Not a single Russian tsar has created as many myths as about the last, Nicholas II. What really happened? Was the sovereign a sluggish and weak-willed person? Was he cruel? Could he have won World War I? And how much truth is in the black fabrications about this ruler?..

The candidate of historical sciences Gleb Eliseev tells.

Black legend about Nicholas II

Since canonization last emperor Many years have passed and his family, but you still encounter an amazing paradox - many, even completely Orthodox, people dispute the justice of reckoning Tsar Nikolai Alexandrovich to the canon of saints.

No one raises any protests or doubts about the legitimacy of the canonization of the son and daughters of the last Russian emperor. Nor did I hear any objections to the canonization of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. Even at the Council of Bishops in 2000, when it came to the canonization of the Royal Martyrs, a special opinion was expressed only with regard to the sovereign himself. One of the bishops said that the emperor did not deserve to be glorified, because "he is a traitor ... he, one might say, sanctioned the collapse of the country."

And it is clear that in such a situation, spears are broken not at all about the martyrdom or the Christian life of Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich. Neither one nor the other raises doubts even among the most rabid denier of the monarchy. His feat as a martyr is beyond doubt.

The thing is different - in the latent, subconscious resentment: “Why did the sovereign admit that a revolution had taken place? Why didn't you save Russia? Or, as A. I. Solzhenitsyn pointedly put it in his article “Reflections on the February Revolution”: “Weak tsar, he betrayed us. All of us - for everything that follows.

The myth of a weak king who allegedly surrendered his kingdom voluntarily obscures his martyrdom and obscures the demonic cruelty of his tormentors. But what could the sovereign do under the circumstances, when Russian society, like a herd of Gadarene pigs, had been rushing into the abyss for decades?

Studying the history of Nicholas reign, one is amazed not by the weakness of the sovereign, not by his mistakes, but by how much he managed to do in an atmosphere of fanned hatred, malice and slander.

We must not forget that the sovereign received autocratic power over Russia quite unexpectedly, after the sudden, unforeseen and unimagined death of Alexander III. Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich recalled the state of the heir to the throne immediately after the death of his father: “He could not collect his thoughts. He realized that he had become the Emperor, and this terrible burden of power crushed him. “Sandro, what am I going to do! he exclaimed pathetically. - What will happen to Russia now? I'm not ready to be King yet! I can't run the Empire. I don’t even know how to talk to ministers.”

However, after a brief period of confusion new emperor took a firm grip on the steering wheel government controlled and kept him for twenty-two years, until he fell victim to an apex conspiracy. Until “treason, and cowardice, and deception” swirled around him in a dense cloud, as he himself noted in his diary on March 2, 1917.

Black mythology directed against last sovereign, were actively dispelled by both émigré historians and modern Russian ones. And yet, in the minds of many, including those who are completely churched, our fellow citizens stubbornly settled down vicious stories, gossip and anecdotes that were presented in Soviet history textbooks as the truth.

The myth about the wine of Nicholas II in the Khodynka tragedy

Any list of accusations is tacitly customary to begin with Khodynka - a terrible stampede that occurred during the coronation celebrations in Moscow on May 18, 1896. You might think that the sovereign ordered to organize this stampede! And if anyone is to be blamed for what happened, then the uncle of the emperor, the Moscow Governor-General Sergei Alexandrovich, who did not foresee the very possibility of such an influx of the public. At the same time, it should be noted that they did not hide what happened, all the newspapers wrote about Khodynka, all of Russia knew about her. The Russian emperor and empress the next day visited all the wounded in hospitals and defended a memorial service for the dead. Nicholas II ordered to pay pensions to the victims. And they received it until 1917, until the politicians, who had been speculating on the Khodynka tragedy for years, made it so that any pensions in Russia ceased to be paid at all.

And the slander, repeated over the years, that the tsar, despite Khodynka tragedy went to the ball and had fun there. The sovereign was indeed forced to go to an official reception at the French embassy, ​​which he could not help attending for diplomatic reasons (an insult to the allies!), He paid his respects to the ambassador and left, having been there only 15 (!) minutes. And from this they created the myth of a heartless despot having fun while his subjects die. From here the absurd nickname “Bloody” created by the radicals and picked up by the educated public crawled.

The myth of the monarch's fault for unleashing Russo-Japanese War

They say that the sovereign dragged Russia into the Russo-Japanese war, because the autocracy needed a "small victorious war."

Unlike the "educated" Russian society, confident in the inevitable victory and contemptuously calling the Japanese "macaques", the emperor knew perfectly well all the difficulties of the situation on Far East and tried with all his might to prevent war. And do not forget - it was Japan that attacked Russia in 1904. Treacherously, without declaring war, the Japanese attacked our ships in Port Arthur.

Kuropatkin, Rozhestvensky, Stessel, Linevich, Nebogatov, and any of the generals and admirals, but not the sovereign, who was thousands of miles from the theater of operations and nevertheless did everything for victory. For example, the fact that by the end of the war 20, and not 4 military echelons per day (as at the beginning) went along the unfinished Trans-Siberian Railway - the merit of Nicholas II himself.

And on the Japanese side, our revolutionary society “fought”, which needed not victory, but defeat, which its representatives themselves honestly admitted. For example, representatives of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party clearly wrote in an appeal to Russian officers: “Every victory of yours threatens Russia with a disaster of strengthening order, every defeat brings the hour of deliverance closer. Is it any wonder if the Russians rejoice at the success of your adversary? Revolutionaries and liberals diligently fanned the turmoil in the rear of the warring country, doing this, including with Japanese money. This is now well known.

The myth of Bloody Sunday

For decades, the tsar’s duty accusation was “ Bloody Sunday"- the shooting of an allegedly peaceful demonstration on January 9, 1905. Why, they say, did he not leave the Winter Palace and fraternize with the people devoted to him?

Let's start with the simplest fact - the sovereign was not in Zimny, he was in his country residence, in Tsarskoye Selo. He was not going to come to the city, since both the mayor I. A. Fullon and the police authorities assured the emperor that they had "everything under control." By the way, they did not deceive Nicholas II too much. In a normal situation, the troops brought out into the street would have been sufficient to prevent riots. No one foresaw the scale of the demonstration on January 9, as well as the activities of provocateurs. When Socialist-Revolutionary fighters began to shoot at the soldiers from the crowd of allegedly “peaceful demonstrators”, it was not difficult to foresee response actions. From the very beginning, the organizers of the demonstration planned a clash with the authorities, and not a peaceful procession. They did not need political reforms, they needed "great upheavals".

But what about the emperor himself? During the entire revolution of 1905–1907, he sought to find contact with Russian society, went for specific and sometimes even overly bold reforms (like the provision by which the first State Dumas were elected). And what did he get in return? Spitting and hatred, calls "Down with the autocracy!" and encouraging bloody riots.

However, the revolution was not "crushed". The rebellious society was pacified by the sovereign, who skillfully combined the use of force and new, more thoughtful reforms (the electoral law of June 3, 1907, according to which Russia finally received a normally functioning parliament).

The myth of how the tsar "surrendered" Stolypin

They reproach the sovereign for allegedly insufficient support " Stolypin's reforms". But who made Pyotr Arkadyevich prime minister, if not Nicholas II himself? Contrary, by the way, to the opinion of the court and the immediate environment. And, if there were moments of misunderstanding between the sovereign and the head of the cabinet, then they are inevitable in any hard and difficult work. The supposedly planned resignation of Stolypin did not mean a rejection of his reforms.

The myth of Rasputin's omnipotence

Tales about the last sovereign cannot do without constant stories about the “dirty peasant” Rasputin, who enslaved the “weak-willed

king." Now, after many objective investigations of the “Rasputin legend”, among which A. N. Bokhanov’s “The Truth about Grigory Rasputin” stands out as fundamental, it is clear that the influence of the Siberian elder on the emperor was negligible. And the fact that the sovereign "did not remove Rasputin from the throne"? How could he remove it? From the bed of a sick son, whom Rasputin saved, when all the doctors had already abandoned Tsarevich Alexei Nikolayevich? Let everyone think for himself: is he ready to sacrifice the life of a child for the sake of stopping public gossip and hysterical newspaper chatter?

The myth of the fault of the sovereign in the "wrong conduct" of the First World War

Emperor Nicholas II is also reproached for not preparing Russia for the First World War. The public figure I. L. Solonevich most clearly wrote about the sovereign’s efforts to prepare the Russian army for a possible war and about the sabotage of his efforts by the “educated society”: we are democrats and we do not want the military. Nicholas II arming the army by violating the spirit of the Fundamental Laws: in accordance with Article 86. This article provides for the government's right to exceptional cases and during parliamentary recesses, to pass provisional laws without parliament, so that they would be introduced retroactively at the first parliamentary session. The Duma was dissolved (holidays), loans for machine guns went through even without the Duma. And when the session began, nothing could be done.”

And again, unlike ministers or military leaders (like Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich), the sovereign did not want war, he tried to delay it with all his might, knowing about the insufficient preparedness of the Russian army. For example, he directly spoke about this to the Russian ambassador to Bulgaria, Neklyudov: “Now, Neklyudov, listen to me carefully. Never for a moment forget the fact that we cannot fight. I don't want war. I have made it my absolute rule to do everything to preserve for my people all the advantages of a peaceful life. In that historic moment anything that could lead to war must be avoided. There is no doubt that we cannot go to war - at least not for the next five or six years - before 1917. Although, if the vital interests and honor of Russia are at stake, we can, if it is absolutely necessary, accept the challenge, but not before 1915. But remember - not one minute earlier, no matter what the circumstances or reasons are, and no matter what position we are in.

Of course, much in the First World War did not go as planned by its participants. But why should the sovereign be blamed for these troubles and surprises, who at the beginning of it was not even the commander-in-chief? Could he personally prevent the "Samsonian catastrophe"? Or the breakthrough of the German cruisers "Goeben" and "Breslau" into the Black Sea, after which the plans for coordinating the actions of the allies in the Entente went to waste?

When the will of the emperor could improve the situation, the sovereign did not hesitate, despite the objections of ministers and advisers. In 1915, the threat of such a complete defeat hung over the Russian army that its Commander-in-Chief - Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich - in the truest sense of the word, sobbed from despair. It was then that Nicholas II took the most decisive step - not only stood at the head of the Russian army, but also stopped the retreat, which threatened to turn into a stampede.

The sovereign did not consider himself a great commander, he knew how to listen to the opinion of military advisers and choose the best solutions for the Russian troops. According to his instructions, the work of the rear was established, according to his instructions, a new and even latest technology(like Sikorsky bombers or Fedorov assault rifles). And if in 1914 the Russian military industry produced 104,900 shells, then in 1916 - 30,974,678! So much military equipment was prepared that it was enough for five years of the Civil War, and for the armament of the Red Army in the first half of the twenties.

In 1917, Russia, under the military leadership of its emperor, was ready for victory. Many wrote about this, even W. Churchill, who was always skeptical and cautious about Russia: “Fate has not been so cruel to any country as to Russia. Her ship sank when the harbor was in sight. She had already weathered the storm when everything collapsed. All the sacrifices have already been made, all the work is done. Despair and treason seized power when the task was already completed. The long retreats are over; shell hunger is defeated; weapons flowed in a wide stream; a stronger, more numerous, better equipped army guarded a vast front; rear assembly points were crowded with people... In the government of states, when great events are taking place, the leader of the nation, whoever he may be, is condemned for failures and glorified for successes. It's not about who did the work, who drew up the plan of struggle; censure or praise for the outcome prevails on him on whom the authority of supreme responsibility. Why deny Nicholas II this ordeal?.. His efforts are downplayed; His actions are condemned; His memory is being denigrated... Stop and say: who else turned out to be suitable? There was no shortage of talented and courageous people, ambitious and proud in spirit, brave and powerful people. But no one was able to answer those few simple questions on which the life and glory of Russia depended. Holding the victory already in her hands, she fell to the ground alive, like Herod of old, devoured by worms.

At the beginning of 1917, the sovereign really failed to cope with the combined conspiracy of the top of the military and the leaders of the opposition political forces.

And who could? It was beyond human strength.

The myth of renunciation

And yet, the main thing that even many monarchists accuse Nicholas II of is precisely renunciation, “moral desertion”, “flight from office”. In the fact that, according to the poet A. A. Blok, he "renounced, as if he had surrendered the squadron."

Now, again, after the meticulous work of modern researchers, it becomes clear that the sovereign did not abdicate the throne. Instead, a real coup d'état took place. Or, as the historian and publicist M. V. Nazarov aptly noted, it was not a “renunciation”, but a “rejection” that took place.

Even in the most remote Soviet times, they did not deny that the events of February 23 - March 2, 1917 at the tsarist Headquarters and at the headquarters of the commander of the Northern Front were an apex coup, “fortunately”, coinciding with the beginning of the “February bourgeois revolution”, started (of course same!) by the forces of the St. Petersburg proletariat.

With the riots fanned by the Bolshevik underground in St. Petersburg, everything is now clear. The conspirators only took advantage of this circumstance, inflating its significance unreasonably, in order to lure the sovereign out of the Headquarters, depriving him of contact with any loyal units and the government. And when the royal train with great difficulty reached Pskov, where the headquarters of General N.V. Ruzsky, the commander of the Northern Front and one of the active conspirators, was located, the emperor was completely blocked and deprived of communication with the outside world.

In fact, General Ruzsky arrested the royal train and the emperor himself. And the cruelty began psychological pressure on the sovereign. Nicholas II was begged to give up power, which he never aspired to. Moreover, not only the Duma deputies Guchkov and Shulgin did this, but also the commanders of all (!) Fronts and almost all fleets (with the exception of Admiral A. V. Kolchak). The emperor was told that his decisive step would be able to prevent confusion, bloodshed, that this would immediately stop the Petersburg unrest ...

Now we know very well that the sovereign was basely deceived. What could he think then? At the forgotten Dno station or on the sidings in Pskov, cut off from the rest of Russia? Didn't he consider that it is better for a Christian to humbly yield to royal power than to shed the blood of his subjects?

But even under pressure from the conspirators, the emperor did not dare to go against the law and conscience. The manifesto he compiled clearly did not suit the envoys of the State Duma, and as a result, a fake was concocted, in which even the signature of the sovereign, as A. B. Razumov proved in the article "Signature of the Emperor: Several Remarks on the Manifesto on the Abdication of Nicholas II" by A. B. Razumov, was copied from the order on the assumption by Nicholas II of the supreme command in 1915. The signature of the Minister of the Court, Count V. B. Fredericks, was also forged, allegedly confirming the abdication. Which, by the way, the count himself clearly spoke about later, during interrogation: “But for me to write such a thing, I can swear that I would not do it.”

And already in St. Petersburg, the deceived and confused Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich did what he had no right to do in principle - he transferred power to the Provisional Government. As AI Solzhenitsyn noted: “The end of the monarchy was the abdication of Mikhail. He is worse than abdicated: he blocked the way for all other possible heirs to the throne, he transferred power to an amorphous oligarchy. It was his abdication that turned the change of monarch into a revolution."

Usually, after statements about the illegal overthrow of the sovereign from the throne, both in scientific discussions and on the Web, shouts immediately begin: “Why didn’t Tsar Nicholas protest later? Why didn't he denounce the conspirators? Why didn’t he raise loyal troops and lead them against the rebels?

That is - why did not start a civil war?

Yes, because the sovereign did not want her. Because he hoped that by his departure he would calm down a new turmoil, believing that the whole point was the possible hostility of society towards him personally. After all, he, too, could not help but succumb to the hypnosis of anti-state, anti-monarchist hatred that Russia had been subjected to for years. As A. I. Solzhenitsyn rightly wrote about the “liberal-radical Field” that engulfed the empire: “For many years (decades) this Field flowed unhindered, its lines of force thickened - and pierced, and subjugated all the brains in the country, at least somewhat touched enlightenment, even the beginnings of it. It almost completely owned the intelligentsia. More rare but permeated it lines of force and state officials, and the military, and even the priesthood, the episcopate (the whole Church as a whole is already ... powerless against this Field), - and even those who most fought against the Field: the most right-wing circles and the throne itself.

And did these troops loyal to the emperor really exist? After all, even the Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich on March 1, 1917 (that is, before the formal abdication of the sovereign) transferred the subordinate to him Guards crew into the jurisdiction of the Duma conspirators and appealed to other military units"join the new government"!

The attempt of Sovereign Nikolai Alexandrovich to prevent bloodshed with the help of renunciation of power, with the help of voluntary self-sacrifice, stumbled upon the evil will of tens of thousands of those who did not want the pacification and victory of Russia, but blood, madness and the creation of a "paradise on earth" for the "new man", free from faith and conscience.

And for such “guardians of humanity”, even a defeated Christian sovereign was like a sharp knife in the throat. It was unbearable, impossible.

They couldn't help but kill him.

The myth of how the king was shot so as not to give it to the “whites”

Since the removal of Nicholas II from power, all his further fate becomes crystal clear - this is really the fate of a martyr, around whom lies, anger and hatred accumulate.

The more or less vegetarian, toothless early Provisional Government limited itself to the arrest of the emperor and his family; the socialist clique of Kerensky succeeded in exiling the sovereign, his wife and children to Tobolsk. And for whole months, until the very Bolshevik coup, one can see how the worthy, purely Christian behavior of the emperor in exile and the malicious fuss of politicians contrast with each other. new Russia”, who sought “to begin with” to bring the sovereign into “political non-existence”.

And then an openly God-fighting Bolshevik gang came to power, which decided to turn this non-existence from “political” into “physical”. Indeed, back in April 1917, Lenin declared: “We consider Wilhelm II to be the same crowned robber, worthy of execution, like Nicholas II.”

Only one thing is not clear - why did they hesitate? Why didn't they try to destroy Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich immediately after the October Revolution?

Probably because they were afraid of popular indignation, they were afraid of a public reaction under their still fragile power. Apparently, the unpredictable behavior of the “abroad” was also frightening. In any case, the British Ambassador D. Buchanan warned the Provisional Government: "Any insult inflicted on the Emperor and His Family will destroy the sympathy caused by March and the course of the revolution, and will humiliate the new government in the eyes of the world." True, in the end it turned out that these were only “words, words, nothing but words.”

And yet there is a feeling that, in addition to rational motives, there was some inexplicable, almost mystical fear of what the fanatics planned to commit.

Indeed, for some reason, years after the Yekaterinburg murder, rumors spread that only one sovereign was shot. Then they announced (even at a completely official level) that the killers of the king were severely condemned for abuse of power. And even later, almost the entire Soviet period, the version of the “arbitrariness of the Yekaterinburg Soviet”, allegedly frightened by the white units approaching the city, was officially adopted. They say that the sovereign was not released and did not become the "banner of the counter-revolution", and he had to be destroyed. Although shot imperial family and their entourage on July 17, 1918, and the first White troops entered Yekaterinburg only on July 25 ...

The fog of fornication hid the secret, and the essence of the secret was a planned and clearly conceived savage murder.

Its exact details and background have not yet been clarified, the testimony of eyewitnesses is amazingly confused, and even the discovered remains of the Royal Martyrs still raise doubts about their authenticity.

Now only a few unambiguous facts are clear.

On April 30, 1918, Sovereign Nikolai Alexandrovich, his wife Empress Alexandra Feodorovna and their daughter Maria were taken under escort from Tobolsk, where they had been in exile since August 1917, to Yekaterinburg. They were placed under guard in the former house of engineer N. N. Ipatiev, located on the corner of Voznesensky Prospekt. The remaining children of the emperor and empress - daughters Olga, Tatyana, Anastasia and son Alexei were reunited with their parents only on May 23.

Judging by indirect data, in early July 1918, the top leadership of the Bolshevik Party (primarily Lenin and Sverdlov) decided to "liquidate the royal family." At midnight on July 17, 1918, the emperor, his wife, children and servants were awakened, taken to the basement and brutally murdered. Here in the fact that they were killed brutally and cruelly, in an amazing way, all the testimonies of eyewitnesses, which differ so much in the rest, coincide.

The bodies were secretly taken outside Yekaterinburg and somehow tried to destroy them. Everything that remained after the desecration of the bodies was buried just as discreetly.

The brutal, extrajudicial murder was one of the first in a series of countless executions that soon fell upon the Russian people, and Tsar Nikolai Alexandrovich and his family were only the first in the host of numerous new martyrs who sealed their loyalty to Orthodoxy with their blood.

Yekaterinburg victims had a presentiment of their fate, and not without reason Grand Duchess Tatyana Nikolaevna, while imprisoned in Yekaterinburg, crossed out the lines in one of the books: “Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ went to their death, as if on a holiday, facing inevitable death, retaining the same wondrous peace of mind that did not leave them for a minute. They walked calmly towards death because they hoped to enter into a different, spiritual life, opening up for a person beyond the grave.

P.S. Sometimes they notice that "here, de Tsar Nicholas II atoned for all his sins before Russia with his death." In my opinion, this statement manifests some kind of blasphemous, immoral trick. public consciousness. All the victims of the Yekaterinburg Golgotha ​​were "guilty" only of stubborn confession of the faith of Christ until their very death and fell a martyr's death.

And the first of them was the sovereign-passion-bearer Nikolai Alexandrovich.

It was Nicholas II who, in 1899, was the first in world history to call on the rulers of states to disarmament and world peace.

Recall that it was Tsar Nicholas II in The Hague in 1899 who was the first in world history to call on the rulers of states for disarmament and world peace - he saw that Western Europe was ready to explode like a powder keg. He was a moral and spiritual leader, the only ruler in the world at that time who did not have narrow, nationalistic interests. On the contrary, being the anointed of God, he had in his heart the universal task of all Orthodox Christianity - to bring to Christ all mankind created by God. Otherwise, why did he make such sacrifices for the sake of Serbia? He was a man of unusually strong will, as noted, for example, the French President Emile Loubet. All the forces of hell rallied to destroy the king. They wouldn't do it if the king was weak.

- You say that Nicholas II - deep Orthodox person. But there is very little Russian blood in him, isn't there?

Excuse me, but this statement contains a nationalistic assumption that one must necessarily be of “Russian blood” in order to be considered Orthodox, to belong to universal Christianity. I think that the tsar was one in 128 Russians by blood. And what? The sister of Nicholas II answered this question perfectly over fifty years ago. In a 1960 interview with Greek journalist Jan Vorres, Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna (1882-1960) said: “Did the British call King George VI a German? There was not a drop of English blood in him ... Blood is not the main thing. The main thing is the country in which you grew up, the faith in which you were brought up, the language you speak and think in.”

- Today, some Russians depict Nikolai II "redeemer". Do you agree with this?

Of course not! There is only one redeemer - the Savior Jesus Christ. However, it can be said that the sacrifice of the tsar, his family, servants and tens of millions of other people killed in Russia by the Soviet regime and the fascists was expiatory. Russia was "crucified" for the sins of the world. Indeed, the suffering of the Russian Orthodox in their blood and tears was expiatory. It is also true that all Christians are called to be saved by living in Christ the Redeemer. It is interesting that some pious, but not very educated Russians, who call Tsar Nicholas the "redeemer", call Grigory Rasputin a saint.

- Is the personality of Nikolai significant? II today? Orthodox Christians are a small minority among other Christians. Even if Nicholas II is of particular importance for all Orthodox, it will still be small in comparison with all Christians.

Of course, we Christians are a minority. According to statistics, out of 7 billion Christians living on our planet, only 2.2 billion are 32%. And Orthodox Christians make up only 10% of all Christians, that is, only 3.2% of Orthodox Christians in the world, or approximately every 33rd inhabitant of the Earth. But if we look at these statistics from a theological point of view, what do we see? For Orthodox Christians, non-Orthodox Christians are former Orthodox Christians who have fallen away from the Church, unwittingly brought by their leaders in a number of ways. political reasons and for the sake of worldly well-being into heterodoxy. Catholics can be understood by us as Catholic Orthodox, and Protestants as Catholics who have been Protestantized. We, the unworthy Orthodox, are like a little leaven that leavens the whole dough (see: Gal. 5:9).

Without the Church, light and warmth do not spread from the Holy Spirit to the whole world. Here you are outside the Sun, but you still feel the warmth and light emanating from it - also 90% of Christians who are outside the Church are still aware of its action. For example, almost all of them confess the Holy Trinity and Christ as the Son of God. Why? Thanks to the Church, who established these teachings many centuries ago. Such is the grace that is present in the Church and flows from her. If we understand this, then we will understand the significance for us of the Orthodox emperor, the last spiritual successor of Emperor Constantine the Great - Tsar Nicholas II. His dethronement and assassination completely changed the course of church history, and the same can be said about his recent glorification.

- If so, why was the king deposed and killed?

Christians are always persecuted in the world, as the Lord told His disciples. Pre-revolutionary Russia lived Orthodox faith. However, the faith was rejected by much of the pro-Western ruling elite, the aristocracy, and many in the growing middle class. The revolution was the result of a loss of faith.

Most of the upper class in Russia were power-hungry, as were wealthy merchants and middle class in France they wanted power and caused the French Revolution. Having acquired wealth, they wanted to rise to the next level of the hierarchy of values ​​- the level of power. In Russia, this lust for power, which came from the West, was based on blind worship of the West and hatred of their country. We see this from the very beginning in the example of such figures as A. Kurbsky, Peter I, Catherine II and Westerners like P. Chaadaev.

The decline of faith also poisoned the "white movement", which was divided due to the lack of a common strengthening faith in the Orthodox kingdom. In general, the Russian ruling elite was deprived of Orthodox identity, which was replaced by various surrogates: a bizarre mixture of mysticism, occultism, Freemasonry, socialism and the search for "truth" in esoteric religions. By the way, these surrogates continued to live in Parisian emigration, where various figures distinguished themselves by their adherence to theosophy, anthroposophy, sophianism, name-worshipping and other very bizarre and spiritually dangerous false teachings.

They had so little love for Russia that as a result they broke away from the Russian Church, but they justified themselves anyway! The poet Sergei Bekhteev (1879-1954) had a strong word to say about this in his 1922 poem "Come to your senses, know", comparing the privileged position of emigration in Paris with the position of people in crucified Russia:

And again their hearts are filled with intrigue,
And again on the lips of betrayal and lies,
And writes life into the chapter last book
Treason vile arrogant nobles.

These members of the upper classes (although not all of them were traitors) were financed by the West from the very beginning. The West believed that as soon as its values ​​- parliamentary democracy, republicanism and constitutional monarchy - were implanted in Russia, it would become another bourgeois Western country. For the same reason, the Russian Church had to be “Protestantized,” that is, spiritually neutralized, deprived of power, which the West tried to do with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and other Local Churches that fell under its rule after 1917, when they lost Russian protection. This was a consequence of the conceited idea of ​​the West that its model could become universal. This idea is inherent in the Western elites and today, they are trying to impose their model called the “new world order” on the whole world.

King - the anointed of God, last defender Churches on earth - had to be removed, because he kept the West from seizing power in the world

The Tsar - the anointed of God, the last defender of the Church on earth - had to be removed, because he kept the West from seizing power in the world. However, in their incompetence, the revolutionary aristocrats of February 1917 soon lost control of the situation, and in a few months power passed from them to the bottom of the bottom - to the criminal Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks, on the other hand, set a course for mass violence and genocide, for the "Red Terror", similar to the terror in France five generations earlier, but with much more cruel technologies of the 20th century.

Then the ideological formula of the Orthodox empire was also distorted. Let me remind you that it sounded like this: "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality." But it was misinterpreted as "obscurantism, tyranny, nationalism." Godless communists deformed this ideology even more, so that it turned into "centralized communism, totalitarian dictatorship, national-bolshevism." And what did the original ideological triad mean? It meant: "(full, embodied) true Christianity, spiritual independence (from the forces of this world) and love for the people of God." As we said above, this ideology was the spiritual, moral, political, economic and social program of Orthodoxy.

Social program? But after all, the revolution happened because there were a lot of poor people and there was a merciless exploitation of the poor by super-rich aristocrats, and the tsar was at the head of this aristocracy.

No, it was the aristocracy that opposed the tsar and the people. The Tsar himself generously donated from his wealth and heavily taxed the wealthy under the remarkable Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin, who did so much for land reform. Unfortunately, the tsar's program of social justice became one of the reasons why the aristocrats hated the tsar. The king and the people were one. Both were betrayed by the pro-Western elite. This is already evidenced by the murder of Rasputin, which was a preparation for the revolution. The peasants rightly saw in this the betrayal of the people by the nobility.

What was the role of the Jews?

There is such a conspiracy theory that the Jews alone are to blame for everything bad that has happened and is happening in Russia (and in the world in general). This is contrary to the words of Christ.

Indeed, the majority of the Bolsheviks were Jews, but the Jews who participated in the preparation of the Russian revolution were, first of all, apostates, atheists like Karl Marx, and not believing, practicing Jews. The Jews who participated in the revolution worked hand in hand with non-Jewish atheists, such as the American banker P. Morgan, as well as Russians and many others, and depended on them.

Satan does not give preference to any one particular nation, but uses for his own purposes everyone who is ready to submit to him.

We know that Britain organized, supported by France and funded by the US, that V. Lenin was sent to Russia and sponsored by the Kaiser, and that the masses who fought in the Red Army were Russian. None of them were Jewish. Some people, captivated by racist myths, simply refuse to face the truth: the revolution was the work of Satan, who is ready to use any nation, any of us - Jews, Russians, non-Russians to achieve his destructive plans ... Satan does not give preference to any one particular nation, but uses for his own purposes everyone who is ready to subordinate his free will to him in order to establish a "new world order", where he will be the sole ruler of fallen humanity.

- There are Russophobes who believe that the Soviet Union was the successor to Tsarist Russia. Is it so, in your opinion?

Undoubtedly, there is continuity ... Western Russophobia! Look at the issues of The Times between 1862 and 2012, for example. You will see 150 years of xenophobia. It is true that many in the West were Russophobes long before the advent of the Soviet Union. In every nation there are such limited thinking people- simply nationalists who believe that any people other than their own should be denigrated, no matter what their political system is and no matter how this system changes. We saw this in the recent war in Iraq. We see it today in the news bulletins where the people of Syria, Iran and North Korea are accused of all the sins. We do not take such prejudices seriously.

Let's return to the issue of succession. After a period of continuous nightmare, which began in 1917, the continuity, indeed, appeared. This happened after in, in June 1941. Stalin realized that he could win the war only with the blessing of the Church, he remembered the past victories of Orthodox Russia, won, for example, under the holy princes and Dimitry Donskoy. He realized that any victory can only be achieved together with his "brothers and sisters", that is, the people, and not with "comrades" and communist ideology. Geography does not change, so there is continuity in Russian history.

Soviet period was a deviation from history, a falling away from the national destiny of Russia, especially in the first bloody period after the revolution ...

We know (and Churchill expressed this very clearly in his book The World Crisis of 1916-1918) that in 1917 Russia was on the eve of victory.

What would have happened if the revolution had not taken place? We know (and W. Churchill expressed this very clearly in his book The World Crisis of 1916-1918) that Russia was on the eve of victory in 1917. That is why the revolutionaries then hastened to take action. They had a narrow loophole through which they could operate until the great offensive of 1917 began.

If there had been no revolution, Russia would have defeated the Austro-Hungarians, whose multinational and mostly Slavic army was still on the verge of rebellion and collapse. Russia would then push back the Germans, or more likely their Prussian commanders, back to Berlin. In any case, the situation would be similar to 1945, with one important exception. The exception is that royal army in 1917-1918 would have liberated Central and Eastern Europe without conquering it, as happened in 1944-1945. And she would have liberated Berlin, just as she had liberated Paris in 1814 - peacefully and nobly, without the mistakes made by the Red Army.

- What would happen then?

The liberation of Berlin and therefore Germany from Prussian militarism would undoubtedly lead to the disarmament and division of Germany into parts, to its restoration as it was before 1871 - a country of culture, music, poetry and traditions. This would be the end of the Second Reich of O. Bismarck, which was the revival of the First Reich of the militant heretic Charlemagne and led to the Third Reich of A. Hitler.

If Russia had won, this would have led to a belittling of the Prussian / German government, and the Kaiser would obviously have been sent into exile on some small island, like Napoleon did in his time. But there would be no humiliation Germanic peoples- result Treaty of Versailles which led directly to the horrors of fascism and World War II. Incidentally, this also led to Fourth Reich» of the current European Union.

- Wouldn't France, Britain and the USA oppose the relations of the victorious Russia with Berlin?

The allies did not want to see Russia as a winner. They only wanted to use her as cannon fodder.

France and Britain, bogged down in their blood-soaked trenches, or perhaps having by then reached the French and Belgian frontiers with Germany, would not have been able to prevent this, because a victory over Kaiser's Germany would have been a victory for Russia in the first place. And the US would never have entered the war if Russia had not been pulled out of it first, thanks in part to US funding of the revolutionaries. That is why the Allies did everything to eliminate Russia from the war: they did not want to see Russia win. They wanted to use her only as "cannon fodder" to tire Germany and prepare her defeat at the hands of the Allies - and they would finish Germany and take her unhindered.

- Would the Russian armies leave Berlin and Eastern Europe shortly after 1918?

Oh sure. Here is another difference from Stalin, for whom "autocracy" - the second element of the ideology of the Orthodox Empire - was deformed into "totalitarianism", which meant occupation, suppression and enslavement through terror. After the fall of the German and Austro-Hungarian empires for Eastern Europe, freedom would come with the movement of the population to the border territories and the establishment of new states without minorities: these would be reunited Poland and the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Transcarpathian Russia, Romania, Hungary, and so on . A demilitarized zone would be created throughout Eastern and Central Europe.

It would be Eastern Europe with reasonable and secure borders

It would be Eastern Europe, with reasonable and secure borders, and the mistake of creating conglomerate states such as the future (now former) Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia would have been avoided. By the way, about Yugoslavia: Tsar Nicholas established the Balkan Union back in 1912 to prevent further Balkan wars. Of course, he failed because of the intrigues of the German prince ("king") Ferdinand in Bulgaria and nationalist intrigues in Serbia and Montenegro. We can imagine that after the First World War, from which Russia would emerge victorious, such a customs union, established with clear boundaries, could become permanent. This union, with the participation of Greece and Romania, could finally establish peace in the Balkans, and Russia would be the guarantor of his freedom.

- What would be the fate Ottoman Empire?

The Allies agreed as early as 1916 that Russia would be allowed to liberate Constantinople and control the Black Sea. This Russia could have achieved 60 years earlier, thereby preventing the Turkish massacres in Bulgaria and Asia Minor, if France and Great Britain had not defeated Russia in the Crimean War. (Recall that Tsar Nicholas I was buried with a silver cross depicting "Aghia Sophia" - the Church of the Wisdom of God, "so that in Heaven he would not forget to pray for his brothers in the East"). Christian Europe would be freed from the Ottoman yoke.

The Armenians and Greeks of Asia Minor would also be protected, and the Kurds would have their own state. Moreover, Orthodox Palestine, a large part of the current Syria and Jordan would come under the protection of Russia. There would be none of these constant wars in the Middle East. Perhaps the current situation in Iraq and Iran could also have been avoided. The consequences would be colossal. Can we imagine a Russian-controlled Jerusalem? Even Napoleon remarked that "he who governs Palestine governs the whole world." Today it is known to Israel and the United States.

- What would be the consequences for Asia?

Saint Nicholas II was destined to "cut a window to Asia"

Peter I "cut a window to Europe." Saint Nicholas II was destined to "cut a window into Asia." Despite the fact that the holy king was actively building churches in Western Europe and both Americas, he had little interest in the Catholic Protestant West, including America and Australia, because the West itself had and still has only a limited interest in the Church. In the West, both then and now, there is little potential for the growth of Orthodoxy. In fact, today only a small part of the world's population lives in Western world, despite the fact that it takes large area.

The purpose of Tsar Nicholas to serve Christ was thus more connected with Asia, especially with Buddhist Asia. In his Russian empire there lived former Buddhists who had converted to Christ, and the tsar knew that Buddhism, like Confucianism, is not a religion, but a philosophy. The Buddhists called him "White Tara" (White King). There were relations with Tibet, where he was called "Chakravartin" (King of the World), Mongolia, China, Manchuria, Korea and Japan - countries with great development potential. He also thought about Afghanistan, India and Siam (Thailand). King Rama V of Siam visited Russia in 1897 and the king prevented Siam from becoming a French colony. It was an influence that would have extended to Laos, Vietnam and Indonesia. The people living in these countries today make up almost half of the world's population.

In Africa, where almost a seventh of the world's population lives today, the holy king had diplomatic relations with Ethiopia, which he successfully defended from colonization by Italy. The emperor also intervened for the interests of the Moroccans, as well as the Boers in South Africa. It is well known that Nicholas II was deeply disgusted with what the British did to the Boers - and they simply killed them in concentration camps. We have reason to assert that the tsar thought something similar about the colonial policy of France and Belgium in Africa. The emperor was also respected by the Muslims, who called him "Al-Padishah", that is, " Great king". In general, the Eastern civilizations, which recognized the sacred, respected the "White Tsar" much more than the bourgeois Western civilizations.

Significantly, the Soviet Union later also opposed the brutality of Western colonial policy in Africa. There is also continuity here. Today, Russian Orthodox missions are already operating in Thailand, Laos, Indonesia, India and Pakistan, and there are parishes in Africa. I think that today's BRICS group, which consists of rapidly developing states, is an example of what Russia could achieve 90 years ago as a member of the group independent countries. No wonder the last Maharaja of the Sikh Empire, Dulip Singh (d. 1893), asked Tsar Alexander III to free India from exploitation and oppression by Britain.

- So, Asia could become a colony of Russia?

No, definitely not a colony. Imperial Russia was against the colonial policy and imperialism. It suffices to compare the advance of Russia into Siberia, which was mostly peaceful, and the advance of Europeans into the Americas, accompanied by genocide. There were completely different attitudes towards the same peoples (Native Americans are mostly close relatives of Siberians). Of course, in Siberia and Russian America (Alaska) there were Russian exploitative traders and drunken fur hunters who behaved towards the local population in the same way as cowboys. This we know from the lives of, as well as missionaries in eastern Russia and Siberia - Saints Stephen of Great Perm and Macarius of Altai. But such things were not the rule, but the exception, and no genocide took place.

All this is very good, but we are now talking about what could happen. And this is only hypothetical assumptions.

Yes, these are hypothetical assumptions, but hypotheses can give us a vision of the future.

Yes, hypothetical assumptions, but hypotheses can give us a vision of the future. We can view the last 95 years as a hole, as a catastrophic deviation from the course of world history with tragic consequences that cost the lives of hundreds of millions of people. The world lost its balance after the fall of the bastion - Christian Russia, carried out by transnational capital in order to create a "unipolar world". This "unipolarity" is just a code for a new world order led by a single government - a world anti-Christian tyranny.

If we only realize this, then we can continue where we left off in 1918 and bring together the remnants of Orthodox civilization throughout the world. As dire as the current situation may be, there is always hope that comes from repentance.

- What can be the result of this repentance?

A new Orthodox empire with a center in Russia and a spiritual capital in Yekaterinburg - the center of repentance. Thus, it would be possible to restore balance to this tragic, unbalanced world.

- Then you, probably, can be convicted of excessive optimism.

Look what happened for recent times, since the celebration of the millennium of the Baptism of Russia in 1988. The situation in the world has changed, even transformed - and all this is due to the repentance of enough people from the former Soviet Union, capable of changing the whole world. The last 25 years have witnessed a revolution - the only true, spiritual revolution: the return to the Church. Taking into account the historical miracle that we have already seen (and it seemed to us, who were born among nuclear threats " cold war”, only with ridiculous dreams - we remember the spiritually gloomy 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s), why don’t we imagine these possibilities mentioned above in the future?

In 1914, the world entered the tunnel, and during the Cold War we lived in total darkness. Today we are still in this tunnel, but there are already glimmers of light ahead. Is this the light at the end of the tunnel? Let us remember the words of the Gospel: "All things are possible with God" (Mark 10:27). Yes, as a human being, the above is very optimistic, and there is no guarantee for anything. But the alternative to what has been said is the apocalypse. Time is short, and we must hurry. Let this be a warning and a call to us all.

Who was Nicholas II?

Let's take a closer look at the personality of the last autocrat of Russia, Nicholas II, with the facts of his biography.

Nicholas II Alexandrovich Romanov was born on May 6, 1868. at the Alexander Palace in Tsarskoye Selo. He was the first child of Emperor Alexander III and his wife Maria Feodorovna (Danish Princess Dagmara).

In 1875 enrolled in the Erivan Life Guards Regiment, promoted to ensign, in 1880. - to lieutenants. May 6, 1884 took the oath. In 1887 promoted to staff captain in 1891. - captain, in 1892. - to colonel.

He received many awards and titles from European countries, and in 1915. English king George V produced his cousin Nikolai Alexandrovich to Field Marshal of the British Army.

The Russian emperor treated the service with enthusiasm even in youth, although, according to military experts, he did not possess great talents in this matter.

He studied a lot (including independently) in the natural sciences, foreign languages, history, political economy and other disciplines. He was not endowed with particularly bright talents, but he took his studies seriously and achieved excellent results in many subjects. He played musical instruments well and drew. He was diligent and meticulous. He inherited patriarchal customs from his father, which he adhered to all his life.

In the character of Nicholas II, softness and philosophy were strangely combined with rigidity and stubbornness, a penchant for mysticism and religiosity - with pliability and patriarchal convictions.

Kindness to relatives and a certain detachment did not correspond to the "position" he occupied, and the situation that had developed in Russia by 1914, when the First World War broke out. And especially towards the end of 1916, when a revolution was ripe in the country, exhausted by the war.

1917 year

February 23, 1917 Crowds of people took to the streets of Petrograd. "Of bread!" people shouted. The stone echo amplified the voice of the crowd. Is there not enough bread in the Russian Empire? Long queues in shops and stores could have alerted the leaders of the state for a long time. But tsarist government, the State Duma and the emperor were very calm about this. Think queues. Bread is scarce, but there is. It must be remembered that after the abdication of the tsar from the throne, bread suddenly appeared in Petrograd as if by magic.

Of course, the supply of food to the capital had to be taken more seriously. But also others important issues the government has a lot: the war is on. The Russian military leadership, faithful to its allied duty, was preparing a large-scale offensive. There are no more queues. The government proposed introducing bread cards in the city in order to streamline the distribution of bread. This is in February - six months before the next harvest.

No one has yet seen the decree on the introduction of bread cards, but the rumor about it instantly spread throughout Petrograd. Hunger!! There was no hunger yet. But the thought of him stirred people.

The next day the crowd grew bolder. She didn't have enough bread. “Down with autocracy! Down with the war! people shouted. And the red flags boldly fluttered their wings, and the violent voices that sang revolutionary songs quickly grew stronger.

On February 25, the commander of the Petrograd Military District, General S. S. Khabalov, reported to Headquarters that the number of strikers was about 250,000. The general issued an arrest warrant. The prisons were filled with demonstrators and onlookers, but the moment for decisive action was forever lost much earlier. And not by S.S. Khabalov, but by those who did not give bread to the people in time.

On February 26, people again took to the streets: the songs sounded louder and bolder, there were more red flags in the city, even more anger and determination in the eyes of people. “I order tomorrow to stop the unrest, unacceptable in hard times war,” Nikolai I. ordered in a telegram. And soldiers appeared on the streets of the city.

The last Russian tsar had a harsh time, and it was not his business to reign in Russia. He would have to write poetry, keep philosophical diaries, have fun with the kids, and fate made him king. Those who walked in uneven rebellious columns and sang revolutionary songs, at whom bullets from Russian rifles flew, did not forgive Nicholas II for his orders. "Bloody" they called this man back in 1905, and rightly so, because it is a sin to shoot at your people with rifles.

On February 26, units loyal to the government fired on the demonstrators, but on that day there were also military units in the city that unconditionally went over to the side of the rebellious people.

M. V. Rodzianko (Chairman of the State Duma) sent a report to the Headquarters, in which, briefly describing the situation and calling it anarchy, he reported on the need to “immediately instruct a person who enjoys the confidence of the country to form a new government.” The next day, General Alekseev presented the tsar with a telegram in which M. V. Rodzianko spoke in a more frank form about the need to take emergency measures, that is, the abdication of Nicholas in favor of Tsarevich Alexei.

On March 28, Nicholas II set off from Headquarters, located in Mogilev, to Tsarskoye Selo. He failed to get there: a detachment of revolutionary troops blocked the railway, occupying the Lyuban station. The royal train changed its route, slowly moving towards Pskov. Nicholas II played for time, as if not realizing that someone had already decided everything for him.

On March 1, in St. Petersburg, without the order of the monarch, the formation of the Provisional Government began. Rodzianko had a talk with General Ruzsky. He supported him. They sent a telegram addressed to General Alekseev, in which they stated their opinion: Russia would be saved only by the abdication of Nicholas II from the throne in favor of his son Alexei under the regency of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. The Chief of the General Staff sent a message to the Tsar, in which the position of Ruzsky and Rodzianko was reinforced by similar requests from the front commanders Brusilov and Evert, as well as Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich.

And Nicholas II abdicated the throne, however, in favor of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, explaining this by his unwillingness to part with his beloved son.

March 2, 1917 The last manifesto of the last tsar of the Romanov dynasty was published. The next day, Mikhail Alexandrovich abdicated the throne, not accepting a rich gift from his brother - the huge Russian Empire.

On the same day, the already former monarch sent a note to Alekseev outlining his last four requests: 1. Permission to move to Tsarskoye Selo; 2. Guarantee there safety; 3. Provide relocation to the city of Romanov-on-Murman; 4. Allow to return after the war to Russia for permanent residence in the Crimean Livadia.

General Alekseev conveyed the first three requests of the former tsar to the head of the Provisional Government, Prince G.E. Lvov by telephone. The Chief of the General Staff did not even mention the fourth. In fact, why talk about unrealizable?

The manifesto on the abdication of Nicholas II and the abdication of the throne of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich were calmly received in the army. The soldiers listened to this most important news in silence: there was neither joy nor grief in the faces of the soldiers - so, in any case, General A. I. Denikin wrote in his memoirs. As if it was not about the homeland, as if the soldier did not touch that manifesto at all.

In the days of the Kornilov speech. Soldiers who went over to the side of the Provisional Government

The amazing indifference (purely external, of course), with which the soldiers reacted to the greatest event, struck many officers and generals of the "white movement", but they were even more surprised by the rapid change in relation to everything that was former, royal.

March 7, 1917 according to the decree of the Provisional Government, the former Tsar Nicholas II and his wife were arrested. In the second half of March, Nicholas II decided to leave with his family for England. The provisional government, under pressure from the Soviet of Workers', Peasants' and Soldiers' Deputies, with which it practically shared power, did not provide the former tsar with such an opportunity.

On April 3, V. I. Lenin arrived in Russia and spoke on the Finland Station Square in St. Petersburg, calling on the people to fight for the socialist revolution. The April Theses became the policy document of the RSDLP(b).

On July 2-6, an unsuccessful offensive of the Russian army was carried out at the front. The deterioration of the economic situation, the disbandment of some pro-Bolshevik military units, the government crisis (the Cadets left the Provisional Government) caused an aggravation of the political situation inside the country. Demonstrations began in which Active participation accepted by soldiers and sailors. 500,000 people on July 4 moved to the Tauride Palace. The commander of the Petrograd Military District, General Polovtsev, ordered the junkers and Cossacks to disperse the demonstration. As a result, 56 people were killed and 650 people were injured. The arrests began. The duality is over. Power completely passed to the Provisional Government. A.F. Kerensky became the Minister-Chairman.

On August 1, the royal family was sent under a reinforced escort to Tobolsk, where Nicholas II, Alexandra Fedorovna, Anastasia, Olga, Maria, Tatyana, Alexei arrived after 6 days, as well as General I. A. Tatishchev, Prince V. A. Dolgoruky, who accompanied them, Countess A. V. Gendrikova, E. A. Schneider, tutor Pierre Gilliard, Englishman Gibbs, doctors E. S. Botkin and Derevenko, sailors K. G. Nagorny and I. D. Sednev with their son Leonid; servants Volkov, Kharitonov, Trupp, chamberlain Chemadurov and chambermaid Anna Demidova, commandant Colonel Kobylinskiy.

At the end of August, the commander-in-chief of the Southwestern Front, General L. G. Kornilov, made an unsuccessful attempt to seize power and establish a military dictatorship in the country. Main military mission assigned to them on the 3rd cavalry corps of General A. M. Krymov. He was supposed to bring troops into Petrograd and establish military order. Kornilov was supported on the Don by General A. M. Kaledin.

The Bolsheviks played an important role in crushing the rebellion. They called on the workers and soldiers to stand up for the revolution, gathered in three days the Red Guard of 15,000 people; at the same time, they criticized the policy of the Provisional Government, with which they entered into an alliance for a joint struggle against L. G. Kornilov.

By August 30, the advance of the rebel troops to the capital of Russia was suspended. Fermentation began in Kornilov's army, soldiers and Cossacks began to go over to the side of the revolution. General Krymov shot himself in despair. The leaders of the rebellion and "sympathizers" - Generals Kornilov, Lukomsky, Denikin, Markov, Romanovsky and others - were arrested.

Nicholas II - the last Russian emperor, who went down in history as the most weak-willed king. According to historians, the government of the country for the monarch was a "heavy burden", but this did not prevent him from making a feasible contribution to the industrial and economic development of Russia, despite the fact that in the country during the reign of Nicholas II, revolutionary movement and the foreign policy situation became more complicated. AT modern history the Russian emperor is referred to by the epithets "Nicholas the Bloody" and "Nicholas the Martyr", since assessments of the activity and character of the tsar are ambiguous and contradictory.

Nicholas II was born on May 18, 1868 in Tsarskoye Selo of the Russian Empire in the imperial family. For his parents, and, he became the eldest son and the only heir to the throne, whom from the very early years taught the future work of his whole life. From birth, the future tsar was educated by the Englishman Karl Heath, who taught the young Nikolai Alexandrovich to speak English fluently.

The childhood of the heir to the royal throne passed within the walls of the Gatchina Palace under the strict guidance of his father Alexander III, who raised his children in the traditional religious spirit - he allowed them to play and play pranks in moderation, but at the same time he did not allow the manifestation of laziness in studies, suppressing all thoughts of his sons about future throne.

At the age of 8, Nicholas II began to receive general education at home. His education was carried out within the framework of the general gymnasium course, but with special zeal and desire for learning future king did not show. His passion was military affairs - already at the age of 5 he became the chief of the Life Guards of the Reserve infantry regiment and happily mastered military geography, jurisprudence and strategy. Lectures to the future monarch were read by the best scientists of world renown, who were personally selected for their son by Tsar Alexander III and his wife Maria Feodorovna.

The heir was especially successful in learning foreign languages, therefore, in addition to English, he was fluent in French, German and Danish. After eight years of the general gymnasium program, Nicholas II began to be taught the necessary higher sciences for the future statesman included in the course economic department law university.

In 1884, upon reaching adulthood, Nicholas II took the oath at the Winter Palace, after which he entered active military service, and three years later he began regular military service. military service for which he was promoted to the rank of colonel. Fully devoting himself to military affairs, the future tsar easily adapted to the inconveniences of army life and endured military service.

The first acquaintance with state affairs at the heir to the throne took place in 1889. Then he began to attend meetings of the State Council and the Cabinet of Ministers, at which his father brought him up to date and shared his experience on how to govern the country. In the same period, Alexander III made numerous journeys with his son, starting from the Far East. Over the next 9 months, they traveled by sea to Greece, India, Egypt, Japan and China, and then through all of Siberia by land returned to the Russian capital.

Ascension to the throne

In 1894, after the death of Alexander III, Nicholas II ascended the throne and solemnly promised to protect the autocracy as firmly and steadily as his late father. The coronation of the last Russian emperor took place in 1896 in Moscow. These solemn events were marked by the tragic events at the Khodynka field, where during the distribution royal gifts happened mass riots that took the lives of thousands of citizens.

Due to the mass crush, the monarch who came to power even wanted to cancel the evening ball on the occasion of his ascension to the throne, but later decided that the Khodynka disaster was a real misfortune, but not worth it to overshadow the coronation holiday. The educated society perceived these events as a challenge, which became the foundation stone for the creation of the liberation movement in Russia from the dictator-tsar.

Against this background, the emperor introduced a tough domestic politics, according to which any dissent among the people was persecuted. In the first few years of the reign of Nicholas II in Russia, a census was carried out, as well as a monetary reform, which established the gold standard of the ruble. The gold ruble of Nicholas II was equal to 0.77 grams of pure gold and was half “heavier” than the mark, but twice “lighter” than the dollar at the exchange rate of international currencies.

In the same period, "Stolypin" meetings were held in Russia. agrarian reforms, factory legislation was introduced, several laws on compulsory insurance for workers and universal primary education were passed, and the tax levy on landowners of Polish origin was abolished and penalties such as exile to Siberia were abolished.

In the Russian Empire during the time of Nicholas II, large-scale industrialization took place, the pace of agricultural production increased, and coal and oil production started. At the same time, thanks to the last Russian emperor, more than 70 thousand kilometers of the railway were built in Russia.

Reign and abdication

The reign of Nicholas II at the second stage took place during the years of aggravation of the domestic political life of Russia and a rather difficult foreign political situation. At the same time, the Far East direction was in the first place. The main obstacle of the Russian monarch to dominance in the Far East was Japan, which without warning in 1904 attacked the Russian squadron in port city Port Arthur, and due to the inaction of the Russian leadership, defeated the Russian army.

As a result of the failure of the Russo-Japanese War, the country began to develop rapidly revolutionary situation, and Russia had to cede to Japan the southern part of Sakhalin and the rights to the Liaodong Peninsula. It was after this that the Russian emperor lost authority in the intelligentsia and ruling circles of the country, who accused the tsar of defeat and connections with, who was an unofficial "advisor" to the monarch, but who was considered in society a charlatan and a swindler, having full influence over Nicholas II.

The turning point in the biography of Nicholas II was the First World War of 1914. Then the emperor, on the advice of Rasputin, tried with all his might to avoid a bloody massacre, but Germany went to war against Russia, which was forced to defend itself. In 1915, the monarch took over the military command of the Russian army and personally traveled to the fronts, inspecting military units. At the same time, he made a number of fatal military mistakes, which led to the collapse of the Romanov dynasty and the Russian Empire.

The war exacerbated the internal problems of the country, all military failures in the environment of Nicholas II were assigned to him. Then “treason” began to “nest” in the government of the country, but despite this, the emperor, together with England and France, developed a plan for the general offensive of Russia, which should have been triumphant for the country by the summer of 1917 to end the military confrontation.

The plans of Nicholas II were not destined to come true - at the end of February 1917 in Petrograd began mass uprisings against royal dynasty and the current government, which he originally intended to stop by force. But the military did not obey the orders of the king, and members of the monarch's retinue persuaded him to abdicate the throne, which supposedly would help suppress the unrest. After several days of painful deliberation, Nicholas II decided to abdicate in favor of his brother, Prince Mikhail Alexandrovich, who refused to accept the crown, which meant the end of the Romanov dynasty.

Execution of Nicholas II and his family

After the signing of the abdication manifesto by the tsar, the Provisional Government of Russia issued an order to arrest the tsar's family and his associates. Then many betrayed the emperor and fled, so to divide tragic fate only a few close people from his entourage agreed with the monarch, who, together with the tsar, were sent to Tobolsk, from where, allegedly, the family of Nicholas II was to be transported to the United States.

After the October Revolution and the coming to power of the Bolsheviks, headed by the royal family, they were transported to Yekaterinburg and imprisoned in the "house special purpose". Then the Bolsheviks began hatching a plan litigation over the monarch, but the Civil War did not allow their plan to be realized.

Because of this, in the upper echelons of Soviet power, it was decided to shoot the tsar and his family. On the night of July 16-17, 1918, the family of the last Russian emperor was shot in the basement of the house where Nicholas II was imprisoned. The tsar, his wife and children, as well as several of his entourage were taken to the basement under the pretext of evacuation and shot point-blank without explanation, after which the victims were taken outside the city, their bodies were burned with kerosene, and then buried in the ground.

Personal life and the royal family

The personal life of Nicholas II, unlike many other Russian monarchs, was the standard of the highest family virtue. In 1889, during the visit of the German princess Alice of Hesse-Darmstadt to Russia, Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich drew Special attention on the girl and asked his father for blessings to marry her. But the parents did not agree with the choice of the heir, so they refused their son. This did not stop Nicholas II, who did not lose hope of marriage with Alice. They were assisted by the Grand Duchess Elizaveta Feodorovna, the sister of the German princess, who arranged secret correspondence for the young lovers.

After 5 years, Tsarevich Nicholas again persistently asked his father's consent to marry a German princess. Alexander III, in view of his rapidly deteriorating health, allowed his son to marry Alice, who, after chrismation, became. In November 1894, the wedding of Nicholas II and Alexandra took place in the Winter Palace, and in 1896 the couple accepted the coronation and officially became the rulers of the country.

In the marriage of Alexandra Feodorovna and Nicholas II, 4 daughters were born (Olga, Tatyana, Maria and Anastasia) and the only heir Alexei, who had a serious hereditary disease - hemophilia associated with the process of blood clotting. The illness of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolayevich forced the royal family to get acquainted with Grigory Rasputin, widely known at that time, who helped the royal heir to fight bouts of illness, which allowed him to gain a huge influence on Alexandra Feodorovna and Emperor Nicholas II.

Historians report that the family for the last Russian emperor was the most important meaning of life. Most he always spent time in the family circle, did not like secular pleasures, especially valued his peace, habits, health and well-being of his relatives. At the same time, worldly hobbies were not alien to the emperor - he went hunting with pleasure, participated in horse riding competitions, skating with passion and played hockey.

"Lenta.ru" studies the so-called "controversial issues" of Russian history. Experts preparing a unified school textbook on the subject formulated topic No. 16 as follows: “Causes, consequences and assessment of the fall of the monarchy in Russia, the coming to power of the Bolsheviks and their victory in civil war". One of the key figures of this topic is the last Russian Emperor Nicholas II, who was killed by the Bolsheviks in 1918 and canonized at the end of the 20th century. Orthodox Church. Lenta.ru asked publicist Ivan Davydov to investigate the life of Nicholas II in order to find out whether he could be considered a saint and how the tsar's private life was connected with the "catastrophe of 1917."

In Russia, history ends badly. In the sense that it is reluctant. Our history continues to weigh on us, and sometimes on us. It seems that in Russia there is no time at all: everything is relevant. Historical characters are our contemporaries and partners in political discussions.

In the case of Nicholas II, this is quite clear: he is the last (at least for this moment) the Russian tsar, he began the terrible Russian twentieth century - and the empire ended with him. The events that determined this century and still do not want to let us go - two wars and three revolutions - are episodes of his personal biography. Some even consider the murder of Nicholas II and his family to be a nationwide unforgivable sin, for which many Russian troubles are retribution. Rehabilitation, search and identification of the remains of the royal family are important political gestures of the Yeltsin era.

And since August 2000, Nicholas has been a canonized holy martyr. Moreover, a very popular saint - just remember the exhibition "Romanovs", held in December 2013. It turns out that to spite his killers, the last Russian tsar is now more alive than all the living.

Where did bears come from

It is important to understand that for us (including those who see a saint in the last tsar), Nicholas is not at all the same person as he was for millions of his subjects, at least at the beginning of his reign.

In the collections of Russian folk legends, a plot akin to Pushkin's "The Tale of the Fisherman and the Fish" is repeatedly repeated. The farmer goes for firewood and finds a magic tree in the forest. The tree asks not to destroy it, in return promising various benefits. Gradually, the old man's appetites (not without inciting from his grumpy wife) grow - and in the end he declares his desire to be king. magic tree is horrified: is it a conceivable thing - a king has been appointed by God, how can one encroach on such a thing? And he turns a greedy couple into bears so that people are afraid of them.

So, for his subjects, and by no means only for illiterate peasants, the king was the anointed of God, the bearer of sacred power and a special mission. Neither revolutionary terrorists, nor revolutionary theorists, nor free-thinking liberals could seriously shake this faith. Between Nicholas II, the anointed of God, crowned in 1896, the sovereign of all Russia - and the citizen Romanov, whom the Chekists killed in Yekaterinburg with his family and loved ones in 1918, there is not even a distance, but an insurmountable abyss. The question of where this abyss came from is one of the most difficult in our history (generally not particularly smooth). Wars, revolutions, economic growth and political terror, reforms, reaction - everything is linked in this issue. I won’t cheat - I don’t have an answer, but there is a suspicion that some small and insignificant part of the answer is hidden in human biography the last bearer of autocratic power.

The frivolous son of a stern father

Many portraits have been preserved: last king lived in the era of photography and he loved to take pictures. But words are more interesting than muddy and old pictures, and a lot has been said about the emperor, and by people who knew a lot about the arrangement of words. For example, Mayakovsky, with the pathos of an eyewitness:

And I see - landau is rolling,
And in this land
A young military man is sitting
In a sleek beard.
Before him, like chumps,
Four daughters.
And on the backs of cobblestones, as on our coffins,
Retinue behind him in eagles and coats of arms.
And ringing bells
Blurred in ladies' squeak:
Hurrah! Tsar Sovereign Nicholas,
Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia.

(The poem "The Emperor" was written in 1928 and is dedicated to an excursion to the burial place of Nicholas; the poet-agitator naturally approved of the assassination of the tsar; but the verses are beautiful, nothing can be done about it.)

But that's all later. In the meantime, in May 1868, the son of Nikolai was born in the family of the heir to the throne, Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich. In principle, Alexander Alexandrovich was not preparing to reign, but the eldest son of Alexander II, Nikolai, fell ill during a trip abroad and died. So Alexander III king became in in a certain sense by chance. And Nicholas II, it turns out, doubly by accident.

Alexander Alexandrovich ascended the throne in 1881 - after his father, nicknamed the Liberator for the abolition of serfdom, was brutally murdered by revolutionaries in St. Petersburg. Alexander III rules cool, unlike its predecessor, without flirting with the liberal public. The tsar responded with terror to terror, he caught many revolutionaries and hanged them. Among others - Alexandra Ulyanova. His younger brother Vladimir, as we know, subsequently took revenge on the royal family.

The time of bans, reaction, censorship and police arbitrariness - this is how the era of Alexander III was described by contemporary oppositionists (mainly from abroad, of course) and after them by Soviet historians. And this is also the time of the war with the Turks in the Balkans for the liberation of the "Slav brothers" (the one on which the brave intelligence officer Fandorin performed his exploits), conquests in Central Asia, as well as various economic indulgences for the peasants, strengthening the army and overcoming budget disasters.

For our story, it is important that the busy king did not have so many free minutes for family life. Almost the only (apocryphal) story about the relationship between father and son is associated with the beautiful ballerina Matilda Kshesinskaya. Allegedly, evil tongues told, the king was upset and worried that the heir could not acquire a mistress in any way. And then one day stern servants came to the son's chambers (Alexander III was a simple, rude, sharp man, he made friends mainly with the military) and brought a gift from his father - a carpet. And in the carpet - the famous ballerina. Naked. That's how we met.

Nicholas's mother, Empress Maria Feodorovna (Princess Dagmar of Denmark), had little interest in Russian affairs. The heir grew up under the supervision of tutors - first an Englishman, then local ones. Received a decent education. Three European languages, and he spoke English almost better than Russian, an in-depth gymnasium course, then some university subjects.

Later - a pleasure trip to the mysterious countries of the East. In particular, to Japan. There was trouble with the heir. During a walk, a samurai attacked the crown prince and hit the future king with a sword on the head. In pre-revolutionary foreign brochures published by Russian revolutionaries, they wrote that the heir behaved impolitely in the temple, and in one Bolshevik one - that a drunken Nikolai urinated on some statue. These are all propaganda lies. However, there was one hit. The second one managed to repulse someone from the retinue, but the sediment remained. And also - a scar, regular headaches and dislike for the Land of the Rising Sun.

According to family tradition, the heir went through something like military practice in the guard. First - in the Preobrazhensky Regiment, then - in the Life Guards Hussars. Here, too, there is no anecdote. The hussars, in full accordance with the legend, were famous for rampant drunkenness. At one time, when the commander of the regiment was Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich Jr. (grandson of Nicholas I, cousin of the father of Nicholas II), the hussars even developed whole ritual. Having drunk themselves to hell, they ran naked into the night - and howled, imitating a pack of wolves. And so - until the barman brings them a trough of vodka, after drinking from which the werewolves calmed down and went to sleep. So served as the heir, most likely fun.

He served cheerfully, lived cheerfully, in the spring of 1894 he became engaged to Princess Alice of Hesse (she converted to Orthodoxy and became Alexandra Feodorovna). Marrying for love is a problem for crowned persons, but the future spouses somehow got it right at once, and later on in the course of living together they showed each other unostentatious tenderness.

Oh yes. Nikolai left Matilda Kshesinskaya immediately after the engagement. But royal family the ballerina liked, then she was the mistress of two more grand dukes. She even gave birth to one.

In 1912, cadet V.P. Obninsky published in Berlin the book "The Last Autocrat", in which he collected, it seems, all the known defamatory rumors about the tsar. So, he reports that Nikolai tried to refuse the reign, but his father, shortly before his death, forced him to sign the appropriate paper. However, no other historian confirms this rumor.

From Khodynka to the October 17 Manifesto

The last Russian tsar was definitely unlucky. Key events his life - and Russian history - did not put him in the best light, and often - without his obvious fault.

According to tradition, a celebration was scheduled in Moscow in honor of the coronation of the new emperor: on May 18, 1896, up to half a million people gathered for festivities on the Khodynka field (pitted with pits, bounded on one side by a ravine; generally, moderately comfortable). The people were promised beer, honey, nuts, sweets, gift mugs with monograms and portraits of the new emperor and empress. As well as gingerbread and sausage.

The people began to gather the day before, and early in the morning someone shouted in the crowd that there would not be enough gifts for everyone. A wild crush ensued. The police were unable to contain the crowd. As a result, about two thousand people died, hundreds of crippled people ended up in hospitals.

But this is in the morning. In the afternoon, the police finally coped with the riots, the dead were taken away, the blood was sprinkled with sand, the emperor arrived on the field, the subjects shouted the prescribed “hurray”. But, of course, they immediately started talking that the omen for the beginning of the reign was so-so. “Whoever began to reign over Khodynka will end up standing on the scaffold,” one mediocre but popular poet would later write. This is how a mediocre poet can turn out to be a prophet. The tsar is hardly personally responsible for the poor organization of the celebrations. But for many contemporaries, the words "Nikolai" and "Khodynka" somehow tied together.

In memory of the dead, Moscow students tried to arrange a demonstration. They were dispersed, and the instigators were caught. Nikolai showed that he was still the son of his father and did not intend to be liberal.

However, his intentions were generally vague. He visited European, let's say, colleagues (the age of empires is not over yet) and tried to persuade the leaders of world powers to eternal peace. True, without enthusiasm and without much success, everyone in Europe understood even then that a big war was a matter of time. And no one understood how big it would be, this war. Nobody understood, nobody was afraid.

The king was clearly more interested in quiet family life than state affairs. Daughters were born one after another - Olga (even before the coronation), then Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia. There was no son, which caused concern. The dynasty needed an heir.

Cottage in Livadia, hunting. The king liked to shoot. The so-called "Diary of Nicholas II", all these dull, monotonous and endless "shot at crows", "killed a cat", "drank tea" - a fake; but the tsar fired on innocent crows and cats with enthusiasm.

Photo: Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky / Library of Congress

As mentioned above, the tsar became interested in photography (and, by the way, supported the famous Prokudin-Gorsky in every possible way). And also - one of the first in Europe to appreciate such a new thing as a car. I drove personally and had a fair fleet of vehicles. For pleasant activities, time flowed imperceptibly. The tsar rode a car in the parks, and Russia climbed into Asia.

Even Alexander III understood that the empire would have to seriously fight in the East, and he sent his son on a cruise for nine months for a reason. In Japan, Nikolai, as we remember, did not like it. A military alliance with China against Japan is one of his first foreign policy deals. Then there were the construction of the CER (Chinese Eastern Railway), military bases in China, including the famous Port Arthur. And the discontent of Japan, and the rupture of diplomatic relations in January 1904, and right there - an attack on the Russian squadron.

Bird cherry quietly crept like a dream
And someone "Tsushima ..." said into the phone.
Hurry, Hurry! Term ends!
"Varangian" and "Korean" went east.

This is Anna Andreevna Akhmatova.

"Varangian" and "Korean", as everyone knows, died heroically in Chemulpo Bay, but at first the reason for Japanese success was seen solely in the deceit of the "yellow-faced devils." They were going to fight with the savages, hatred moods reigned in society. And then the tsar finally had an heir, Tsarevich Alexei.

Both the tsar, and the military, and many ordinary subjects, who were then experiencing patriotic enthusiasm, somehow did not notice that the Japanese savages were seriously preparing for war, having spent a lot of money, attracted the best foreign specialists and created an army and navy that were clearly more powerful than the Russians.

Failures followed one after another. The economy of an agrarian country could not withstand the pace necessary to secure the front. Communications were no good - Russia is too big for us and our roads are too bad. The Russian army near Mukden was defeated. A huge fleet crawled around half the Earth from the Baltic to Pacific Ocean, and then near the island of Tsushima was almost completely destroyed by the Japanese in a few hours. Port Arthur surrendered. Peace had to be concluded on humiliating terms. They gave away, among other things, half of Sakhalin.

Embittered, crippled, having seen hunger, mediocrity, cowardice and thieving command, soldiers returned to Russia. Lots of soldiers.

And in Russia by that time a lot had happened. Bloody Sunday, for example, January 9, 1905. The workers, whose position, naturally, worsened (after all, there was a war), decided to go to the tsar - to ask for bread and, oddly enough, political freedoms up to popular representation. We met a demonstration with bullets, and the figures vary - from 100 to 200 people died. The workers got angry. Nikolai was upset.

Then there was what is called the revolution of 1905 - riots in the army and cities, their bloody suppression and - as an attempt to reconcile the country - the Manifesto of October 17, which granted the Russians basic civil liberties and parliament - the State Duma. The emperor dissolved the First Duma by his decree less than a year later. He didn't like the idea at all.

All these events did not add popularity to the sovereign. Among the intelligentsia, he seems to have no supporters at all. Konstantin Balmont, a rather nasty but very popular poet in those days, published a book of poems abroad with the pretentious title "Songs of the Struggle", which contained, among other things, the poem "Our Tsar".

Our king is Mukden, our king is Tsushima,
Our king is a bloodstain
The stench of gunpowder and smoke
In which the mind is dark.

About the scaffold and Khodynka, quoted above, - from the same place.

Tsar, war and newspapers

The time between the two wars is filled with events tight and tight. The Stolypin terror and the Stolypin land reform (“They need great upheavals, we need great Russia”, - this beautiful phrase was quoted by V.V. Putin, R.A. Kadyrov, N.S. Mikhalkov, and gave rise to a little-known speechwriter who had a formidable prime minister.) Economic growth. The first experiences of parliamentary work; Dumas that were always in conflict with the government and dismissed by the tsar. The undercover fuss of the revolutionary parties that destroyed the empire - the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks. Nationalist reaction, the Union of the Russian People, tacitly supported by the tsar, Jewish pogroms. The rise of the arts...

The growth of influence at the court of Rasputin - a crazy old man from Siberia, either a whip or a holy fool, who in the end managed to completely subjugate the Russian empress to his will: the crown prince was sick, Rasputin knew how to help him, and this worried the queen more than all the upheavals in the external the world.

To our proud capital
He enters - God, save! -
Enchant the queen
Invisible Russia.

This is Gumilyov Nikolai Stepanovich, the poem "Man" from the book "Bonfire".

It makes no sense, perhaps, to retell in detail the history of the First World War, which thundered in August 1914 (by the way, there is an interesting and unexpected document on the state of the country on the eve of the disaster: just in 1914, John Grosvenor, an American who wrote for The National, visited Russia Geographic Magazine's large and enthusiastic article "Young Russia. The Land of Unlimited Opportunities" with a bunch of photos; the country, according to the American, was blooming).

In short, all this looked like a quote from quite recent newspapers: first, patriotic enthusiasm, then - failures at the front, the economy, unable to serve the front, bad roads.

And also - the king, who decided to personally lead the army in August 1915, and also - endless lines for bread in the capital and major cities, and then - the revelry of the nouveaux riches, "rising" on millions of military contracts, and also many thousands returning from the front. Cripples and just deserters. Those who have seen death up close, the mud of gray Galicia, those who have seen Europe...

In addition, probably for the first time: the headquarters of the warring powers launched a large-scale information war, supplying the army and rear of the enemy with the most terrible rumors, including about the most august persons. And in millions of leaflets throughout the country, stories spread that our tsar was a cowardly, feeble-minded drunkard, and his wife was Rasputin's mistress and a German spy.

All this, of course, was a lie, but the important thing is this: in a world where the printed word was still believed and where ideas about the sacredness of autocratic power still flickered, they were dealt a very strong blow. It was not German leaflets or Bolshevik newspapers that broke the monarchy, but their role should not be completely discounted.

Tellingly, the German monarchy also did not survive the war. The Austro-Hungarian Empire ended. In a world where there are no secrets in power, where a journalist in a newspaper can rinse the sovereign as he wants, empires will not survive.

In view of all this, it probably becomes clearer why, when the king abdicated, this did not particularly surprise anyone. Except maybe himself and his wife. At the end of February, his wife wrote to him that hooligans were operating in St. Petersburg (this is how she tried to comprehend the February Revolution), and he demanded to suppress the unrest, no longer having loyal troops at hand. On March 2, 1917, Nicholas signed the abdication.

Ipatiev house and everything after

The Provisional Government sent the former tsar and his family to Tyumen, then to Tobolsk. The king almost liked what was happening. It's not so bad to be a private citizen and no longer responsible for a huge, war-torn country. Then the Bolsheviks moved him to Yekaterinburg.

Then ... Everyone knows what happened then, in July 1918. Specific Views Bolsheviks about political pragmatism. A brutal murder - the king, the queen, children, doctors, servants. Martyrdom turned the last autocrat into a holy martyr. Icons of the king are now sold in any church shop, and with a portrait there is a certain difficulty.

A brave military man with a well-groomed beard, quiet, one might even say - a kindly (forgive the dead cats) man in the street, who loved his family and simple human joys, turned out - not without the intervention of a case - at the head of the largest country in the most, probably, terrible period of its history.

It is as if he is hiding behind this story, there is little bright in him - not only in the events that passed by, touching him and his family, in the events that in the end destroyed both him and the country, creating another. It’s as if he doesn’t exist, you can’t see him behind a series of disasters.

And a terrible death removes the questions that are so fond of being asked in Russia: is the ruler to blame for the troubles of the country? Guilty. Certainly. But no more than many others. And he paid dearly, atoning for his guilt.