How P. Stolypin was killed

Recently, Russian President V.V. Putin invited government ministers to “chip in” for the monument to the great reformer Pyotr Stolypin, who loved Russia more life. More than a hundred years have passed since then tragic events, which will be discussed, but the memory of an outstanding Russian person should not be erased from the memory of posterity.

Russia was an agricultural country. Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin was sure that the long-outdated way of life for peasants was pulling Russia back. He developed a project for peasant reform, and with all his tenacity he began to implement it.

Pyotr Stolypin came from a family of an old noble family. His career was enviable: Grodno, then Saratov mayor, and in April 1906, Minister of Internal Affairs. Being a minister of a very difficult direction, he showed himself to be an uncompromising fighter against troublemakers. In the summer of 1906, he became chairman of the Council of Ministers, retaining his previous position. The day after his appointment, Nicholas II dissolved the State Duma. Stolypin understood that it was urgently necessary to implement a program to overcome the social and political crisis, which was putting the state on the brink of collapse. Pyotr Arkadyevich believed that the peasantry, which received more rights and state guarantees, would in the future become the support of the monarchy. Those same peasants who wish to move to the city will become the basis of the labor force in the growing industry.

Stolypin partially succeeded in realizing his plans. The Peasant Bank he created sold state land to peasants on preferential terms, which significantly strengthened the country's agricultural sector. The government led by Stolypin implemented a number of measures that made it possible to resettle significant part peasants on the outskirts of the empire. Thus, more than 3 million people moved beyond the Urals. These settlers became the main driving force economic recovery of Siberia. Under Stolypin’s supervision, new agro-industrial services were created, training courses on dairy production, livestock husbandry, and the study of new forms of agriculture were organized.

The result of these efforts was so significant that long time achievements in all sectors were compared with the results achieved in 1910 under Stolypin. Thus, in 1910, Russia took first place in the world in wheat exports. Stolypin repeatedly told the sovereign that “20 years of peace” were required to implement the planned reforms. But the first World War made adjustments to these plans. Stolypin did not receive support for his reforms not only from Nicholas II, but also from senior government officials.

Today it is impossible to say with certainty on whose orders the persecution of Pyotr Stolypin began. In August 1906, there was an explosion at the prime minister's dacha. Stolypin himself was not injured, but 27 people were killed and the reformer’s daughter and son were injured. Stolypin and his family moved to the Winter Palace, where there was no need to worry about the lives of loved ones. A decree was immediately issued on the creation of military courts, where the verdict took no more than 48 hours. During the year, these courts handed down 1,102 death sentences. Control and censorship of meetings were tightened.

In 1907, Nicholas II dissolved the Second State Duma, which was considered “leftist”. It was clear to everyone that this decision was made at the request of Stolypin, whose government received the much-needed “pacification” time.

Stolypin's life turned into a continuous struggle with " strongmen of the world» for the implementation of reforms so necessary for the state. 1911 was no exception. This summer they planned to open a monument to Alexander II in Kyiv. The emperor and all senior officials, including Prime Minister Stolypin, were invited to the holiday. The opera “The Tale of Tsar Saltan” was performed for guests at the theater. During the intermission, an unknown person approached Stolypin and mortally wounded the Prime Minister with point-blank shots.

The killer - Bogrov, was an informant security department and came to the theater with a ticket signed personally by the head of the Kyiv secret police. And although it is believed that Bogrov was playing some kind of double game, it is likely that in this case he was carrying out a very specific order to eliminate an outstanding political leader. So the deputy of the 3rd State Duma A. Guchkov said: “... it is impossible to make out who killed the Prime Minister - the revolutionaries or the police.” The Prosecutor General believed that Minister of Internal Affairs Kurlov and the head of the Kyiv secret police Kulyabko and other officials who did not fulfill their official duties and created an environment that allowed this attempt on the life of the Prime Minister should be brought to justice.

But the fact that, in the end, the leaders of the security services remained unpunished confirms the version of imperial approval of this murder. And the secret police became the executor of this order. What could the emperor fear if he chose such cruel way destroying your closest official? Most likely, there were several reasons, but all of them were against Stolypin, who had great political weight. The illiterate man G. Rasputin, whose influence on royal family was known to everyone.

But for everyone, the only accused was Bogrov, who lived only 11 days after the assassination attempt on Stolypin. During the investigation, he stated that he considered Stolypin “the main culprit of the reaction that occurred in Russia.” And although Stolypin’s widow believed that the investigation into the case had not been carried out thoroughly, and the execution of the criminal should be postponed, Bogrov was executed with great haste.

So what versions of the cause of these tragic events exist today?

Version one is a provocation. Bogrov was a professional secret police agent. During his service, the provocateur betrayed more than 100 of his fellow revolutionaries to the security department. Most likely, his fellow anarchists suspected him of collaborating with the secret police, so Bogrov had to kill one of the top officials of the state in order to prove his commitment to the revolutionary movement. During the investigation, Bogrov said: “About August 15, one anarchist came to me, told me that I had finally been recognized as an agent provocateur, and threatened to publish this and announce it to the public.” He was offered to rehabilitate himself by carrying out a terrorist act.

Version two – negligence. Bogrov was not an secret police agent. The slander was deliberately launched on the orders of the head of the Kyiv secret police, Kulyabko, in order to justify his failure to ensure the safety of the top officials of the state. This mistake could have cast doubt on the work of the entire political investigation system of the empire. Here is the entry found in the documents of those times: “Thus, in relation to all four accused (Kurlov, Spiridovich, Verigin and Kulyabko) in this case, it should be considered established that the authorities were inactive, as well as creating a threat to the life of the sovereign and his family. Bogrov had every opportunity to approach the royal box during the performance or even take a shell with him to the theater and throw it into the box when committing the murder of Stolypin, which misfortune did not happen only thanks to the attacker himself, who did not dare to commit such an attack.”

Version three - the emperor. Was Nicholas II interested in the death of his prime minister? Stolypin's popularity has already eclipsed the personality of the emperor himself. The official himself gave an ultimatum to Nicholas II - he threatened to resign if the emperor actively interfered with the implementation of the peasant reform. Nicholas II was very angry with Stolypin. They say that the tsar repeatedly spoke out about his bad luck with the appointment of prime ministers. Stolypin did not have a good relationship with the prominent figure closest to the emperor. statesman of that time - Count Witte, who skillfully whispered negative information about the prime minister to the emperor. Peter Arkadyevich knew that his position at the royal court was not strong and at any time Nicholas II could kick him out as the very last lackey. From archival documents it is known that the emperor, appointing Kokovtsev to the post of prime minister after Stolypin’s death, said: “I hope you will not overshadow me the way Stolypin did?”

Version four - Rasputin. Gregory was one of those close to royal family human. Stolypin repeatedly told the emperor that it was unacceptable for a semi-literate man with a dubious reputation to approach him. But I heard practically only one answer from Nicholas II: “I agree with you, Pyotr Arkadyevich, but let it be better to have ten Rasputins than one hysterical empress.” By order of Stolypin, surveillance was established over Rasputin's police department, but it was soon removed on the personal instructions of the Tsar. Rasputin predicted imminent death to the Prime Minister: “Death came for him, here it is, here!” It is these statements by Rasputin that can serve as evidence that Rasputin was connected with the murder of Pyotr Stolypin. It’s no secret that Stolypin’s death was very beneficial to Rasputin.

And although so much time has passed, none of the versions have yet received convincing evidence, which means that the mystery of the death of the great Russian reformer has not been revealed.

No related links found

1.09.1911 (14.09). – Attempt on Bogrov’s life in Kyiv Russian government P.A. Stolypin

The mystery of Stolypin's murder

Monument to A.P. Stolypin in Kyiv, opened on September 6, 1913 on Duma Square (current “Independence Square”) opposite the City Duma building

Was the killer Dmitry Grigorievich (Mordko Gershkovich) Bogrov(b. 1887), son of a Kyiv attorney, grandson of the Jewish writer G.I. Bogrova. Even as a student, Bogrov was involved in revolutionary activities, was arrested several times, but was quickly released thanks to his father’s connections. In 1905, he sympathized with the Social Democrats and studied at the Faculty of Law at Kiev University, continuing his education in Munich. In December 1906 he returned to Kyiv and joined a group of anarchist-communists. In mid-1907, he became an agent of the Kyiv Security Department under the nickname "Alensky" (probably with goals like Azef). At the height of the riots in Kyiv, he was a member of the Revolutionary Council of Student Representatives. According to the testimony of the head of the security department N.N. Kulyabko, Bogrov handed over many revolutionaries to the police, prevented terrorist attacks and thus earned trust (Azef also gained trust). After graduating from the university, Bogrov went to St. Petersburg, where he established cooperation with the St. Petersburg security department.

In August 1911, Bogrov returned to Kyiv, met with the head of the Kyiv security department, Kulyabka, and informed him of the impending assassination attempt on Stolypin, which he himself carried out, thanks to Kulyabka’s stupidity. Bogrov told him that he had gained confidence in a certain “Nikolai Yakovlevich”, who was going to make an attempt on Stolypin’s life, but in order not to arouse suspicion, Bogrov needed to be present at the scene of the assassination attempt. Kulyabko did not bother to check this information. The ticket to the theater was issued to Bogrov by Kulyabka as his “agent”, while Bogrov was not under surveillance. According to the memoirs of the Kyiv governor Girs, Stolypin’s security in the city was generally very poorly organized.

After the assassination attempt, Bogrov was sent to the Kyiv fortress "Oblique Caponir", where he was imprisoned in solitary confinement. Bogrov was interrogated only four times: on September 1, immediately after the act he committed, on September 2, September 4 and September 10, 1911. The first 3 interrogations took place before the trial, and the last after the trial, on the eve of the execution of the death sentence (Bogrov was hanged13 September). Judicial authorities, namely the investigator for particularly important cases, V. Fenenko, Dm. Bogrov was interrogated only once - on September 2, but in other cases the interrogation was carried out by the Kyiv gendarmerie Colonel Ivanov, a friend of Kulyabko. “Separate parts of Dm.’s testimony. Bogrova are in obvious contradiction to each other and create the impression of a desire to mystify the investigative power. This was noted at one time by forensic investigator V. Fenenko during the interrogation of Dm. Bogrov, Senator Turau in his report to the 1st Department of the State Council on the case of General Kurlov, Kulyabko, Spiridovich and Verigin, and Senator Trusevich in his report on the audit of the affairs of the Kyiv security department; and subsequently, after the revolution, it became possible to establish a number of factual data that contradict a number of Dm’s testimony. Bogrov,” his brother wrote in the book “Dm. Bogrov and the Murder of Stolypin. Exposing “real and imaginary secrets,” published in 1931 in Berlin. In any case, Bogrov’s testimony about his collaboration with the Security Department cannot be trusted.

The history of this case is still fraught with many ambiguities. Of course, the assassination attempt became possible thanks to the mediocrity of the head of the Kyiv security department N.N. Kulyabko. His negligence was so flagrant that they even suspected that he had organized the murder (this version, which is impossible to believe, is still being exaggerated in the Jewish press with the aim of denigrating the secret police and even the Tsar himself, who was supposedly interested in this).

To investigate the case, a senatorial audit was appointed, headed by Senator M.I. Trusevich. At the beginning of 1912, the results of the commission's work in 24 volumes were transferred to the State Council. The report raised the issue of “excess and inaction of power, which had very important consequences” and named the perpetrators - Comrade Minister of Internal Affairs P.G. Kurlov, Vice-Director of the Police Department M.N. Verigin, head of the palace security A.I. Spiridovich and the head of the Kyiv security department N.N. Kulyabko. As a result, these persons were brought to preliminary investigation as accused of criminal inaction.

To justify their trust in Bogrov, Kulyabko and others emphasized in every possible way the usefulness of his undercover work “for money,” and explained the assassination attempt by forcing him to do this by revolutionaries (as proof on his part that he was not an “secret police agent”) and certain forces. During the investigation, Kurlov also justified himself that “I did not make a special order to Kulyabka to establish surveillance of the person of Alensky himself [Bogrov’s agent nickname] himself, believing that such an elementary search method could not be missed by an experienced head of the security department.”

However, the testimony of Bogrov’s brother Vladimir looks more convincing and logical:

“Of course, it was in the interests of Kulyabko and his superiors to prove the seriousness of the services rendered by his brother to the security department, since this is the only way for them to justify and explain such frivolous trust in his brother...

[But] for me there can be no doubt that his relations with the security department could only have been undertaken by him for a purely revolutionary purpose. My brother could not have had any other motives. He could not be driven by selfish motives, since my father was a very wealthy man, and at the same time generous not only towards his family and friends, but also towards complete strangers who always turned to him for help, and, of course, Kulyabko could not I would like to seduce my brother with 50–100 rubles. Moreover, in relation to his brother, whose convictions my father was always so wary of, he was ready to make any expenses and material sacrifices in order to keep his brother from revolutionary activities and, as I pointed out, even tried in vain to keep him abroad. In addition, my brother lived relatively modestly, and therefore did not need money and his budget, as a student, did not go beyond 50–75 rubles a month...

I am convinced that from the very beginning my brother played a bold game with the security department, in the person of Kulyabko, equally dangerous both for himself and for the security department, which had the only goal - the implementation of the revolutionary plan and ended as it was originally intended brother - a terrorist act that did not entail a single extra victim on the part of the revolutionaries, but undermined the entire security system...

I must reject the attempt of some periodical press correspondents to portray the role of Kulyabko, Kurlov and others as simple complicity in a crime committed by their brother. The basis for such assumptions were, as people who were present in court during the hearing of my brother’s case later told, my brother’s answers to the questions proposed by the chairman and the prosecutor, and my brother definitely rejected all such accusations raised against Kulyabko and others. Although such defense of Kulyabko and others on the part of my brother surprised some at that time, however, from the point of view of what I said earlier, such a desire of my brother is completely understandable. My brother’s task was by no means to involve, without any reason, Kulyabko, Kurlov and others in his business, since he would thereby turn an act committed by him with a purely revolutionary goal into a simple murder committed with premeditation and premeditated intention - after all, these could only be the plans of Kulyabko, Kurlov and others. The brother could only, in the interests of his own idea, give testimony favorable to Kulyabko, Kurlov and others in the sense of their criminal liability for the incident of September 1, since these people became victims partly of their short-sightedness, and, mainly, of the security system, which existed at the very legally, but no malice on their part...

The facts create in me complete confidence that my brother was not and could not be an unconscious, much less a conscious, weapon in the hands of Kulyabko, Kurlov and others, but, on the contrary, used them for his own revolutionary purposes. On the question of why my brother in his testimony, as if deliberately, emphasized that in the period 1907–1909 he acted in the interests of the security department, I must say that I see in this statement his last and, perhaps, largest im anarchist acts. And before, the brother often expressed views that at first struck those around him with their paradoxical nature, but, nevertheless, quite consistently stemmed from the anarchist theory he professed. However, in this last anarchic act he failed to maintain strict consistency from beginning to end, which I explain partly by the suddenness of this decision he made, and partly by those terrible moral and physical shocks that he had to experience.

As far as I know, in his first testimony, which he gave on September 1, he pointed only to the revolutionary goals that he was pursuing and to his long-standing decision to make an attempt on Stolypin’s life. And only in his further testimony does he give a different account of his activities in 1907–1908 in the Kiev security department, and, however, to a whole series of questions from the investigator aimed at explaining such rapid and strange transitions from revolutionary activity to security and again to the revolutionary one, he refuses to answer, citing “his own logic.” Further, in two letters addressed to his parents, photographs from which I present, he emphasizes that he wants to leave a memory of himself with his parents as a person “maybe unhappy, but honest,” and indicates that he cannot, despite all efforts to “give up the old”, i.e. from revolutionary activities. Such are the contradictions into which he constantly fell into, trying to portray his activities of 1907–1909 as directed in the interests of conservation.

Meanwhile, introducing himself as an employee of Kulyabko, my brother, in my opinion, had in mind to direct a blow at the entire system of security investigations. In the form in which he tried to portray the event of September 1, responsibility for it was transferred from individuals who were entrusted with Stolypin’s security to the entire system that Stolypin himself headed. The murder of Stolypin by an ordinary revolutionary would only lead to a new intensification of the activity of security departments and an increase in the vigilance of agents. Whereas the commission of this act by a person who previously himself allegedly contributed to the goals of the security and therefore was privy to all its secrets and only as a result of this received the opportunity to accomplish his plan, transfers the question of how to protect yourself from revolutionaries to the question of how get rid of the guards themselves.

These considerations, undoubtedly, were the only ones that guided my brother when he decided to sacrifice not only his life, but also his honor to the revolutionary idea. And it must be admitted that this last victim of his was justified in the sense that not a single political murder raised such a storm of passions as the murder of Stolypin and precisely because of the psychological complication that was introduced into the case. Let us recall the debates of the State Duma, where the government was dealt simultaneous blows from the left and from the right side– on the left for the security system, on the right – for the unsuccessful fight against the revolution; Let us remember the enormous literature that the Stolypin case generated; remember the significant changes in personnel an administration compromised by “real and imaginary” (as the brother writes to his parents) revelations from his brother; finally, the whole real case and dozens of volumes of investigative proceedings, audits, etc. associated with it - all this huge propaganda material could only appear as a result of the double blow that was dealt by the late brother and which was directed against a well-known physical personality, on the one hand, and against the entire system [on] which this personality was based, on the other hand.

With these considerations I explain why my brother, at the trial, instead of a long revolutionary speech incriminating the government, to which military judges of that time were so accustomed, and which would not have benefited either him or others, limited himself to a fictitious confession of his cooperation in the security department, which caused There is a storm of indignation in society against the security system. My brother was too smart not to understand how easy it was for him to explain all his behavior with revolutionary goals and how all the then representatives of the official government would be happy to support such an explanation. But he took a different path and made a new sacrifice, perhaps the most difficult one, in the name of the same revolutionary idea for which he gave his life.”

Protocol of interrogation of V.G. Bogrova August 9, 1917
GA RF. F. 1467. Op. 1. D. 502. L. 64–69 rev.

At the same time, perhaps Mordko Bogrov’s desire to discredit the tsarist police had another reason and purpose. For some reason, almost no one who wrote about this case took into account that it was at this time in Kyiv that an investigation was taking place on charges of Hasidic Jew Mendel Beilis, and after all the attempts of the Jews to mislead investigators on July 22, 1911. was finally produced by N.N. Beilis was detained in Kulyabka, and on August 3 it was formalized as an arrest. From that moment on, the Jewish press raised hell, accusing the tsarist government of “fabricated anti-Semitic provocation” to “prepare a pogrom.” Bogrov's plan to expose " provocative methods Okhrana" successfully fit into this gevalt. In addition, the murder of the head of government by a Jew, undoubtedly, further aroused anti-Jewish sentiments in Kyiv: they were afraid of real pogroms, which the police had difficulty preventing. And such an increase in tension, only at first glance could seem disadvantageous to the Jewish side Taking into account the global scale of the Beilis case, it was pogroms that were very desirable for Judaism at that moment to justify the anti-Russian policy of the West (it has been proven that many pogroms on the eve of the so-called were provoked by Jews for this very purpose, perhaps precisely because of this connection with the case). Does Beilis better explain Bogrov's goals?

Let us recall the following confessions from the American press of that time:

“Burning with passion, Hermann Loeb, Director of the Department of Food, addressed ... a speech to the three thousand Jews present, describing the grim oppression reigning in Russia, called to arms and insisted that Russian persecution be answered with fire and sword. “Of course, it’s not bad to cancel treaties,” he explained, “but it’s better... to free ourselves forever from imperial despotism”... “Let’s collect money to send a hundred mercenary fighters to Russia. Let them train our youth and teach them to shoot the oppressors , like dogs "... Just as cowardly Russia was forced to give in to the little Japanese, she will have to give in to God's Chosen People... Money can do it" (Philadelphia Press. 1912. 19.II).

The New York Sun newspaper summarized: “The Jews of the whole world have declared war on Russia. Like the Roman Catholic Church, Jewry is a religious-tribal brotherhood which, without possessing political bodies, can carry out important political functions. And this State has now condemned to excommunication Russian Kingdom. For the great northern tribe there is no more money from the Jews, no sympathy on their part... but instead merciless opposition. And Russia is gradually beginning to understand what such a war means” (New York Sun. 1912. 31.III).

Stolypin as a suppressor of so-called mercenary militants should have been first on the list of new victims.

“The Jewish Journal” admits that Stolypin was chosen by Bogrov for the assassination attempt not by chance: “Apparently, since 1909, Bogrov began to hatch plans to kill the Chairman of the Council of Ministers P. Stolypin, who in his eyes was a symbol of the reactionary course of the government. In 1910, Bogrov met in St. Petersburg with the famous socialist revolutionary E. Lazarev, to whom he informed about his intention and asked the Socialist Revolutionary Party to sanction his act only if it was convinced that he “behaved with dignity and will die too worthy." Explaining his desire to commit an assassination attempt, Bogrov, among other reasons, pointed to the Jewish question: “I am a Jew and let me remind you that we still live under the domination of the Black Hundred leaders. The Jews will never forget Krushevan,
Murder of Stolypin.
I sat in a box on the first tier. When the first act ended, many left their seats and boxes and went to talk with their friends. My uncle was the leader of the Kyiv nobility and was supposed to be “accompanied.” And I, left alone, watched what was happening in the stalls.
I saw Stolypin standing between the stage and the chairs. He was talking to a group of people surrounding him. In the middle of the aisle, on the other side, I noticed the famous surgeon and specialist in childhood diseases, Professor Chernov. Then I saw a man in a black suit making his way towards the group surrounding the Prime Minister. A moment later, two revolver shots were heard. All eyes turned to the man in black, jumping over the chairs and running towards the left exit of the hall.
Stolypin stood upright for some time. Blood was seeping through his clothes. Professor Chernov rushed to him. Stolypin sank into a chair, but before I lost sight of him, I noticed how he looked to the left towards the imperial box. The Emperor, who had retired to the depths of the box during the break, looked out to find out what had happened. Some claimed that when he appeared, Stolypin crossed him, blessing him. But this is not true. The prime minister, although he was seriously wounded in the stomach, raised left hand and twice made a gesture to the king to leave.
The shooter was caught by the officers and would probably have been torn to pieces if the police had not intervened. He was taken to prison and sentenced to death.
Supported by his friends, Stolypin managed to leave the theater - a brave act that caused a storm of applause. All spectators began to sing the national anthem. The curtain was raised and the performers joined in the singing. The Emperor, standing in the box, looked sad and worried, but showed no signs of fear.

Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin (1862-1911) - an outstanding political figure Russian Empire. For its comparatively short life held various responsible positions. He was the leader of the nobility, governor, minister of internal affairs, and prime minister. Some people loved this man, while others openly hated him. He enjoyed great respect from the German Emperor Wilhelm II. He was fully supported by the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna (mother of Nicholas II). But Leo Tolstoy treated Stolypin with open hostility. The tsar's favorite, Grigory Rasputin, had similar feelings towards the prime minister.

As for the Emperor of All Rus' Nicholas II, due to the weakness of his character, he either favored Peter Arkadyevich, or showed dissatisfaction towards him. Everything depended on specific people who were near the emperor at certain moments. If these were supporters of the Prime Minister, then the All-Russian autocrat felt sympathy for him. But if opponents of Stolypin appeared near the sovereign, then the opinion of the crowned person changed diametrically.

What kind of personality was this who, in 1906-1911, radically influenced domestic policy Russian Empire? Pyotr Arkadyevich was a supporter of global economic reforms and an opponent of democratic freedoms. In the economy, he relied on small owners, especially peasant farms. But such a concept as “freedom of speech” was alien to him.

The Prime Minister believed that first great economic success should be achieved and the majority of the population should be turned into free entrepreneurs. And only after that begin to introduce democracy and all the factors accompanying it into the country. Therefore, he had a negative attitude towards the State Duma, considering it a harmful and premature body of power.

Pyotr Arkadyevich became the initiator of the “Law on Military Courts”. This law was adopted on August 19, 1906 as a measure to counter revolutionary terror. Under this law, especially dangerous criminals were deprived of all rights. Their cases were considered within no more than 2 days, and the sentence was carried out within 24 hours. That is, the military courts ignored procedural norms, which, according to Stolypin, was caused by state necessity. It should be said that, thanks to such harsh measures, revolutionary terror quickly came to naught.

Stolypin with his wife Olga Borisovna

The bright, extraordinary figure of Pyotr Arkadyevich attracted terrorist revolutionaries to him like flies to honey. In total, the terrorists tried to take this man’s life 11 times. And, in the end, they achieved their goal. The murder of Stolypin occurred on September 1 (old style), 1911 in the city of Kyiv in the city theater during the play “The Tale of Tsar Saltan.” Emperor Nicholas II was also present at this performance. The mortally wounded prime minister lived another 4 days and died on September 5, 1911. He was buried in the Kiev Pechersk Lavra.

Assassination attempts on Stolypin

As already mentioned, the terrorists slept and saw Stolypin being killed. This attitude was promoted by the revolution in Russia, which began in 1905. On February 15, 1903, Pyotr Arkadyevich was appointed governor of the Saratov province. He held this post until April 26, 1906, and then became the Minister of Internal Affairs of the empire.

It was the Saratov province that became one of the main centers of revolutionary unrest in the summer of 1905. Peasants were especially violent. They robbed and burned the estates of landowners, and often such illegal actions were accompanied by murders. It was during this difficult time for the country that a series of assassination attempts began on the governor.

The first time they shot at Stolypin was when he and the Cossacks entered one of the rebel villages. A group of horsemen was riding along an empty street when suddenly two shots were heard from behind the fence. In principle, the unknown person did not shoot specifically at Pyotr Arkadyevich, but at the horsemen. The shooter immediately ran away through the gardens, and this incident can, with great stretch, be considered the first attempt on the life of the Saratov governor.

After this there were several more cases, since Stolypin was constantly on the move and found himself in one or another corner of the rebellious province. It is noteworthy that in extreme situations, Pyotr Arkadyevich always showed amazing self-control and endurance. He appeared in front of a crowd of rioters and subjugated people to himself by the force of his will. Even notorious revolutionaries gave in to him, were lost and could not pull the trigger of a revolver.

Once in Saratov, a bomb was thrown at his feet from the window of his house. There was a strong explosion. People near the governor were wounded or killed, but Stolypin did not have a scratch. He continued to stand calmly, and then said to the stunned crowd: “Go home and trust in the authorities to protect you.” Some planned assassinations were discovered long after they were carried out. So it can be argued that Peter Arkadyevich was protected by God himself.

Having become Minister of Internal Affairs on April 26, 1906, Stolypin acquired a higher status and became one of the main targets of revolutionary terrorists. The assassination attempt on the new minister, which went down in history as explosion on Aptekarsky Island in St. Petersburg on August 12, 1906. It was organized by members of the Socialist Revolutionary Maximalist Party. Previously, they were part of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, but then they separated and formed an independent union. These people preferred terror out of all methods of political struggle. And such an odious public decided to destroy Stolypin.

Bombs were made in one of the safe houses. And on Saturday, when Pyotr Arkadyevich was receiving visitors at the state-owned dacha, the revolutionaries, sitting in a landau, set out to kill him. The reception itself began exactly at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Half an hour later, a carriage with an open top pulled by 2 horses drove up to the dacha. Two men dressed in gendarme uniforms came out. They held briefcases in their hands.

The arrivals entered the dacha and immediately aroused suspicion from the doorman who was on duty at the entrance. The thing turned out to be that 2 weeks ago the gendarme uniform underwent certain changes, and the arriving “gendarmes” were dressed in the old-style uniform. The doorman tried to detain the suspicious men, but they pushed him away and rushed inside the building.

They ran into a corridor adjacent to a reception area filled with visitors. In response to the noise, the minister’s adjutant, 48-year-old Major General Alexander Nikolaevich Zamyatin, jumped out into the corridor. He blocked the path of the false gendarmes, and they, realizing that they could not go further, threw their briefcases on the floor. They contained bombs, which immediately exploded.

Stolypin with his daughter Natalya, 1908

The explosion was very strong. 26 people were killed immediately, 33 were seriously injured. Some of the wounded died in hospital. The family of the Minister of Internal Affairs also suffered. His children, 12-year-old Natalya and 3-year-old Arkady, were on the 2nd floor on the balcony with their nanny. The explosion threw them onto the pavement. Nanny Ostankevich Matryona Mikhailovna died, her daughter broke her legs, the boy escaped with minor bruises.

As for Pyotr Arkadyevich himself and the visitors in his office, they all remained unharmed. They were saved by the walls of the office, although the door was blown out by the explosion. But even after this bloody massacre, the Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs) planned several more times to assassinate the Minister of Internal Affairs. But all of them were stopped in time by law enforcement agencies. The last such attempt was planned in 1907 by Feiga Elkina, however, she and her accomplices were arrested.

As they say, no matter how much the rope twists, it will still end. This statement is also characteristic of the fate of Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin. The terrorist revolutionaries finally accomplished what they had been striving for for many years. The last terrorist act, which went down in history as the murder of Stolypin, occurred in the city of Kyiv on September 1, 1911. It was performed by Dmitry Grigorievich Bogrov (1887-1911). Let's briefly get to know this person.

Bogrov was born into a wealthy Jewish family. His father was a millionaire by today's standards. Young man receiving higher education, became interested in the works of Peter Kropotkin. In 1906, in Kyiv, he joined a group of anarchist-communists. The group is very dangerous and aggressive. At the same time, Fanny Kaplan, who later shot Lenin, was a member of it.

Dmitry Bogrov, who shot Stolypin

It is noteworthy that Bogrov, having been a member of the group for several months, voluntarily came to the security department, told everything and offered his services as an informant agent. He collaborated with the police until the beginning of 1910. Thanks to his denunciations most of anarchist-communists were arrested and neutralized.

However, after a series of arrests, the revolutionaries suspected that something was fishy with Bogrov. He began to seriously fear for his life and broke off all relations with the police. He got a job and became an assistant to a sworn attorney, since he had a higher legal education.

It is not known what thoughts were swirling around this young man in his head, but in the last days of August 1911 he appeared at the security department and stated that he had very valuable information. Here we need to make a digression and explain that in 1911 the Russian Empire celebrated a significant date - 50 years of the abolition of serfdom. The manifesto on the abolition of serfdom was signed by Alexander II the Liberator on February 19, 1862.

On this occasion, a monument to the Tsar, who gave freedom to the peasants, was erected in Kyiv. The entire flower of the Russian Empire, headed by Emperor Nicholas II, was expected to attend its opening. And so Bogrov, before the arrival of such significant persons, comes to the security department and declares that a group of dangerous terrorists should appear in Kyiv any day now. Her task is to kill one of the high-ranking persons.

It is quite clear that security in the city has been strengthened. But the main attention was paid to the sovereign and his immediate circle. As for Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin, during this period of time Nicholas II treated him rather coldly, so the prime minister was not guarded as vigilantly as others. However, all the efforts of the security department were in vain. In reality, there was no terrorist group: Bogrov invented it. And he did this in order to carry out a terrorist act himself.

Using the full confidence of the head of the security department, Dmitry received an invitation to the play “The Tale of Tsar Saltan” at the opera house. It was attended by the emperor, his retinue, and Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin. When the second intermission arrived, the Prime Minister rose from his seat and walked out to the barrier separating the stage from the hall. Here he entered into a conversation with the Minister of the Court Fredericks and Count Potocki.

The trio was talking calmly when Bogrov approached her. He pulled out a Browning and shot Stolypin twice. The terrorist was aiming at the prime minister's heart, but he had the Order of St. Vladimir hanging on his chest. The bullet touched him, changed its trajectory, went down, pierced his stomach and liver. The second bullet hit the hand. Pyotr Arkadyevich, losing strength, turned to the box in which the sovereign was sitting, crossed him with his healthy left hand, sat down in the nearest chair and clearly said: “It is happiness to die for the Tsar.” This is how a terrorist act occurred, which went down in history as the murder of Stolypin.

Bogrov shoots Stolypin

Bogrov was immediately captured and, after a short investigation, sentenced to death by hanging. The sentence was carried out on September 12, 1911 on Bald Mountain in the city of Kyiv. There were gallows there to carry out sentences on dangerous criminals. The body was buried not far from the place of execution.

Pyotr Arkadyevich was in a serious condition between life and death for 4 days. On September 2, he felt noticeably better, and doctors began to hope that the wounded man would survive. But by the evening of September 4, the Prime Minister fell into oblivion and died on September 5 at approximately 10 pm. In his will, he asked to be buried where he would be killed. Therefore, Stolypin’s body was buried on September 9, 1911 in the Kiev Pechersk Lavra. This is how it ended life path a talented and bright person who dreamed of a great and powerful Russia.

The emperor, his daughters and close ministers, Stolypin among them, attended the play “The Tale of Tsar Saltan” at the Kyiv city theater. At that time, the head of the Kyiv security department had information that a terrorist had arrived in the city with the goal of attacking a high-ranking official, and possibly the Tsar himself. This information was received from Bogrov. During the second intermission of the play “The Tale of Tsar Saltan,” Stolypin spoke at the barrier of the orchestra pit with the Minister of the Court, Baron V. B. Fredericks and the land magnate Count I. Pototsky. Unexpectedly, Bogrov approached Pyotr Stolypin and fired twice from a Browning: the first bullet hit his arm, the second bullet hit his stomach, hitting his liver. Stolypin was saved from instant death by the cross of St. Vladimir. Having crushed it, the bullet changed its direct direction to the heart. This bullet pierced the chest, pleura, abdominal barrier and liver. After being wounded, Stolypin crossed the Tsar, sank heavily into a chair and said clearly and distinctly, in a voice audible to those close to him: “Happy to die for the Tsar.”

Archivist Olga Edelman cites a fragment from a illustrated letter from Paris, from a political emigrant, to an exile in the Irkutsk province, September 1911: “I’ll tell you how we survived the message about the assassination attempt on Stolypin. […] The public became terribly agitated: the Socialist-Revolutionaries closed their reading room, in the village. D.-skoy had a huge poster with a notice about joyful event. The rumor about Stolypin’s recovery forced the local syndicalist organ “Bataille Syndikaliste” to title its article: “Misfortune. Stolypin, it seems, will not die again...” Stolypin’s death had a very good impression at all, although s. R. Today (8 days after the assassination attempt) they officially declare that Bogrov acted without the sanction of any party socialist. R. organizations".

Death of Stolypin

On September 9, Stolypin was buried in the Kiev Pechersk Lavra. The refectory church, where the funeral service took place, was filled with wreaths with national ribbons, the Government, representatives of the army and navy and all civil departments, many members of the State Council, deputies of the State Duma, and more than a hundred peasants from nearby villages gathered.

The tombstone from Stolypin’s grave was removed in the early 1960s and long years preserved in the bell tower at the Far Caves. The grave site was paved. The tombstone was restored to its original location in 1989, with the assistance of I. Glazunov.

Perpetuation of memory

Monument to Stolypin in Kyiv. Demolished in 1917

On September 7, some deputies of the State Duma and members of the local zemstvo proposed erecting a monument to Stolypin in Kyiv. They decided to raise funds through donations. Donations flowed in so abundantly that literally three days later in Kyiv alone an amount was collected that could cover the costs of the monument. A year later, on September 6, 1912, a monument was unveiled in a solemn ceremony on the square near the City Duma on Khreshchatyk. Stolypin was depicted giving a speech, the words he said were carved on stone: “You need great upheavals - we need Great Russia", and on the front side of the pedestal of the monument there was an inscription: "To Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin - Russian people."

Demolished on March 16 (29), 1917, two weeks after the February Revolution.

Upholstered in red velvet, chair number 17 of the second row of the stalls of the Kyiv City Theater, near which Stolypin was killed, is currently in the Museum of the History of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Kyiv.

Malovladimirskaya Street, where Stolypin died, was renamed Stolypinskaya. Over the course of the 20th century, this street was renamed six more times; now it is called Oles Gonchar Street.

Investigation

Even during his student years, Bogrov was involved in revolutionary activities, was arrested several times, but was quickly released thanks to the influence of his father, who was a member of the highest circles of the city. At the height of the riots in Kyiv, he was a member of the Revolutionary Council of Student Representatives and at the same time conducted intelligence work. According to the head of the security department, Kulyabko, Bogrov betrayed many revolutionaries, prevented terrorist attacks, and thus earned trust.

Directly from the theater, Bogrov was sent to the Kyiv fortress "Oblique Caponir", where he was imprisoned in solitary confinement.

When he appeared on August 16, “Styopa” […] told me that my provocation had been unconditionally and definitively established […] and that it had been decided to bring all the collected facts to the attention of the public […] When I began to challenge the reliability of the Paris information and the competence of the party court, “Styopa” told me that I could rehabilitate myself in only one way, namely by committing some kind of terrorist act. […] I didn’t know whether I would shoot at Stolypin or anyone else, but I finally settled on Stolypin already in the theater.

The history of this extraordinary case is still fraught with a lot of ambiguities. No political party has claimed responsibility for the killing. The most common version was this: an secret police agent, after being exposed by revolutionaries, was forced to kill Stolypin. This is also indirectly evidenced by information published in the press about the appearance in Kyiv on the eve of Trotsky's assassination.

At the same time, the circumstances of the assassination attempt indicate that it became possible thanks to the negligence of the secret police, which is akin to malicious intent.

According to one version, the assassination attempt was organized with the help of the security department. Many facts indicate this, for example, a ticket to the theater was issued to Bogrov by the head of the Kyiv security department N. N. Kulyabko with the consent of P. G. Kurlov, A. I. Spiridovich and M. N. Verigin, while Bogrov was not assigned observation.

According to another version, Kulyabko was misled by Bogrov: he told him that he had gained the trust of a certain “Nikolai Yakovlevich”, who was going to make an attempt on Stolypin, so as not to arouse suspicion from “N. I." Bogrov needs to be present at the scene of the assassination attempt. At the same time, Kulyabko did not take any measures to verify Bogrov’s legend. According to the memoirs of the Kyiv governor Girs, Stolypin's security in the city was poorly organized.

To investigate the circumstances of the case, a senatorial audit was appointed, headed by Senator M.I. Trusevich. At the beginning of 1912, the results of the commission, which took up 24 volumes, were transferred to the State Council. The report raised the issue of “excess and inaction of power, which had very important consequences” and named the culprits - Comrade Minister Kurlov, Vice-Director Verigin, head of the palace security Spiridovich and head of the Kyiv security department Kulyabko. Inaction was expressed in a passive attitude towards the legend given by Bogrov, which no one verified, and an abuse of power in the fact that, contrary to clear circulars, he was allowed to attend the ceremonial performance. As a result, these persons were brought to preliminary investigation as accused of criminal inaction of the authorities.

The leadership of the investigation was entrusted to Senator N.Z. Shulgin. During the investigation, Kurlov stated that “I did not make a special order to Kulyabk to establish surveillance of the personality of Alensky himself (agent pseudonym of Bogrova), believing that such an elementary search method could not be missed by an experienced head of the security department.”

A significant circumstance is noticeable in Kulyabko’s testimony: he refuses an extremely important testimony. At first he stated that he could not consider himself guilty of the misfortune that had occurred, since Bogrov was allowed into the theater with the knowledge of General Kurlov. Then he changed his testimony, saying that he “allowed Bogrov into the theater without Kurlov’s knowledge and specifically asked that these particular testimony be considered valid.” The reason for this change was seen in a letter found during a search of Kulyabko’s wife, who was Spiridovich’s sister. It contained a threat:

If they put me in the dock, then I will remember that I have a wife and a child, and then I will throw away all scrupulosity and put the question squarely about all the conspiracy that was carried out regarding me on September 1. They wanted to do it without me, so they did it, it doesn’t matter how it turned out.

Unexpectedly, at the beginning of 1913, the case was closed on behalf of Nicholas II.

The public attitude towards what happened was different: from disappointment and annoyance to undisguised indignation. The prominent Russian lawyer and public figure A.F. Koni wrote about this:

Having repeatedly betrayed Stolypin and placed him in a defenseless position in relation to open and secret enemies, the “adored monarch” did not find it possible to attend the funeral of the murdered man, but he found an opportunity to stop the case of connivance with the murderers.

Notes

Protocol of interrogation of Lieutenant Colonel N.N. Kulyabko. website www.hrono.info (2.11.1911). Archived
Stolypin Petr Arkadevich. website www.chrono.info. Archived
www.ruthenia.ru/logos/number/56/10.pdf
The mystery of Stolypin's murder. website www.chrono.info. Archived from the original on August 11, 2011. Retrieved January 26, 2011.
Monument to P.A. STOLYPIN. website "Your Kiev". Archived from the original on August 11, 2011. Retrieved January 30, 2011.
Valery DRUZHBINSKY How long will the monument last? . newspaper "Mirror of the Week" (05/02/2006). Archived from the original on August 11, 2011. Retrieved January 30, 2011.
This day in history: A monument disappeared in Kyiv, the Meteor was launched. website for-ua.com. Archived from the original on August 11, 2011. Retrieved January 30, 2011.
Sidorovnin Gennady Pavlovich Chapter XVI. Murderer. Investigation // Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin: Life for the Fatherland: Biography (1862-1911). - M.:: Generation, 2007. - P. 584-629. - 720 s. - 3000 copies.
- ISBN 978-5-9763-0037-8 Gan L. Murder of Stolypin // Historical Bulletin
. - 1914. - T. 136. - P. 195-212. Stolypin. Life and death. - Saratov: Volga Book Publishing House, 1991. - P. 162.
Bogrov's ticket to the Kyiv City Theater for a performance. website rusarchives.ru. Archived from the original on August 11, 2011. Retrieved January 30, 2011.
Aron Avrekh Chapter VII. Shots fired in Kyiv. Gang of Four. website scepsis.ru. Archived from the original on August 11, 2011. Retrieved January 30, 2011.
Protocol of interrogation of Kyiv governor A.F. Girsa. website www.hrono.info (20.09.1911). Archived from the original on August 11, 2011. Retrieved January 30, 2011.
A. Serebrennikov Murder of Stolypin. Certificates and documents. - New York: Telex, 1989. - P. 280.
Janibekyan V. D. The mystery of Stolypin's death. - M.:: Borodino-E, 2001. - P. 360-361.
Kazarezov V.V. P. A. Stolypin: history and modernity. - Novosibirsk: "Reed", 1991. - P. 27.

Wikimedia Foundation.

2010. There are still many mysteries in the events of a hundred years ago, he believes.

Alexander Zvyagintsev, Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation On September 1 (14), 1911 at 22:30 at the Kiev City Theater during the performance of Rimsky-Korsakov’s opera “The Tale of Tsar Saltan” revolutionary Dmitry Bogrov mortally wounded Chairman of the Council of Ministers Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin

. The matter was complicated by the fact that Bogrov was playing a double game: at the same time he was an informant for the security department and came to the theater with a pass issued by the secret police.

Speedy execution Suspicion of police involvement in the murder was so serious that even Chairman of the Third State Duma A. I. Guchkov said: it is impossible to make out who killed the prime minister - the revolutionaries or the police. Then Prosecutor General I. G. Shcheglovatov was one of the zealous advocates of bringing to criminal liability for the negligent performance of official duties of a comrade, Minister of Internal Affairs Kurlov, Head of the Kyiv Security Department Kulyabko Vice Director of the Verigin Police Department And Chief of the Imperial Palace Guard of Nicholas II, Lieutenant Colonel Spiridovich

. In his opinion, they created a situation in which Bogrov’s attempt on the life of the Prime Minister became possible. However, they remained unpunished. The only defendant in the case, Bogrov, lived for another 11 days after the fatal shots in the theater. During the investigation, he stated that he committed the assassination attempt because he considered Stolypin “the main culprit of the reaction that occurred in Russia.” At the trial, the killer behaved correctly, the verdict was by hanging - I listened completely calmly. Petition Stolypin's widow Olga Borisovna It was not possible to postpone the execution until a thorough investigation of all the circumstances of the case. On the night of September 12, the sentence of the Kyiv military district court was carried out...

So who was behind the murder? There is still debate on this topic. And they express different versions about this.

No. 1: provocation

Bogrov was an agent of the security department and, before the assassination attempt on Stolypin, was actively engaged in provocative activities, betraying a total of 112 of his comrades in the revolutionary struggle to the autocracy. Under the threat of exposure and liquidation, in order to save his life, he was forced to kill one of the top officials of the Russian Empire - this was the condition of his fellow anarchists. Bogrov reported during the investigation: “About August 15, an anarchist came to me, told me that I had finally been recognized as an agent provocateur, and threatened to publish this and announce it to the public.” The exposed secret agent was offered, according to him, until September 5 to rehabilitate himself with a terrorist act.

Dmitry Bogrov. Source: Public Domain

#2: Negligence

Bogrov was an honest revolutionary, and the legend about him as an agent of the secret police was a vicious slander, put into circulation by the head of the Kyiv security department, Kulyabko, to justify his complete failure. The failure of the Kyiv security department cast doubt on the effectiveness of the political investigation system throughout the empire. The State Council, which conducted its own investigation at the emperor’s direction, wrote in the report: “Thus, in relation to all four accused (Kurlov, Spiridovich, Verigin and Kulyabko. - Ed.) in the present case, it should be considered established that the authorities inaction, as well as the creation of a threat to life the sovereign and his family. Bogrov had every opportunity to approach the royal box during the performance or even take a shell with him to the theater and throw it into the box when committing the murder of Stolypin, which misfortune did not happen only thanks to the attacker himself, who did not dare to commit such an attack.”

No. 3: Emperor

Nicholas II was interested in removing P. Stolypin from power. The prime minister's popularity grew so much that the personality of Pyotr Arkadyevich began to overshadow the figure of the emperor. And such an all-powerful prime minister, who also gave his sovereign ultimatums - threatened to resign if the emperor did not introduce zemstvos in the western provinces - was not needed by Nicholas II. The Tsar allegedly expressed himself in the spirit that he was surprisingly unlucky with prime ministers. Witte was more French than Russian, Stolypin was more English, and even a supporter constitutional monarchy. The crafty courtiers whispered to the emperor that Pyotr Arkadyevich complained: despite his high position in the state, he does not feel confident and secure. At any moment, the sovereign can drive him away as the last lackey. Is it the case in England... It is known that after the death of Stolypin, appointing Chairman of the Council of Ministers Kokovtsova, Nicholas II told him: “I hope you won’t obscure me the way Stolypin did?”

Nicholas II. Photo: Commons.wikimedia.org

No. 4: Rasputin

If not in the death, then in the resignation of Stolypin, many influential people from the circle of the Russian Tsar were interested. In particular, Grigory Rasputin. The Prime Minister did not like “our friend” and avoided him in every possible way. He repeatedly started a conversation with Nicholas II about the inadmissibility of having a semi-literate man with a very dubious reputation in the emperor’s inner circle. To this Nikolai answered verbatim: “I agree with you, Pyotr Arkadyevich, but let it be better to have ten Rasputins than one hysteria of the empress.” In October 1910, Stolypin ordered the police department to establish surveillance of Rasputin. However, it lasted only a few days, as it was lifted by personal decree of the king. Rasputin, for his part, predicted the prime minister's imminent death. On August 29, 1911, standing in the crowd past which Stolypin was passing, Rasputin suddenly exclaimed: “Death has come for him, here it is, here!” In this regard, rumors spread that Rasputin was somehow connected with the murder of Stolypin. The reliability of this cannot be verified. Nevertheless, it is quite obvious that the death of Stolypin was also beneficial to Rasputin.

Grigory Rasputin. Photo: