky was arrested.

However, the secret officer revolutionary organization continued its activities. Its soul was Andrei Potebnya, who established contact with Polish revolutionaries, “Land and Freedom”, and Herzen.

Russian and Polish revolutionaries began discussing the timing and program of a joint action. For this purpose, members of the Central Committee A. Hiller (he belonged to the group of moderates) and Z. Padlevsky (a like-minded person of Dombrowski) went to London to negotiate with Herzen. The negotiations ended with an agreement on Russian revolutionaries' support for the Polish democratic movement and uprising, scheduled for the spring of 1863. This agreement was later reinforced during Padlevskoto's negotiations with the Land and Freedom Committee in St. Petersburg at the end of 1862. Representatives of Land and Freedom also became to a position of fraternal solidarity with the struggling Poland. Like Herzen, they advised the Central Committee not to make hasty decisions about the date of the uprising and to comply with the course of the revolutionary movement in Russia.

In the summer of 1862, the government made a new attempt to win over the gentry by implementing previously conceived reforms. Grand Duke Konstantin was appointed governor, and A. Velepolsky was appointed head of the civil administration. However, these measures did not stop the rise of revolutionary sentiments. Attempts were made on the governor and Velepolsky. Convinced of the impossibility of coping with the revolutionary movement, Velepolsky proposed conscripting urban youth into the army according to specially compiled lists. This event accelerated the start of the uprising.

On the very eve of the uprising, January 22, 1863, the Central National Committee, as the Provisional National Government, published the most important program documents, a manifesto and agrarian decrees.

The manifesto said that Poland “does not want and cannot” yield without resistance to the shameful violence that Russian tsarism is committing against it - illegal recruitment; under penalty of liability to posterity, Poland must offer vigorous resistance. The Central National Committee, as the only now legitimate Polish government, calls on the people of Poland, Lithuania and Rus' to fight for liberation. The Committee promised to hold the steering wheel with a strong hand and overcome all obstacles on the path to liberation; He promised to severely punish any hostility and even lack of zeal.

The rebel organization began the uprising in the most unfavorable conditions for itself. True, it numbered over 20 thousand people in its ranks, but it had neither weapons nor money. Until the last minute before the uprising, not a single carbine was transported from abroad, and only about 600 hunting rifles were collected in the country. There were about 7.5 thousand rubles in the cash register. The rebels were not trained in military affairs. With regard to commanders, the situation was also difficult: there was a great shortage of military and civilian commanders, and those who existed did not always correspond to their purpose. The peasantry was not prepared for the uprising. The allies of the Polish rebels - Russian revolutionaries - planned their uprising against tsarism only in late spring. Finally, the Polish rebels rose up to fight in the middle of winter, when natural conditions were least suitable for them. On the other hand, the enemy forces were many times greater. The tsarist army, located in Polish lands, numbered about 100 thousand people. These were regular troops, consisting of infantry, cavalry, artillery and sapper units. Artillery units consisted of 176 guns. To defeat such an enemy, the active participation of the broad masses in the uprising was of utmost importance.

All these circumstances speak of the extreme difficulties faced by the rebel organization at the time of the uprising. But she had no choice. The term of the uprising was imposed on her by the tsarist authorities in Velepol. The course of events made it impossible to implement Dombrovsky's plan, sent from the citadel and containing as its most important part an attack on the Novogeorgievsk (Modlin) fortress. All the unreliable officers and soldiers of the fortress garrison had been moved to other points in recent days, as a result of which the rebels could not count on support from within. The Central National Committee sent out orders to carry out an attack with available forces on the local garrisons of the tsarist army. It was also decided to make every effort to liberate the city of Plock and make the Plock Voivodeship, in which the rebel organization was especially numerous, a base for the further development of the uprising. On the contrary, Warsaw, which had a large garrison of selected, including recently sent guards troops, was supposed to remain calm at first. In addition, the Central Committee decided that in order to strengthen the influence and authority of the rebel government, the latter should come out of hiding and become visible, choosing for its residence a territory liberated from the invaders; At first, the city of Plock was planned as such a place.

The decision to maintain calm in Warsaw had both positive and negative sides. It protected the capital from bombardment from the citadel and from unnecessary and great bloodshed, but at the same time it preserved it as an operational base for the enemy and excluded the most revolutionary patriotic forces - the working masses of the capital - from active rebel life. The decision to legalize the rebel government was wrong because it doomed it to inactivity until that uncertain moment when it could securely establish itself in the liberated city; in addition, the publication of names previously unknown to anyone could not significantly increase the authority of the government. As subsequent experience showed, it was possible to successfully lead an uprising from underground.

The committee's self-renunciation of power was actually determined by the desire to get rid of overwhelming responsibility. Yanovsky, Mikoszewski, Maikovsky and Aweide were not capable of leading the revolutionary struggle; disbelief in its successful outcome prompted them to shirk responsibility for the fate of the uprising. And Bobrovsky alone, who had truly outstanding abilities and was filled with a readiness to fight, could not poison himself with the situation; it should be remembered that he was only 22 years old at this time and that he was in Warsaw for only three weeks.

After the decision to establish the post of military dictator, the Central Committee made a new mistake. On January 22, on the very eve of the uprising, four members of the Committee (Aweide, Janowski, Majkowski and Mikoszewski) left Warsaw in the direction of Plock. Thus, at the most crucial moment the uprising was left without leadership. Bobrovsky remained in Warsaw as the head of the capital organization.

On the night of January 23, about 6 thousand rebels, gathered in 33 detachments, came out to fight, but attacks on the tsarist troops were carried out only in 18 places. Consequently, on the first night of the uprising, only a small part of the organization took up arms. In many places, White party leaders managed to intercept the orders of the rebel authorities and prevent the detachments from performing. In other places, the weakness of commanders or the lack of weapons affected, as a result of which some detachments dispersed even before meeting the enemy. Almost all the attacks of the first night took place in the eastern half of the country, where there were relatively more corral (small) gentry and wealthy peasants. Most of the attacks ended in failure.

Characteristic of the first night was the attack on Plock, where it was planned to make the capital of the rebel camp. In the vicinity of this city, several days before the uprising, several rebel detachments, consisting mostly of Warsaw fugitives, gathered; these detachments were supposed to simultaneously attack the city. However, instead of the several thousand that the command expected, only a thousand people gathered. There were about 400 Russian soldiers in the city. When midnight arrived, dark and rainy, the signal to move was given. The rebels attacked the Russian troops, but not all the detachments gathered in the vicinity of the city participated, but only some. The rest were either dispersed before entering the city, or failed to reach the appointed place. Residents of the city, frightened by the numerous arrests made on the very eve of the protest, did not come to the aid of the rebels. As a result of this, the attackers were easily repulsed by a better armed, and also informed, enemy. The rebels lost several people killed, about 150 were captured. The most important operation of the first night ended in failure. An example of a successful performance is the attack on the city of Lukow, located in the Podlaskie Voivodeship, somewhat south of Siedlce. The rebels, numbering about 300 infantry (which included many peasants) and 50 cavalry, unexpectedly attacked the city at two o'clock in the morning, in which there were two companies of soldiers. Many soldiers were killed, the rest fled to the market, from where they were driven out of the city. The rebels captured a significant number of carbines and ammunition, but were unable to hold on to the city when a new detachment came to the aid of the garrison.

In general, the uprising on the first day did not produce the results that the rebels were counting on and which are very important, sometimes decisive, for the further development of events. Not a single provincial city was liberated. The royal troops suffered absolutely negligible damage. The rebel attacks were carried out at 18 points, while the enemy had his units at 180 points.

Similar documents

The January Uprising of 1863 was a national liberation uprising on the territory of the Kingdom of Poland. Actions of Mieroslawski and Langevich in the partisan war. Preparation and beginning of the Polish uprising. Uprising in the South-Western and North-Western regions.

abstract, added 12/28/2009


A short biography of Tadeusz Kosciuszko (1746–1817), a description of his life in North America. The prerequisites for the start of the uprising in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, directed against its division, the characteristics of military operations and their suppression, as well as the role of T. Kosciuszko in it.

abstract, added 05/18/2010


Analysis of the socio-political development of Russia in the first half of the 19th century. Features and directions of social movements of this period: Decembrist, national liberation, peasant, liberal movement. Events of the Polish uprising of 1863

test, added 01/29/2010


National liberation uprising in Greece in 1821. The first Greek constitution. Development of national Greek culture. Socio-political development of Greece in the second half of the 19th – early 20th centuries. Greece in the Balkans and the First World War.

abstract, added 10/05/2009


Peasant and national liberation movement in the fall of 1905. Revolts in the army and navy. Anti-people position of the national bourgeoisie. Lessons and historical significance of the December Uprising. Causes of the Russo-Japanese War. Defense of Port Arthur.

abstract, added 12/07/2009


Uprising in Warsaw. Uprising in Slovakia, National anti-fascist uprising, national democratic revolution in Slovakia. Carpathian-Dukla operation. Uprising in the Czech Republic, Prague operation. Assistance of the Soviet Armed Forces to sister countries.

abstract, added 02/15/2010


Strengthening the anti-feudal struggle. The main major liberation uprisings led by Nalivaiko, Sagaidachny, popular uprisings of the 30s. XVII century Zaporozhye Sich as the main center of the liberation movement, anti-feudal struggle, the role of the clergy.

abstract, added 10/29/2009


History of the national liberation movement in Kazakhstan and Central Asia. The main causes of the Turgai uprising (1916). Fighting in the Batpakkara area. Guerrilla raids against the tsarist punitive forces from the second half of November 1916 to mid-February 1917.

abstract, added 02/13/2011


Russian liberation movement of the first quarter of the 19th century. The main goals of the Decembrists. Uprising of December 14, 1825. Historical significance and experience of the movement. Exile to Siberia and the publication by Alexander II of a manifesto on amnesty and permission to return from exile.

abstract, added 03/08/2009


The reasons for the national liberation uprising of the Poles against Russia, which covered the territory of the Kingdom of Poland, Lithuania, Belarus and Right-Bank Ukraine. Description of military actions, final moments and consequences of the Polish uprising.