Suppression of the revolution in austro hungary. Revolution in Hungary

Austria Killed Wounded Arrested

Revolution of 1848-1849 in Hungary - a democratic revolution in the Kingdom of Hungary, which was part of the Austrian Empire, one of the European revolutions of 1848-1849. Among the tasks of the revolution was the establishment of democratic rights and freedoms, the elimination of feudal remnants, primarily in agrarian relations, as well as the achievement of Hungarian national independence. The driving force behind the revolution was the liberal middle nobility and the urban intelligentsia. During the revolution, radical transformations of the socio-political system of Hungary were carried out, independence from the Habsburgs was proclaimed and a democratic state was created. Despite the significant successes achieved by the revolutionary army in the war for independence, the revolution in the city was suppressed thanks to the actions of the Austrian army, anti-Hungarian uprisings of national minorities and the participation of Ivan Paskevich's Russian expeditionary corps at the request of the Austrian court.

Prerequisites

Socio-political situation in Hungary

National movements on the eve of the revolution

Revolution 1848-1849 years
France
:
Austria
Hungary
Czech
Croatia
Voevodina
Transylvania
Slovakia
Galicia
Slovenia
Dalmatia and Istria
Lombardy and Venice
Germany
Italian states:
Kingdom of neapolitan
Papal States
Tuscany
Piedmont and Duchies
Poland
Wallachia and Moldavia

Lajos Kossuth

Sandor Petofi

At the same time, in the 1830s. a stormy rise of the national movement began. Istvan Szechenyi came up with the idea of \u200b\u200ba broad renovation of the country, primarily in the economic sphere, and the dismantling of the feudal system. Szechenyi's speeches received a great public response and prompted many Hungarian nobles to take up political activities... Miklos Vesseleni went even further and put forward the idea of \u200b\u200beliminating absolutism and creating a constitutional monarchy in Hungary. Liberal ideas spread rapidly among the nobility, especially the middle class, and the intelligentsia. By the end of the 1830s. several currents of the national movement developed: the “new conservatives” (Aurel Dejovfi, Gyorgy Apponi, Shama Yosik and Istvan Szechenyi) advocated certain democratic reforms while strengthening centralization and preserving the domination of the aristocracy; Liberals (Lajos Battyani, Ferenc Deak, Lajos Kossuth and, in part, Josef Eötvös) demanded the complete elimination of feudal remnants, the introduction of democratic freedoms, the expansion of Hungary's autonomy and the transformation of the country into a parliamentary monarchy. Later, a more radical movement of students and part of the intelligentsia emerged, concentrating around the Young Hungary group (Sandor Petofi, Pal Vasvari and Mihai Tancic) and advocating republicanism and the need for an armed uprising.

The peculiarity of the Hungarian liberal movement was the fact that the nobility was the bearer of the ideas of democratic reforms and the driving force of the revolution. This was due to the underdevelopment of cities in Hungary, the weakness of the bourgeoisie and the historically formed role of the nobility as a defender of the rights and freedoms of the Hungarian nation against foreign rule. Another significant feature of the movement was the lack of attention to the national question: the liberals believed that democratic reforms and the assertion of the priority of personal freedom would make the corporate rights of national minorities, which they considered a relic of the feudal system, unnecessary. This belief in the conditions of the Hungarian kingdom, in which representatives of the titular nation accounted for only 38% of the population, threatened an outbreak of national conflicts. In parallel with the development of the Hungarian movement, the self-consciousness of other peoples of the country - Croats, Serbs, Slovaks, Romanians and Rusyns - was strengthened, often in conflict with the interests of the Hungarians.

Attempts at reform and their failure

At the State Assembly - Messrs. the liberals managed to achieve amnesty for political prisoners, expand the scope of the Hungarian language in the administration and approve the possibility of emancipating the peasants for ransom. In the 1840s. a whole network of societies for social protection, mutual assistance, and support for domestic industry has emerged across the country. The newspaper “ Pesty hirlap”, Published by L. Kossuth and spreading the idea of \u200b\u200bimmediate emancipation of peasants and the introduction of universal taxation. In the city of Vienna, the government handed over the reins of Hungary to the new conservatives: D. Appony was appointed vice-chancellor of the Kingdom of Hungary, and S. Yosik - Transylvania. At the same time, centralization was strengthened, the powers of administrators and föispans, representatives of the central government in the committees, were expanded. The new state assembly, which opened in the city, however, reached an impasse due to contradictions between liberals and conservatives and was unable to make decisions on reforms.

The beginning of the revolution

March reforms and national uprisings

Members of the revolutionary government of Lajos Battyani

On March 18, 1848, the Hungarian National Assembly approved a whole range of reforms. A law on urban duties was passed, which eliminated corvee, landlord court, church tithe and other feudal remnants. Serfdom was abolished, and the land was transferred to the ownership of the peasants, and redemption payments to the landowners were to be paid by the state. The implementation of this reform led to the elimination of feudalism in agrarian relations and opened the way for the transition of the Hungarian agriculture on capitalist rails. A law was also passed introducing universal taxation and depriving the nobility and clergy of tax privileges. Freedom of the press, inviolability of person and property, equality of Christian confessions, government responsibility to parliament were introduced, suffrage was expanded (to 7-9% of the population), and the state assembly was now to be convened annually. The union of Hungary and Transylvania was proclaimed.

The development of the revolution in the summer of 1848 and the September crisis

Hungarian cockade

On the basis of the national guard created in the early days of the revolution, the Hungarian government began to create its own army. This sparked a conflict with Vienna, requiring Hungarian soldiers to suppress the revolution in Italy. Battyani agreed to send part of the Hungarian army contingents to the Italian front on condition that the king pacifies Jelacic and the Serbs and pledges not to use Hungarian soldiers to suppress the freedoms of the Italian people.

War for independence

War of Independence 1848-1849 in Hungary

Jozef Bem

In December 1848, the successful actions of the revolutionary army led by the Polish immigrant Jozef Boehm led to the liberation of Transylvania from Austrian troops and the capture of Kolozhvar. However, from the west, the offensive of the main imperial army of Windischgrez began, which by the end of the year managed to advance towards Buda. On January 1, 1849, the Hungarian Parliament and Defense Committee were evacuated from Pest to Debrecen. There the work of the revolutionary organs of power resumed. Kossuth with new forces took up the organization of the country's defense and ensured the relocation military industry to the eastern regions of Hungary. In the meantime, Görgei diverted Windischgrätz's troops, leading his army north. His maneuvers in Slovakia became examples of strategic art that ensured the preservation of the Hungarian armed forces without engaging in general battles and losing vital regions of the country. At the same time, Behm's army once again expelled the Austrian and Russian troops that had invaded Transylvania.

In February 1849, the disagreement between Kossuth and Görghei intensified. The latter issued a proclamation in which he declared his loyalty to the king and adherence to the March reforms of the Hungarian government, authorized by Ferdinand V. This caused Görgey's dismissal by the Defense Committee and his replacement as commander-in-chief Heinrich Dembinsky. However, the Pole Dembinsky did not have the authority of Görgei and was not popular among the troops. -27 February his troops were defeated by the Austrians in the battle of Kapolna. Taking advantage of the successes of the Austrian army, the emperor signed on March 4 the Octorated Constitution of the Austrian Empire, introducing limited democratic freedoms and strengthening the centralization of the empire.

Concerned about the defeat of the revolutionary army, Kossuth at the beginning of March 1849 returned Görgey to the post of commander-in-chief of the Hungarian army. This served as a turning point in the war. The Hungarian troops of Jozef Bem again succeeded in expelling the Austrians from Transylvania, liberating Banat and suppressing the counter-revolutionary actions of the Serbs of Vojvodina. Meanwhile, the main forces of Görgey's army won a number of victories as part of the "spring campaign" of the Hungarian army between the Tisza and Danube rivers. Komar, Vats and Pest were taken. Buda was besieged and fell on May 21, 1849. On the wave of victories on April 14, the state assembly adopted a decree depriving the Habsburgs of the Hungarian throne and proclaiming Hungarian independence. Kossuth was declared the ruler-president of the country.

Despite the success of the revolution, Hungary lacked international recognition. All efforts of the revolutionaries to gain support from the Western powers were unsuccessful. Prussia, Great Britain and France spoke in favor of maintaining a single Austrian monarchy as a guarantor of stability in the region. Moreover, on May 9, Russian Emperor Nicholas I promised military support to Franz Joseph I.

The defeat of the revolution

Ivan Paskevich

Julius Gainau

The military defeats contributed to the rapprochement of the Hungarian revolution with the movements of national minorities. As a result of Kossuth's negotiations with Nicolae Balcescu, the leader of the Romanian national movement, an agreement was reached on measures to resolve the Hungarian-Romanian conflicts in Transylvania, and all national rights (except for territorial autonomy) were recognized for the Romanians. On July 28, the state assembly adopted the Hungarian Nationalities Law, which proclaimed the equality of all nations of the state, as well as the emancipation of the Jews. However, these measures could no longer save the situation. As a result of defeats on the fronts, the army of the Hungarian revolution was reduced to 30 thousand people, which was incomparable with the Austrian and Russian forces.

The meaning of the revolution

After the suppression of the revolution, a military dictatorship unfolded in Hungary. Battyani was executed on October 6 in Pest, and 13 generals of the Hungarian army were executed on October 13 in Arad. Over 1.5 thousand people were sentenced to long prison terms. Censorship and police supervision over dissidents were revived in the country. Self-government of Hungary was abolished, absolute power of the center was established. AT

Having received the first news of the February revolution in France, Nicholas exclaimed, addressing the officers of the Guards: “On horseback, gentlemen! There is a republic in France! " However, in reality, the tsar did not even think about intervention and a campaign against France, as in 1830. Nicholas saw only deserved retribution in the death of Louis Philippe. But, if at the first moment he had the intention to go to France, then he could not have carried it out according to the situation, since the March revolutions in Vienna, Berlin, Munich, Dresden, in all states of the German Confederation, the flight of Metternich, a complete failure the entire Metternich system, the panic fear of the revolution that paralyzed Frederick Wilhelm in Prussia and Emperor Ferdinand in Austria, their immediate readiness to surrender - all this seriously confused Nicholas's cards. The king was clearly at a loss. This can be seen from his correspondence during this period with Prince Paskevich, the only person whom he fully trusted. It was necessary to "appease the scoundrels." In the first half of 1848, Nikolai could not count on his own strength to accomplish such a task. But then a ray of hope flashed for him: Cavaignac's reprisal against the Parisian proletariat in the terrible days of June 1848 inspired the tsar and filled his hopes. Immediately through the ambassador in Paris, Kiselev, he ordered to convey to General Cavaignac the tsar's heartfelt gratitude. Nicholas understood before many other representatives of the reaction that not only the French, but also the pan-European revolution had been broken on the Parisian barricades, and that the danger had passed. From that time, and especially from the late autumn of 1848, Nikolai's intervention in both Austrian and Prussian affairs was resumed. He scolds his brother-in-law Friedrich-Wilhelm IV for the eyes and irritably "advises" him in the eyes to quickly eliminate the traces of cowardice, that is, the constitution plucked from the king by the Prussian revolution in March 1848. In softer tones, he gives the same advice 18- to the summer Franz Joseph, who came to the Austrian throne on December 2, 1848 after the abdication of his uncle, Emperor Ferdinand. Franz Joseph, helpless without the support of Nicholas, listened to the Tsar's advice with slavish obedience. And Nikolai was extremely pleased with both this obedience and the fact that the actual dictator of Austria, the true successor of Metternich, was Prince Felix Schwarzenberg, in whom Nikolai for a long time saw only something like his governor-general, who was planted in Vienna to carry out St. Petersburg's "advice". Nikolai was wrong in both Schwarzenberg and Franz Josef. Schwarzenberg captivated him by the fact that, at his insistence, the delegate of the Frankfurt parliament, Robert Blum, who was captured in Vienna, was shot. But Nikolai did not consider Schwarzenberg a diplomat who would do everything in his power to prevent the tsar in all his eastern plans, as soon as he finally got rid of the fear of revolution. The tsar did not see in Franz Joseph a very independent, proud and persistent young man who obeys only because he is afraid of the revolution, but in the future will not give up the fight against Nicholas in the East.

During this period, the king twice, in 1849 and in 1850, intervened in. affairs of Central Europe - and both times in favor of Austria. As a result of this intervention, Austria won a decisive victory on two of its most important fronts.

Suppression of the Hungarian uprising

Nicholas' first intervention was both diplomatic and military: it happened in 1849 in connection with the Hungarian uprising.

The second intervention was purely diplomatic; it was aimed at eliminating attempts to unify Germany.

The tsar's intervention in the suppression of the Hungarian uprising was primarily due to fears for peace in Poland, if Hungary became a strong independent state. Further, the existence of a state ruled by the revolutionary Kossuth was also considered a threat to the influence of Tsarist Russia on Balkan Peninsula... Finally, the victory of all-European reaction would be incomplete if revolutionary Hungary had triumphed.

Nicholas decided to speak only at the very end of the spring of 1849, just when the Austrian generals suffered a series of shameful defeats. Paskevich, the governor of the Kingdom of Poland, took over the supreme leadership of this intervention. The Austrian Empire, after the pacification of Hungary, could consider itself saved. But among all the subjects of Franz Joseph there were no more fierce enemies of Russia than the Hungarians. From that moment on, the Habsburg Power stood firmly on its feet; her "political recovery", as the reactionary press wrote, she soon used against Russia. Nicholas realized this rather late - only in 1854 - when the hostile position of Austria began to appear quite clearly. Talking to the adjutant general, Count Rzhevsky, a Polish native, Nikolai asked him: “Which of the Polish kings, in your opinion, was the stupidest? .. I'll tell you,” he continued, “which is the stupidest polish king was Jan Sobieski, because he liberated Vienna from the Turks. And the stupidest of the Russian sovereigns is me, because I helped the Austrians suppress the Hungarian rebellion. " Nikolai realized his political mistake only when nothing could be corrected.

The second intervention of Nicholas in European affairs followed in 1850. It was also caused not only by the persistent requests of Franz Joseph and Prince Schwarzenberg, but also by certain goals of the tsar himself.

Intervention of Nicholas I in Austro-Prussian relations

After the dissolution, in 1849, of the Frankfurt Parliament, which set itself the goal of uniting Germany, the dream of this unification around Prussia did not leave broad strata of the German bourgeoisie. Nicholas I never wanted to allow this unification. Largely under the influence of his formidable Petersburg brother-in-law - Nicholas I - Friedrich Wilhelm IV and refused to accept the German imperial crown from the "revolutionary gathering", as he was ordered from Petersburg to call the Frankfurt parliament. But under the influence of a common desire for unification, even the reactionary Prussian ministry of the Count of Brandenburg made in 1849-1850. some steps towards reorganizing the impotent German Confederation. Then Nicholas I in the strongest possible way supported the Austrian Chancellor Schwarzenberg, who announced that Austria would not tolerate the strengthening of Prussia.

Nicholas was not only opposed to the creation of the German Empire in 1849 because the initiative of unification was taken over by the "revolutionary" Frankfurt parliament: he also did not want an excessive strengthening of Prussia. On this issue, he completely agreed with Austrian diplomacy.

Further, Nikolai began to agitate in favor of keeping Holstein in Denmark. On August 2, 1850, representatives of Russia, France, England and Austria signed an agreement in London, which secured the possession of Holstein to Denmark. This was the first heavy blow dealt to Prussia. Schwarzenberg was triumphant. Public excitement grew in Prussia. Returning from Warsaw, Count of Brandenburg died suddenly; legend attributed his death to the insulting treatment by the tsar and the excitement of the Prussian prime minister in connection with the national humiliation of Prussia. Schwarzenberg, confident in the support of Nicholas, threatened Prussia with war.

In November 1850, a new conflict broke out between Austria and Prussia over Hesse. After the intervention of Nicholas, in the city of Olmutz on November 29, an agreement was signed between Prussia and Austria, and Prussia had to completely reconcile. This "Olmütz humiliation" will forever be remembered throughout Germany as the work of Nikolai.

The Tsar triumphed on all fronts of the diplomatic struggle. Speaking subsequently about these years (until 1853), the British minister Clarendon said in one of his parliamentary speech that at that time, by all accounts, Russia possessed not only "an overwhelming military force”, But also diplomacy, distinguished by“ incomparable dexterity ”. The power of Nicholas after the Hungarian campaign and after Olmutz seemed invincible. “When I was young, Napoleon ruled over the continent of Europe. Now it looks like the Russian emperor has taken Napoleon's place, and that, at least for several years, he, with different intentions and other means, will dictate laws to the continent. " So wrote in 1851 a very knowledgeable observer, Baron Stockmar, a friend of Prince Albert and Queen Victoria of England.

These comparisons between Nicholas and Napoleon became common in those years when it came to Russia's influence on European affairs. In 1849 - 1852 opinion about the almost complete omnipotence of Nicholas in Central Europe was pretty close to the truth. As for England and France, the situation here was more complicated. A thunderstorm approached Nicholas from here.

March 15th the public holiday of Hungary is celebrated - the day of the beginning of the revolution of 1848-49.

It was on this day that the youth and city intelligentsia, under the influence of the “Twelve Points” program of J. Irini and “National Song” of S. Petofi, raised an uprising in Pest.
Power passed into the hands of the Committee of Public Safety, formed from representatives of various democratic circles and clubs, which abolished censorship and announced the creation of the National Guard.

18th of March the Battyani government passed a law abolishing corvée and transferring land to peasants.

In August the emperor canceled the laws passed by the Hungarian parliament and government. A crisis broke out that turned into a war.

In September 1848 at the call of the Committee for the Defense of the Motherland, headed by L. Koshut, a revolutionary national army, which inflicted a number of defeats on the Austrian and Croatian troops.

Spring 1849 year a revolutionary army liberated most of Hungary and all of Transylvania.

April 14, 1849 in Debrecen, the Hungarian parliament proclaimed the complete independence of Hungary from the Habsburgs and announced their dethroning from the Hungarian throne. Kossuth was elected supreme ruler Hungary.
However, the conservative elements of the nobility and aristocracy, seeking an agreement with the Habsburgs, sabotaged the efforts of Kossuth and the radical wing aimed at strengthening the country's defenses. This allowed the Austrian reaction to get a respite, save their forces from the final defeat and turn to Tsarist Russia for help. The Austrian envoy publicly, on his knees, kissed the hand of Field Marshal Paskevich, begging him to save the power of the Habsburgs. Assistance, at the direction of Nicholas I, was provided, and the 140,000th army of Paskevich invaded Hungary.

August 13, 1849 Görgey, commander of the largest remnants of the Hungarian army, in view of the senselessness of the inevitable bloodshed, capitulated at the Vilagos fortress to the Russian troops. The fate of the participants in the revolution was tragic. The first Prime Minister Battyani was shot, he was followed and not allowed to commit suicide before execution.

In total, the Austrians shot and hanged 13 generals and 400 soldiers. 1,500 active activists were sentenced to long terms.
Petofi Sandor, who fought in the army of General Bem, died in one of the last battles in a skirmish with the Cossacks. His grave has not been found, although according to one of the legends, it is located on the shore of Lake Baikal.
But the blood of the revolutionaries was not shed in vain, and over the following years, most of the insurgents' demands came true.

AND in 1867 the two-sided Austro-Hungarian Empire was formed, where Hungary was equalized in rights with Austria.

In 1941, on the eve of the Great Patriotic WarThe Soviet government returned to Hungary the revolutionary banners captured by Paskevich's Russian army in 1849.

Nicholas I, in spite of all police measures, did not manage to stifle the growing revolutionary protest inside the country.
Fearing the influence of the Western revolution on Russia, Nicholas I acted in the role of the strangler of the revolution, in the role of the gendarme of Europe. The revolution, which began in February 1848 in France, spread in March of that year to Germany and Austria. In June 1848 the first uprising of the proletariat was suppressed by the French bourgeoisie in Paris. After that, reaction in Prussia also intensified, the uprising in Vienna was strangled. Hungary became the center of the revolution in Europe, where in 1849 the revolution reached its highest development.
Having learned about the beginning of the revolutionary events in Europe, Nicholas I on February 24, 1848 gave the order for mobilization to the Minister of War Chernyshev. Preparing for a campaign in Europe to suppress the revolution, Nicholas I issued a manifesto on March 14, 1848, in which he argued that the revolution in the West allegedly threatened the integrity of Russia. At the same time, he took all measures to ensure that information about the European revolution did not penetrate into Russia.
But no matter how the tsarist government tried to hide the revolutionary events in Europe from the masses, rumors about them penetrated into Russia through all obstacles.
The reports of gendarme officials from all western provinces, from Ukraine, Belarus and especially from areas bordering on Prussia and Austria, indicate that the peasants in these areas not only talked about events in the West, but also expressed dissatisfaction with serfdom, and also stockpiled weapons. The situation has worsened not only in the border provinces, but also in the central provinces, in the most important cities of Russia: in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev, etc.
In the spring of 1848, unrest over a cholera epidemic broke out in the country. The situation in Petersburg was so tense that the nobility and the bureaucratic leaders of Petersburg fell into a panic when they heard the rumor that the guards would leave Petersburg. This panic subsided only when it became clear that a battalion from each regiment of the guards and grenadier corps had been left in Petersburg. So, the tsar, his government and reactionary noble circles hated the revolution of 1848.
The tsar and the reactionary feudal nobility received support in this respect among the liberal nobility and liberal-bourgeois elements - in the person of the Westernizers and Slavophiles.
The revolution of 1848 showed the true face of the Westernizers and Slavophiles. As we saw earlier, the Westernizers - Chicherin, Botkin, Annenkov and others, who at first welcomed the revolution of 1848, after the June action of the proletariat resolutely abandoned it and condemned it very sharply. The Slavophils held the same reactionary positions.
But the revolutionary democrats reacted very differently to the revolution of 1848. In the person of Belinsky, Herzen, Ogarev, they greeted her. Young Chernyshevsky has entries in his diary, from which it is clear with what approval he treated the revolutionary events of 1848 in the West. Petrashevites also greeted them. Chaadaev wrote an appeal in connection with the revolution, which was later found in a manuscript, in one of the books in his library. Thus, there is no doubt that the events of 1848 influenced in a revolutionary way the views of the best progressive people in Russia and the masses. Nicholas I took all measures to suppress this. To ensure "order" in Russia, Nicholas I flooded Poland, the Baltic states and the Right-Bank Ukraine with troops, pulling up to 400 thousand soldiers there. In June 1848, the tsarist troops occupied Moldavia and Wallachia, where revolutionary fermentation also took place. In Moldova and Wallachia (Romania), the people expelled the rulers and elected a provisional government that proclaimed the independence of Moldova and Wallachia, equality of citizens in taxation, and the establishment of freedom of the press. After the occupation of Moldavia and Wallachia by the tsarist troops, all revolutionary transformations were canceled and the old order was restored there. The Turkish sultan also took part in the suppression of the revolution in Moldavia and Wallachia. In 1849, the Balto-Liman Convention was concluded between Russia and Turkey, which set the goal of both states to prevent revolutionary coups in Moldova and Wallachia. According to the Balto-Liman Convention in Moldavia and Wallachia, the election of rulers and legislative divans (councils) was eliminated; Russian and Turkish commissars were planted to rule. Having put the troops on alert and suppressed the revolutionary ferment in Moldavia and Wallachia, Nicholas I expected to have an official reason to send the army to suppress the revolution in Hungary. Soon the Austrian emperor officially turned to Nicholas I for help. In May 1849, a convention was signed stating that the tsarist troops should be maintained at the expense of Austria and that their actions should be independent. In July 1849, about 150 thousand Russian troops under the command of Paskevich moved to Hungary; large military forces were also deployed to Transylvania.
The army sent to Hungary was to act together with the 100,000-strong Austrian army against the revolutionary Hungarian army. The number of revolutionary Hungarian troops was about 200 thousand people.
Soon the tsarist troops occupied the center of the movement - the city of Debrecen, but the Hungarian army was not defeated.
The surrender of the revolutionary Hungarian troops was prepared by the treason of the commander-in-chief of the Hungarian army, Gergey. He issued an order for the army, in which he openly called for an end to the struggle, which led to the defeat of the Hungarian revolution. Marx wrote that Gergey's party "... broke the resistance to the Hungarian revolution." Tsarism fulfilled its gendarme role and extinguished the center of the revolution in Europe.
The suppression of the revolution in Hungary was also supported by the British bourgeois government. Lord Palmerston said, "Get it over with soon."
During the actions of the tsarist troops in Hungary, both among the soldiers and among the officers of the Russian army, there were cases of sympathy for the rebels and going over to the side of the revolutionary troops.
So, Captain Gusev created a secret military group, which discussed measures to help the revolutionary Hungarian army. Seven members of this group, led by Gusev, were executed, while others were exiled to Siberia. There have been cases of group transition to the side of the revolutionary troops and participation in battles with them. In Bem's army, according to Vasiliev, captured by Russian troops, 60 people fought on the side of the rebels. At Debrecen, 13 soldiers went over to the side of the revolution, there were cases of going over to the side of the revolutionary troops and individual officers (Rembovsky, Rumkovsky, etc.). While the Russian troops were in Hungary, separate appeals were written calling on the soldiers to go over to the side of the revolution. Thus, although a mass protest against the gendarme policy of Nicholas I in Europe did not appear in the Russian army at that time, the most progressive representatives of the officers and soldiers of the Russian army, following the revolutionary democrats, sharply condemned it and went over to the camp of the revolution.
After the suppression of the 1848 revolution, Nicholas I began to spend domestic policy an even more reactionary course. He created in April 1848 a secret censorship committee chaired by Buturlin, which carried out the strictest censorship in the country, and also intensified the repression of the revolutionary movement.
The suppression of the revolution in Europe freed the hands of the governments of the main European countries. In this regard, the contradictions between them once again intensified, especially in the Balkans and the Middle East, which soon led to the Crimean War.