Nicholas II was born in 1868 and went down in history as the last emperor of the Russian Empire. The father of Nicholas II was Alexander III, and his mother was Maria Feodorovna.

Nicholas II had three brothers and two sisters. He was the eldest, so after the death of Alexander III in 1894, it was he who took the throne. Contemporaries of Nicholas II note that he was a fairly simple person to communicate with.

The reign of Nicholas II was marked by a fairly rapid development of the economy of the Russian Empire. However, at the same time, social and political contradictions and revolutionary movements were growing in Russia.

For more than twenty years of reign, Nicholas II did a lot for the Russian Empire.

First of all, it is worth noting that during his reign, the population of the Russian Empire increased by almost 50,000,000 people, that is, by 40%. And the natural population growth increased to 3,000,000 people a year. At the same time, the overall standard of living increased significantly.

Thanks to the active development of agriculture, as well as more thoughtful communication routes, the so-called "hungry years" at the beginning of the twentieth century were quickly eliminated. Crop failure now did not mean that there would be famine, since a poor harvest in some areas was offset by a good harvest in others. Under Nicholas II, the harvest of cereals increased significantly.

Coal production has increased significantly. During the reign of Nicholas II, it increased almost four times.

Also, under the reign of Nicholas II, the metallurgical industry increased very significantly. For example, iron smelting has increased almost four times, and copper mining five times. Thanks to this, a rather rapid growth in the field of mechanical engineering began. Consequently, the number of workers also increased from 2,000,000 to 5,000,000.

The length of railways and telegraph poles has increased significantly. It is also worth noting that under Nicholas II the army of the Russian Empire increased significantly. Nicholas II managed to create the most powerful river fleet in the world.

Under Nicholas II, the level of education of the population increased significantly. The production of books also increased.

Finally, it is worth saying that during the entire reign of Nicholas II, the treasury of the Russian Empire increased significantly. At the beginning of his reign, it was 1,200,000,000 rubles, and at the end - 3,500,000,000 rubles.

All this indicates that Nicholas II was a very talented ruler. According to his contemporaries, if everything had continued like this, then by the 1950s the Russian Empire would have become the most developed country in all of Europe.

Let's take a closer look at his rule:

When they talk about Nicholas II, two polar points of view are immediately identified: Orthodox-patriotic and liberal-democratic. For the first, Nicholas II and his family are the ideal of morality, the image of martyrdom; his reign is the highest point of Russia's economic development in its entire history. For others, Nicholas II is a weak personality, a weak-willed person who failed to save the country from revolutionary madness, who was completely under the influence of his wife and Rasputin; Russia during his reign is seen as economically backward.

The attitude towards the personality of the last Russian emperor is so ambiguous that there simply cannot be a consensus on the results of his reign.

When they talk about Nicholas II, two polar points of view are immediately identified: Orthodox-patriotic and liberal-democratic. For the first, Nicholas II and his family are the ideal of morality, the image of martyrdom; his reign is the highest point of Russia's economic development in its entire history. For others, Nicholas II is a weak personality, a weak-willed person who failed to save the country from revolutionary madness, who was completely under the influence of his wife and Rasputin; Russia during his reign is seen as economically backward

Let's look at both points of view and draw our own conclusions.

Orthodox-patriotic point of view

In the 1950s, a report by the Russian writer Brazol Boris Lvovich (1885-1963) appeared in the Russian diaspora. During the First World War, he worked in Russian military intelligence.

Brazol's report is titled "The reign of Emperor Nicholas II in figures and facts. Answer to slanderers, dismemberers and Russophobes.

At the beginning of this report, Edmond Teri, a well-known economist of the time, quotes: “If the affairs of the European nations continue from 1912 to 1950 as they did from 1900 to 1912, Russia by the middle of this century will dominate Europe both politically and politically. both economically and financially. (The Economist Europeen, 1913).

Here are some data from this report.

On the eve of the First World War, the population of the Russian Empire was 182 million people, and during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II it increased by 60 million.

Imperial Russia built its budgetary and financial policy not only on deficit-free budgets, but also on the principle of a significant accumulation of gold reserves.

In the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, by law of 1896, a gold currency was introduced in Russia. The stability of monetary circulation was such that even during the Russo-Japanese War, which was accompanied by widespread revolutionary unrest within the country, the exchange of credit notes for gold was not suspended.

Before the First World War, taxes in Russia were the lowest in the whole world. The burden of direct taxes in Russia was almost 4 times less than in France, more than 4 times less than in Germany and 8.5 times less than in England. The burden of indirect taxes in Russia was on average half that in Austria, France, Germany and England.

Between 1890 and 1913 Russian industry quadrupled its productivity. Moreover, it should be noted that the growth in the number of new enterprises was achieved not due to the emergence of one-day firms, as in modern Russia, but due to actually working factories and factories that produced products and created jobs.

In 1914, the State Savings Bank had deposits worth 2,236,000,000 rubles, i.e. 1.9 times more than in 1908.

These indicators are extremely important for understanding that the population of Russia was by no means poor and saved a significant part of its income.

On the eve of the revolution, Russian agriculture was in full bloom. In 1913, in Russia, the harvest of the main cereals was 1/3 higher than that of Argentina, Canada, and the United States of America combined. In particular, the harvest of rye in 1894 yielded 2 billion poods, and in 1913 - 4 billion poods.

During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, Russia was the main breadwinner of Western Europe. At the same time, the phenomenal growth in the export of agricultural products from Russia to England (grain and flour) attracts special attention. In 1908, 858.3 million pounds were exported, and in 1910, 2.8 million pounds, i.e. 3.3 times.

Russia supplied 50% of world egg imports. In 1908, 2.6 billion pieces worth 54.9 million rubles were exported from Russia, and in 1909 - 2.8 million pieces. worth 62.2 million rubles. The export of rye in 1894 amounted to 2 billion poods, in 1913: 4 billion poods. Sugar consumption in the same period of time increased from 4 to 9 kg per year per person (then sugar was a very expensive product).

On the eve of the First World War, Russia produced 80% of the world's flax production.

In 1916, that is, at the very height of the war, more than 2,000 versts of railways were built, which connected the Arctic Ocean (the port of Romanovsk) with the center of Russia. The Great Siberian Way (8.536 km) was the longest in the world.

It should be added that the Russian railways, in comparison with others, were the cheapest and most comfortable in the world for passengers.

During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, public education reached an extraordinary development. Primary education was free by law, and from 1908 it became compulsory. Since this year, about 10,000 schools have been opened annually. In 1913 their number exceeded 130,000. In terms of the number of women studying in higher educational institutions, Russia at the beginning of the 20th century ranked first in Europe, if not in the whole world.

During the reign of Sovereign Nicholas II, the government of Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin carried out one of the most significant and most brilliant reforms in Russia - the agrarian reform. This reform is connected with the transition of the form of ownership of land and land production from communal to private land. On November 9, 1906, the so-called "Stolypin Law" was issued, which allowed the peasant to leave the Community and become the individual and hereditary owner of the land he cultivated. This law was a huge success. Immediately, 2.5 million petitions were filed for access to cuts from family peasants. Thus, on the eve of the revolution, Russia was already ready to turn into a country of owners.

For the period 1886-1913. Russia's exports amounted to 23.5 billion rubles, imports - 17.7 billion rubles.

Foreign investments in the period from 1887 to 1913 increased from 177 million rubles. up to 1.9 billion rubles, i.e. increased by 10.7 times. Moreover, these investments were directed to capital-intensive production and created new jobs. However, what is very important, Russian industry was not dependent on foreigners. Enterprises with foreign investment accounted for only 14% of the total capital of Russian enterprises.

The abdication of Nicholas II from the throne was the greatest tragedy in the thousand-year history of Russia.

By the decision of the Council of Bishops of March 31 - April 4, 1992, the Synodal Commission for the canonization of saints was instructed "when studying the exploits of the new martyrs of Russia, to begin researching materials related to the martyrdom of the Royal Family."

Extracts from "GROUNDS FOR THE CANONIZATION OF THE ROYAL FAMILY

FROM THE REPORT OF METROPOLITAN KRUTITSKY AND KOLOMENSKOY YUVENALY,

CHAIRMAN OF THE SYNODAL COMMISSION FOR THE CANONIZATION OF SAINTS.

“As a politician and statesman, the Sovereign acted on the basis of his religious and moral principles. One of the most common arguments against the canonization of Emperor Nicholas II is the events of January 9, 1905 in St. Petersburg. In the historical information of the Commission on this issue, we indicate: having become acquainted on the evening of January 8 with the content of the Gapon petition, which had the character of a revolutionary ultimatum, which did not allow to enter into constructive negotiations with representatives of the workers, the Sovereign ignored this document, illegal in form and undermining the prestige of the already fluctuating conditions government wars. Throughout January 9, 1905, the Sovereign did not take a single decision that determined the actions of the authorities in St. Petersburg to suppress mass demonstrations of workers. The order to the troops to open fire was given not by the Emperor, but by the Commander of the St. Petersburg Military District. Historical data do not allow us to detect in the actions of the Sovereign in the January days of 1905 a conscious evil will directed against the people and embodied in specific sinful decisions and actions.

With the outbreak of the First World War, the Sovereign regularly travels to Headquarters, visits military units of the army in the field, dressing stations, military hospitals, rear factories, in a word, everything that played a role in the conduct of this war.

From the very beginning of the war, the Empress devoted herself to the wounded. Having completed the courses of sisters of mercy, together with her eldest daughters, the Grand Duchesses Olga and Tatiana, she nursed the wounded in the Tsarskoye Selo infirmary for several hours a day.

The emperor considered his tenure as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief as the fulfillment of a moral and state duty to God and the people, however, always presenting the leading military specialists with a broad initiative in resolving the entire set of military-strategic and operational-tactical issues.

The Commission expresses the opinion that the very fact of the abdication of the Throne of Emperor Nicholas II, which is directly related to his personal qualities, is on the whole an expression of the then historical situation in Russia.

He made this decision only in the hope that those who wanted him removed would still be able to continue the war with honor and not ruin the cause of saving Russia. He was then afraid that his refusal to sign the renunciation would lead to civil war in the sight of the enemy. The tsar did not want even a drop of Russian blood to be shed because of him.

The spiritual motives for which the last Russian Sovereign, who did not want to shed the blood of his subjects, decided to abdicate the Throne in the name of inner peace in Russia, gives his act a truly moral character. It is no coincidence that during the discussion in July 1918 at the Council of the Local Council of the issue of the funeral commemoration of the murdered Sovereign, His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon decided on the universal service of memorial services with the commemoration of Nicholas II as Emperor.

Behind the many sufferings endured by the Royal Family over the last 17 months of their lives, which ended with execution in the basement of the Yekaterinburg Ipatiev House on the night of July 17, 1918, we see people who sincerely sought to embody the commandments of the Gospel in their lives. In the suffering endured by the Royal Family in captivity with meekness, patience and humility, in their martyrdom, the light of Christ's faith conquering evil was revealed, just as it shone in the life and death of millions of Orthodox Christians who suffered persecution for Christ in the 20th century.

It is in understanding this feat of the Royal Family that the Commission, in complete unanimity and with the approval of the Holy Synod, finds it possible to glorify in the Cathedral of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia in the face of the Passion-Bearers Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatyana, Maria and Anastasia.

Liberal democratic point of view

When Nicholas II came to power, he had no program, except for the firm intention not to cede his autocratic power, which his father had passed on to him. He always made decisions alone: ​​“How can I do this if it is against my conscience?” - it was the basis on which he made his political decisions or rejected the options offered to him. He continued to pursue the controversial policies of his father: on the one hand, he tried to achieve social and political stabilization from above by preserving the old estate-state structures, on the other hand, the industrialization policy pursued by the Minister of Finance led to enormous social dynamics. The Russian nobility launched a massive offensive against the economic policy of industrialization pursued by the state. Having removed Witte, the tsar did not know where to go. Despite some reformist steps (for example, the abolition of corporal punishment of peasants), the tsar, under the influence of the new Minister of the Interior Plehve, decided in favor of the policy of preserving the social structure of the peasantry in every possible way (preserving the community), although it was easier for the kulak elements, that is, the richer peasants, to get out of peasant community. The tsar and the ministers did not consider reforms necessary in other areas either: only a few minor concessions were made on the labor issue; instead of guaranteeing the right to strike, the government continued its repression. With a policy of stagnation and repression, which at the same time continued the economic policy he had begun in a cautious manner, the tsar could not satisfy anyone.

At a meeting of zemstvo representatives on November 20, 1904, the majority demanded a constitutional regime. The forces of the progressive local nobility, rural intelligentsia, urban self-government and wide circles of the urban intelligentsia, united in opposition, began to demand the introduction of a parliament in the state. They were joined by the St. Petersburg workers, who were allowed to form an independent association, headed by the priest Gapon, they wanted to submit a petition to the tsar. The lack of general leadership under the already effectively dismissed Minister of the Interior and the Tsar, who, like most ministers, did not understand the seriousness of the situation, led to the disaster of Bloody Sunday on January 9, 1905. Army officers who were supposed to hold back the crowd, in a panic ordered to shoot at peaceful people. 100 people were killed and more than 1,000 are believed to have been injured. The workers and intelligentsia reacted with strikes and protest demonstrations. Although the workers for the most part made purely economic demands and the revolutionary parties could not play an important role either in the movement led by Gapon or in the strikes that followed Bloody Sunday, a revolution broke out in Russia.

When the revolutionary and opposition movement in October 1905 reached its climax - a general strike that practically paralyzed the country, the tsar was forced to turn again to his former minister of the interior, who, thanks to the very favorable peace treaty for Russia, he concluded with the Japanese in Portsmouth ( United States), gained universal respect. Witte explained to the Tsar that he must either appoint a dictator who would fight the revolution fiercely, or must guarantee bourgeois freedoms and an elected legislature. Nicholas did not want to drown the revolution in blood. Thus, the fundamental problem of constitutional monarchies - the creation of a balance of power - has become aggravated as a result of the actions of the prime minister. The October Manifesto (10/17/1905) promised bourgeois freedoms, an elected assembly with legislative powers, an expansion of the electoral right and, indirectly, equality of religions and nationalities, but did not bring the country the appeasement that the tsar expected. Rather, it caused serious riots that broke out as a result of clashes between loyal to the tsar and revolutionary forces, and led to pogroms in many regions of the country, directed not only against the Jewish population, but also against members of the intelligentsia. The development of events since 1905 has become irreversible.

However, in other areas there were positive changes that were not blocked at the political macro level. The pace of economic growth has again almost reached the level of the 1990s. In the countryside, Stolypin's agrarian reforms, which were aimed at creating private property, began to develop independently, despite resistance from the peasants. The state, through a whole package of measures, sought large-scale modernization in agriculture. Science, literature and art have reached a new flowering.

But the scandalous figure of Rasputin decisively contributed to the loss of the prestige of the monarch. The First World War ruthlessly exposed the shortcomings of the system of late tsarism. These were primarily political weaknesses. In the military field, by the summer of 1915, they even managed to seize the situation at the front and arrange supplies. In 1916, thanks to the offensive of Brusilov, the Russian army even owned most of the territorial gains of the allies before the collapse of Germany. Nevertheless, in February 1917 tsarism was approaching its doom. The tsar himself was fully to blame for this development of events. Since he increasingly wanted to be his own prime minister, but did not fit this role, during the war no one could coordinate the actions of various state institutions, primarily civilian with the military.

The provisional government, which replaced the monarchy, immediately placed Nicholas and his family under house arrest, but wanted to allow him to leave for England. However, the British government was in no hurry to respond, and the Provisional Government was no longer strong enough to resist the will of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. In August 1917 the family was moved to Tobolsk. In April 1918, the local Bolsheviks secured their transfer to Yekaterinburg. The king endured this time of humiliation with great calm and hope in God, which, in the face of death, gave him undeniable dignity, but which, even at the best of times, sometimes prevented him from acting rationally and decisively. On the night of July 16-17, 1918, the imperial family was shot. The liberal historian Yuri Gautier spoke with cold precision upon learning of the assassination of the tsar: "This is the denouement of another of the innumerable secondary knots of our troubled times, and the monarchical principle can only benefit from it."

The paradoxes of the personality and reign of Nicholas II can be explained by the objectively existing contradictions of Russian reality at the beginning of the 20th century, when the world was entering a new phase of its development, and the tsar did not have the will and determination to master the situation. Trying to defend the "autocratic principle", he maneuvered: either he made small concessions, or he refused them. As a result, the regime rotted, pushing the country to the abyss. Rejecting and hindering the reforms, the last king contributed to the beginning of the social revolution. This should be recognized both with absolute sympathy for the fate of the king, and with his categorical rejection. At the critical moment of the February coup, the generals changed their oath and forced the tsar to abdicate.

Nicholas II himself knocked the ground out from under his feet. He stubbornly defended his positions, did not make serious compromises, and thus created the conditions for a revolutionary explosion. He did not support the liberals, who sought to prevent the revolution in the hope of concessions from the tsar. And the revolution happened. 1917 became a fatal milestone in the history of Russia.

From myself, I can say that I am more an adherent of the Orthodox-patriotic point of view.

Sergei Osipov, AiF: Which of the Bolshevik leaders made the decision to execute the royal family?

This question is still the subject of debate among historians. There is a version: Lenin And Sverdlov they did not sanction regicide, the initiative of which allegedly belonged only to members of the executive committee of the Ural Regional Council. Indeed, direct documents signed by Ulyanov are still unknown to us. However Leon Trotsky in exile, he recalled how he asked Yakov Sverdlov a question: “- And who decided? - We decided here. Ilyich believed that it was impossible to leave us a living banner for them, especially in the current difficult conditions. The role of Lenin, without any embarrassment, was unequivocally pointed out by Nadezhda Krupskaya.

In early July, I urgently left for Moscow from Yekaterinburg party "owner" of the Urals and military commissar of the Urals military district Shaya Goloshchekin. On the 14th, he returned, apparently with final instructions from Lenin, Dzerzhinsky and Sverdlov to destroy the entire family Nicholas II.

- Why did the Bolsheviks need the death of not only the already abdicated Nicholas, but also women and children?

- Trotsky cynically stated: “In essence, the decision was not only expedient, but also necessary,” and in 1935 he specified in his diary: “The royal family was a victim of the principle that constitutes the axis of the monarchy: dynastic heredity.”

The extermination of members of the House of Romanov not only destroyed the legal basis for the restoration of legitimate power in Russia, but also bound the Leninists with mutual responsibility.

Could they survive?

- What would happen if the Czechs approaching the city released Nicholas II?

The sovereign, members of his family and their faithful servants would have survived. I doubt that Nicholas II would have been able to disavow the act of renunciation of March 2, 1917 in the part that concerned him personally. However, it is obvious that no one could question the rights of the heir to the throne, Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich. A living heir, despite his illness, would personify the legitimate power in Russia engulfed in turmoil. In addition, along with the accession to the rights of Alexei Nikolayevich, the order of succession to the throne, destroyed during the events of March 2-3, 1917, would automatically be restored. It was this option that the Bolsheviks were desperately afraid of.

Why were some of the royal remains buried (and the murdered themselves canonized) in the 90s of the last century, some - quite recently, and is there any certainty that this part is really the last?

Let's start with the fact that the absence of relics (remains) does not serve as a formal basis for refusing canonization. The canonization of the royal family by the Church would have taken place even if the Bolsheviks had completely destroyed the bodies in the basement of the Ipatiev House. By the way, in emigration, many thought so. There is nothing surprising in the fact that the remains were found in parts. Both the murder itself and the cover-up took place in a terrible hurry, the killers were nervous, the preparation and organization turned out to be bad. Therefore, they could not completely destroy the bodies. I have no doubt that the remains of two people found in the summer of 2007 in the town of Porosenkov log near Yekaterinburg belong to the emperor's children. Therefore, the point in the tragedy of the royal family, most likely, has been set. But, unfortunately, both she and the tragedies of millions of other Russian families that followed her left our modern society practically indifferent.

"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 the 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 by the Orthodox Church at the end of the 20th century. 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 the moment) 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. The magic tree is horrified: is it a conceivable thing - the 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 Rus' - 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 will not deceive - I have no answer, but there is a suspicion that some small and insignificant part of the answer is hidden in the human biography of the last bearer of autocratic power.

The frivolous son of a stern father

Many portraits have been preserved: the last king lived in the era of photography and he himself 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, of course, approved of the murder 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 became king in a certain sense by accident. 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 ruled abruptly, unlike his 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, reactions, 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 agent 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 a whole ritual. Having drunk themselves to hell, they ran naked into the night - and howled, imitating a pack of wolves. And so on - 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 for the future spouses everything somehow worked out right away, and in the future, in the course of their life together, they showed unostentatious tenderness to each other.

Oh yes. Nikolai left Matilda Kshesinskaya immediately after the engagement. But the royal family liked the ballerina, 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. The key events of 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, limited 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 yet over) 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 king finally had an heir, Tsarevich Alexei.

Both the tsar, 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. The huge fleet crawled around half of the Earth from the Baltic to the 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 a great Russia,” this beautiful phrase was quoted by V.V. Putin, R.A. Kadyrov, N.S. premiere.) 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 Rus'.

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 tsar, who decided to personally lead the army in August 1915, and also - endless lines for bread in the capital and large cities, and right there - the revelry of the nouveaux riches, "rising" on millions of military contracts, and also - many thousands returning from 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 ideas of the 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 gallant military man with a well-groomed beard, a 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.

We are approaching the centenary of the February Revolution, which dramatically changed the course of the entire history of our country. What happened to the government on the eve of the February events: was the abdication of Nikolai Romanov inevitable? And did he face a conspiracy against the Russian State, or did he become a victim of the inexorable course of historical events?

According to diaries NicholasII, the king lived in some kind of his own world, far from reality. Due to problems with the supply of bread, the number of dissatisfied people in the capital is growing, but the autocrat does not attach any importance to this and writes:

“After breakfast, I sat upstairs for an hour and a half by the tooth. doctor Kostritsky, who came from Yalta. Walked with my daughters. Frost was decent. January 3, 1917 Tuesday" (NikolaiII).

On a walk

Beginning of the 17th year. In the midst of the First World War. The unsuccessful attempt of another offensive by Russian troops led to the death of more than 23,000 soldiers.

There is not a word about this in the emperor's diary either.

“After breakfast, I sat by the tooth again. doctor and took a walk with Tatyana and Maria. Before tea, I received General Schilder, director of the Lyceum. Before dinner I received Gurko, the cat. Arrived from Mogilev for 3-4 days. Worked for a short time. January 5, 1917 Thursday"(NikolaiII).

Most NicholasII worries about the health of children and the weather. Well, almost nothing is said about the impending storm of revolution in his diary. No strikes or strikes. Only a happy and carefree life: reading books, walking, playing snowballs and dominoes.

Meanwhile, a conspiracy among representatives of the liberal wing is brewing against the tsar. The political elite is trying to turn the people and the army against the head of state.

Nicholas II stood in the way of the aspirations of the liberal bourgeoisie, and the aspirations consisted in one thing: parliamentary government of the country (so that the State Duma would appoint ministers and sanction all management decisions). And the role of the monarch would be more representative, so that it would be, for example, like in England, where the monarch rules, but does not govern.

Nicholas II knows about the impending conspiracy, but does nothing against the opposition, deciding to trust, in his words, God's will.

Rodzianko:“Your Majesty, save yourself. We are on the eve of great events, the outcome of which cannot be foreseen. What your government and you yourself are doing irritates the population to such an extent that anything is possible. Every rogue commands everyone. If a crook can, why can't I, a decent person? Here is the public opinion. From the public it will pass into the army, and complete anarchy will result. You sometimes deigned to obey me, and it turned out well..

Nicholas II: « I will do what God puts on my soul.”

(Fragment from Alexander Blok's book "The Last Days of Imperial Power").

According to Nicholas II only autocratic power will save Russia, but this idea was not shared by the majority of liberal-minded deputies. Opposition politicians tried to play on the mood of the residents, who could hardly endure the hardships of wartime.

Rasputin and the royal family

The press now and then published articles about the favorite of the royal family - the scandalous Grigory Rasputin. The news that the famous Siberian man was killed was received with joy in the country, but for the royal family it was a real shock.

The killers were found right there, so what?

And nothing.

The chief murderer of the prince Yusupov sent to his estate to sit out. Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich, who participated in the murder, was sent to our contingent in Iran (in Persia, at that time).

No one was punished, that is, the people who hatched the plans for a coup saw that you can do whatever you want, and nothing will happen.

Eliminating Rasputin, the conspirators hoped to reconcile Nicholas and the Russian elite of that time. But the murder of the elder only led to a political crisis. After the emperor condemned the murderers, the whole house Romanovs rebelled against him.

After death Rasputin, after his funeral, there was a complete alienation of him from the royal family, from these one hundred and ten, with more than, relatives, who, in fact, acted on the side Dmitry Pavlovich, that is, the one who took part in the murder. In fact, the royal family, the royal family was in opposition Nicholas II.

Russia's main ally in the First World War, Great Britain, knew about the impending conspiracy in the capital. However, she decided to support, including financially, the liberal opposition, which in London was considered absolutely manageable.

In addition, the generals participating in the conspiracy hid from the king the true state of affairs in the country. And although most of the army commanders expressed their readiness to suppress the outbreak of the uprising, Nicholas II knew nothing about it.

Nicholas I I and the government, all together, as power, if we consider them as what we understand by power, made a mistake and allowed the most cruel defeat. This defeat is informational. They lost the information war, in modern terms, outright lost.

Information technologies owned by the State Duma, public organizations (paid for by the Moscow merchants), they turned out to be so effective that the royal family itself was completely discredited in the eyes of the broad masses.

In February 1917, the emperor is going to go to headquarters. A decisive offensive was being prepared. It was supposed to turn the tide in the war and thereby strengthen the autocracy, but this did not suit the opposition in any way. The liberal establishment decided to take advantage of the absence of the king and overthrow the government.

On February 22, the imperial train left for Mogilev, and the very next day riots broke out in Petrograd. It is still not clear what it was: an uncontrollable element or a well-prepared operation.

It is clear that there were conspiracies, because there are always conspiracies. And Nicholas II, indeed, knew about the conspiracies being prepared against him.

In the autumn of 1916, he was informed about this by the palace commandant Voeikov, in December - Black Hundreds Tikhanovich-Savitsky, and in January 1917 - Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Prince Golitsyn and adjutant wing Mordvinov.

Nicholas II he was afraid during the war to act openly against the liberal opposition and completely entrusted his life and the life of the empress to the "will of God."

But in addition to conspiracies, after all, there were also objective reasons for the historical process itself. The contradictions that the Russian Empire faced were insurmountable. And they could not lead to anything else but a revolution.

At the same time, Russia Nicholas II achieved outstanding success: first place in the world in terms of economic growth, including industrial growth, all this was, but in a situation where the management system does not work, Nicholas II could not take any very drastic measures to tip the scales of history by his actions. He was unable to do this.

Moreover, the subordinates did not want to upset the emperor. Only in Mogilev did he learn about the events that had taken place in the capital, but for a long time he refused to believe in them.

Officially, the revolution began with unrest among Petrograd housewives, forced to stand long hours in long lines for bread. Many of them became workers in weaving factories during the war years.

By February 23, about 100,000 workers from fifty enterprises were already on strike in the capital. The demonstrators demanded not only bread and an end to the war, but also the overthrow of the autocracy.

But the unrest in Petrograd is quickly forgotten.

In rate Nicholas II puzzled by new problems. The children who remained in Tsarskoye Selo became infected with measles. This is his thoughts now. This is now his thoughts, and not about how to suppress the uprising in the capital.

“My angel, my love! Well, Olga and Alexei have measles. Olga has a rash all over her face and her eyes hurt. February 23, 1917" (Alexandra Fedorovna).

“The weather was bad – a blizzard. I took a short walk in the garden. I read and wrote. Yesterday Olga and Alexei got measles, and today Tatyana followed suit. February 24, 1917 Friday" (Nicholas II).

According to historians, Nicholas II learned about the beginning of the revolution only on February 25 at about 18:00 from two sources: from General Khabalova and from the minister Protopopov.

In his own diary Nicholas first wrote about the revolutionary events only on February 27 (on the fourth day): “Unrest broke out in Petrograd a few days ago; unfortunately, the troops began to take part in them. It's a disgusting feeling to be so far away and receive fragmentary bad news!

On February 27, a mass transition of soldiers to the side of the people began: in the morning, 10,000 soldiers rebelled. By the evening of the next day, there were already 127,000 rebel soldiers.

And by March 1, almost the entire Petrograd garrison had gone over to the side of the striking workers. Government troops melted every minute. And this is not surprising, because the soldiers were yesterday's peasant recruits, not ready to raise bayonets against their brothers. Therefore, it is more fair to consider this rebellion not of soldiers, but of peasants.

On February 28, the rebels arrested the general Khabalova and imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress.

Following Petrograd, Moscow also went on strike.

On February 27, it was declared under a state of siege, and all rallies were prohibited. But the unrest could not be prevented.

By March 2, the railway stations, arsenals and the Kremlin were already captured. Representatives of the Committee of Public Organizations of Moscow and the Moscow Council of Workers' Deputies, created during the days of the revolution, took power into their own hands ...

The seemingly invincible Russian Empire disappeared without resistance. Throughout the revolutionary days Nicholas reading a book about military successes Julius Caesar. The last Russian emperor reported about this in his diary.

Apparently, at that moment the fate of the Roman commander worried him much more than the fate of the country and his own life.

Viktor Kolmogorov

Nicholas II in the train car window. Immediately after abdication

One of the most tragic figures in Russian history is the holy martyr Tsar Nicholas II. What kind of person was he? What kind of king? What politician? Priest Vasily SEKACHEV, candidate of historical sciences, researcher at the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences, shared his vision of the personality of the sovereign with our correspondent.

Parade of guards units on the Khodynka field on May 12, 1896. Emperor Nicholas II drinks a glass of vodka

It is widely believed that Tsar Nicholas mediocrely ruled the country: he shot people, killed people in wars. How true is this? After all, there is another opinion: “a strong-willed politician of troubled times” - perhaps this is more accurate?
- I do not agree with either one or the other. The sovereign was by no means a mediocre person, but his abilities did not find real application. In modern terms, he did not have his own "team". There were very few people around him who were really close to him in spirit. At the same time, he was not a dictator or a tyrant. Nicholas II was a man of a very special mental disposition. Since childhood, he was a very religious and at the same time a very trusting person - although this is far from the same thing.
In the Gospel of Matthew, the Lord says: “Behold, I am sending you like sheep among wolves: therefore be wise like serpents and simple like doves” (Matt. 10:16). Maybe the Sovereign lacked this serpentine wisdom. Brought up in an atmosphere of court prosperity, he really did not understand that the last times for the Empire were coming, and he trusted people very much. Meanwhile, if we continue the gospel quote, we will hear literally in the next verse: "Beware of people ..." (verse 17). But the Sovereign was not afraid, because he did not see all the fatality of the then situation in Russia and at the same time he was brought up with amazing faith in people, especially if these people were at the helm of the power of the greatest Christian empire, which occupied one sixth of the land.

- Fatality? Was it really that bad?

Agitation during the Russo-Japanese War: "Japanese, expelled from a European family. Russia says:" Go, go away from here, a trashy boy! It's too early, as it turns out, they put you at the same table with the big ones ... behave properly!" Alas, a little more than a decade after the unsuccessful war with Japan, Russia itself placed itself outside the civilized world for a long time.

- Judge for yourself: on the eve of the Russo-Japanese War, Admiral General of the Russian Fleet, Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich, the uncle of the Tsar, received a report from the head of the Kronstadt port, Admiral Makarov, warning about the inadmissibility of keeping Russian ships in the outer roadstead of Port Arthur, where they could become a convenient target for a surprise night attack by the Japanese. Alexey Alexandrovich, however, was distinguished by indifference to the affairs of the fleet entrusted to him, preferring entertainment. The report was not considered, a month later the Japanese, without declaring war, launched a night attack on Russian ships in Port Arthur, sank them and began the Russo-Japanese War, which became largely unfortunate for us.

Russo-Japanese War 1904 - 1905 The execution of a spy in the village of Twelin

Another uncle of the Tsar - Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich, commander of the St. Petersburg Military District - on the eve of Bloody Sunday on January 9, 1905, instead of staying on the sidelines and letting the police take the usual and practiced police security measures, demanded full power for himself, unfortunately, her achieved and declared the capital under martial law. He persuaded the sovereign to leave for Tsarskoye Selo, assuring him that there was nothing dangerous. He himself intended to give a warning to the "troublemakers" and hang several hundred people for this, which he also announced in advance to foreign correspondents. Unfortunately, we know how it all ended.
One part of the court and senior officials was in captivity of selfish aspirations, the other dogmatically believed in the inadmissibility of any kind of change. Many were seized with the idea of ​​saving Russia by reorganizing it in a Western way.
Meanwhile, the Sovereign was convinced that all these people, just like himself, consider the Orthodox faith to be the basis of their life and treat their state activities with the greatest trepidation. However, it was to Christ that almost all of them were surprisingly indifferent. People with a living religious faith in the upper class of Russia were then extremely rare. They were revered as eccentrics or hypocrites, they were ridiculed and persecuted (recall the story when he was commander of the Preobrazhensky regiment). What can I say, the reading of the Gospel was revered in the world, and indeed in “society” in the 19th century. - a sign of mental illness.
The tsar showed in this sense a striking contrast with his surroundings. He was a very religious person, he loved the church service very much. Even Winston Churchill, then just a minister of the British Empire, wrote that Nicholas II "in his life, first of all, relied on faith in God." In general, there is a lot of evidence about this.
It is known that during the reign of Nicholas II more saints were glorified than during the entire Synodal period (this includes St. Seraphim of Sarov and Hieromartyr Patriarch Hermogenes, as well as Sts. Theodosius of Chernigov, Joasaph of Belgorod, Pitirim of Tambov, John of Tobolsk, and others). And all this was done with the direct participation and often at the insistence of the Sovereign - as, for example, in the case of St. Seraphim.
And of course, the Sovereign approached the matter of state administration as a truly Christian, sacrificial service, with a very serious responsibility. It is known that he personally, without using the services of a secretary, looked through a huge number of papers, went into the smallest details of completely different cases, personally sealed his most important resolutions in envelopes.
It seems to me that the following words from his letter to Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich testify very convincingly to the Sovereign's awareness of his royal duty:
“Sometimes, I must confess, tears well up in my eyes at the thought of what a calm, wonderful life could be for me for many more years, if not for October 20th. ! But these tears show human weakness, these are tears of self-pity, and I try to drive them away as soon as possible and meekly carry out my heavy and responsible service to Russia"

- They say the Tsar even wanted to become a Patriarch?
According to an unknown person, Nilus writes about this in one of his books. However, the well-known church publicist and public figure of the early 20th century, the repentant Narodnaya Volya member Lev Tikhomirov strongly denied this fact, justifying his opinion by the fact that he himself could not have been unaware of this. To be honest, I believe Tikhomirov more.

- What education did Nicholas II receive?
- There are conflicting opinions about the education of Sovereign Nikolai Alexandrovich. Some believe that he was educated superficially, since teachers had no right to give him low marks or even no marks at all, but simply had to deal with him somehow. Others say that the courses he took would do honor to the most educated people. First, the Sovereign was educated in the volume of an extended gymnasium course (the ancient languages ​​were replaced by the study of mineralogy, botany, zoology, anatomy and physiology, and the courses of history, Russian literature and foreign languages ​​were expanded), and then, in 1885-1890. - higher, connecting the course of the state and economic departments of the law faculty of the university with the course of the Academy of the General Staff. First of all, Nikolai Alexandrovich studied political economy, law and military affairs (military jurisprudence, strategy, military geography, the service of the General Staff). There were also classes in vaulting, fencing, drawing, and music. The teachers of the future Sovereign were Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod K. P. Pobedonostsev, Minister of Finance N. Kh. Bunge, Head of the Academy of the General Staff M. I. Dragomirov and others.
An indicator of education was the love of books and foreign languages. The emperor was fluent in German, French, English, somewhat worse - Danish, his mother's native language. He read a lot. There was a special culture of reading in the family of Nicholas II. They read new books together in the evenings, then discussed what they read.
The emperor was very fond of poetry. In his diary for 1894, on thirty (!) Pages, he and Alexandra Fedorovna's favorite poems are written down - in four European languages.

- But they say that Nicholas II left a rather boring philistine diary ...
- I wouldn't say that. Judge for yourself: “December 31, 1894. Saturday. It was hard to stand in church while thinking about the terrible change that happened this year. [referring to the death of the father]. But trusting in God, I look at the coming year without fear ... Along with such irreparable grief, the Lord also rewarded me with happiness, which I could not even dream of - Alix gave me. "February 13, 1895 [Alexandra Feodorovna on demolition]. The mood is such that you really want to pray, it asks for itself - in church, in prayer - the only, greatest consolation on earth. “February 14, 1904. At 9 o’clock. we went to Anichkov for mass and communed with the Holy Mysteries of Christ. What a consolation in this serious time.”
It seems to me that these are the diaries of a very believing and living person. Of course, sometimes the notes are very short, but the Sovereign strictly entered them in a notebook every day, for self-discipline, so as not to forget anything. It's no secret that people mostly write diaries for others, but he wrote for himself, for self-discipline. In the evening, he tried to remember everything that happened that day, so that he could continue the next day. He was a very complete person.

- Did the Tsar have a certain daily routine?
- Yes, sure. According to the testimony of his valet T. A. Chemodurov, the Sovereign invariably got up at 8 o'clock in the morning and quickly made his morning toilet. At half past eight I drank tea at my place and went about business until 11 o'clock: I read the reports presented and personally imposed resolutions on them. The sovereign worked alone, without secretaries and assistants. After 11 there was a reception of visitors. At about one o'clock the Sovereign had breakfast with his family, however, if the reception of persons introduced to the Sovereign took more than the prescribed time, then the family expected the Sovereign and did not sit down to breakfast without him.
After breakfast, the Tsar worked again and for some time walked in the park, where he certainly engaged in some kind of physical labor, working with a shovel, saw or axe. Tea followed after the walk, and from 18:00 to 20:00 the Tsar again went about his business in his office. At 8 o'clock in the evening the Sovereign dined, then again sat down to work until evening tea (at 23 o'clock).
If the reports were extensive and numerous, the Sovereign worked well after midnight and went to the bedroom only after finishing his work. The most important papers the Sovereign himself personally put into envelopes and sealed. Before going to bed, the Emperor took a bath

- Did Nicholas II have any hobbies? What did he love?
- He loved history, especially Russian. He had idealistic ideas about Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, that his reign was the heyday of Holy Rus'. I personally do not agree with this. But he sacredly believed in those ideas that, in his opinion, Alexy Mikhailovich believed in: devotion to God, concern for the Church, the good of the people. Unfortunately, Alexei Mikhailovich took a number of measures to subordinate the Orthodox Church to the state, anticipating the anti-church policy of his son Peter the Great.
Tsar Nicholas II was very fond of music, he loved Tchaikovsky. As we have already said, he was a very well-read person, he was interested in Dostoevsky.
In moments of rest, the Sovereign was very fond of visiting his family, spending time with his relatives - first of all, uncle Sergei Alexandrovich and Elizaveta Feodorovna. From communication with relatives, he experienced pure, innocent, some unearthly joy.
The Sovereign had certain artistic abilities. He loved photography.
At the same time, it is known that the Sovereign was a stranger to any kind of luxury, did not wear jewelry, loved modest food, never demanded any special dishes for himself. His everyday clothes were a jacket, the overcoat that he wore had patches. According to the testimony of the maid of honor Buxgevden, in all residences the rooms of the Imperial couple were finished by the time of their wedding and were never redone.

- How successful can you still consider the reign of Nicholas II?
- Speaking about the upbringing of the Sovereign, I did not mention one essential fact. Nikolai Alexandrovich received ideas about the life of Russia and the ways of its possible change from the hands of teachers who disagreed with each other.
One of his tutors, who was in charge of economic education, - the former Minister of Finance Nikolai Khristianovich Bunge - oriented him towards the West. Another, who taught fundamentals of law and church history, Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, Konstantin Pobedonostsev, believed that it was necessary to adhere to Russian principles, especially the Orthodox faith. Pobedonostsev distrusted all kinds of reforms (although he often recognized their necessity), believing that the external circumstances of life change as a result of an internal change in the soul - its appeal to truth, to goodness, to God.
Bunge believed that the peasant community should be destroyed in order to free up workers for the development of capitalist production. Pobednostsev was a supporter of preserving the community as the custodian of the good customs of Russian antiquity - above all, camaraderie and mutual assistance. The peasant community was indeed a unique form of community life and joint housekeeping, which was largely influenced by the Orthodox faith. The community shows the fulfillment of the commandments of the Gospel: people united not only for joint work, but also for mutual assistance. Moreover, this help was disinterested - it was considered the norm of public life.
But the Sovereign, by virtue of the features noted above, perceived that both of his educators were partly right. Thus, a certain contradiction was laid in his worldview.
And then it got worse. This is very well described by A. Solzhenitsyn in The Red Wheel:
“One said one thing, the other said something else, and it was necessary to convene a council to figure it out, but it was still impossible to figure it out. Either Witte proposed creating a commission on peasant affairs - and the young Sovereign agreed. Pobedonostsev came, pointed out the absurdity of this undertaking - and the Sovereign extinguished. Here Witte sent a sensible note about the urgent need for a commission - and the Sovereign fully agreed in the margins, convinced. But Durnovo came to insist that there should not be a commission - and Nikolai wrote "to wait" ...
... This was the most painful thing in the role of a monarch: to choose the right one among the opinions of advisers. Each was stated in such a way as to be convincing, but who can determine where is the right one? And how good and easy it would be to rule Russia if the opinions of all advisers converged! What would it cost them - to converge, smart (good) people - to agree among themselves! No, by some spell they were doomed to always disagree - and put their Emperor to a standstill..."
Solzhenitsyn criticizes the Sovereign, trying to exalt Stolypin, but as a real artist with the gift of insight, he himself, perhaps not even though, conveys the attitude of the Sovereign very accurately. He shows his childish naivete, the desire to arrange Russia, bring her happiness in accordance with the Gospel. It shows how the Sovereign was simply wild, it is not clear why everyone should not agree and rule in harmony, together.
However, everyone wanted to be for himself, and in a good way, all of them should have been dispersed, except for Pobedonostsev. Only now there was no one to change.

The highest manifesto on the dissolution of the II State Duma

- Still, what happened to the Russo-Japanese War?
The history of the origin of this war just clearly shows the childish credulity of the Emperor. Initially, the Sovereign, with his characteristic peacefulness, tried to avoid conflict with Japan in the Far East, preferring to negotiate with her on the delimitation of spheres of influence. By the way, Nicholas II was very peaceful. In 1898, he made a proposal unprecedented in world history to refuse to wage wars. When the resistance of the leading world powers became obvious, he achieved the convening of the Hague Conference in 1899, which discussed issues of arms limitation and the development of rules for conducting war. The conference decided to ban the use of gases, explosive bullets, the taking of hostages, and also to establish the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which is still in force today.
Returning to Japan, it must be said that in 1895 she won the war against China and annexed Korea and South Manchuria with ice-free Port Arthur.
However, this fundamentally contradicted the policy that the Minister of Finance of the Russian Empire, S. Yu. Witte, was trying to pursue in China. In November 1892, he submitted a note addressed to Alexander III, in which he outlined a broad program of economic penetration into China, up to access to the Pacific Ocean and subordination of all Pacific trade to Russian influence. The note was filed in connection with the start of construction in 1891 of the Great Siberian Railway to Vladivostok. The peacefulness of Witte's economic plans (which he never tires of talking about in his memoirs) did not prevent him in 1893 from supporting the initiative of the notorious doctor Zh. Badmaev to organize a military intervention in Northern China, which, however, was strongly rejected by Alexander III.
In 1895, Witte was able to convince Nicholas II of the need for a confrontation with Japan. The sovereign believed him (we have already spoken about the reasons for trusting Witte), although this was against his own convictions. Witte attracted to his side the poet E. E. Ukhtomsky, who was close to Nicholas II. In 1890, he accompanied the then Tsarevich Nikolai on his semi-circumnavigation of the East and colorfully painted for the future Sovereign pictures of Russian prosperity in the Far East (in which, apparently, he sincerely believed himself). In 1896, Witte made Ukhtomsky director of the Russo-Chinese Bank and helped him become the editor of the Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti.
Enlisting the support of the Tsar, Witte achieved a revision of the results of the Sino-Japanese war. Under pressure from Germany and France, Japan was forced to return South Manchuria to China and liberate Korea. Thanks to his friendly relations with the French Rothschilds, Witte helped China pay Japan a significant indemnity (it was friendship with the Rothschilds that helped him and the French government to win over to his side; the assistance of the German government was provided to Witte by his friendship with the German bankers Wartburgs).
In exchange for assistance to China, Witte received the consent of the Chinese government to build the Chinese Eastern Railway (CER) through Manchuria, which helped lead the Great Siberian Route bypassing the difficult places of the Amur region.
However, Vladivostok froze in winter. Russia (or rather, Witte) needed an ice-free port. And although Witte in every possible way in his memoirs dissociated himself from the idea of ​​capturing Port Arthur in 1898, the agreement on the forced Russian lease of this ice-free port was concluded only thanks to his assistance (as in the case of the agreement on the construction of the CER, it was not without a bribe to the Chinese ruler Li Hong-chang).
The CER, which had become Witte's favorite brainchild, now received a branch to Port Arthur. An armed guard of 10 thousand people was wound up on the railway. (the so-called Zaamur border guard).
It is clear how Japan should have treated all this. The thirst for revenge became the prevailing mood in the country, in which the British supported the Japanese in every possible way. England owned the export of 2/3 of Chinese goods. According to Witte's note of 1892, she had to cede most of her export to Russia.
However, dissatisfaction with Russian policy also manifested itself in the Chinese environment. According to the Russian-Chinese treaty of 1896, the land for the construction of the CER was forcibly alienated from the Chinese peasants. Theoretically, they should have received some kind of compensation, but in the conditions of China at that time, this, apparently, did not happen. On the selected lands were the graves of their ancestors sacred to the Chinese.

Chinese delegation at the Coronation Celebrations of 1896 in Moscow

Hostility towards Russia manifested itself in 1900, during the all-Chinese uprising of the Yihetuan (Boxers), directed against foreigners as such. The Russians, traditionally perceived by the Chinese as, if not friends, then equal partners, now found themselves on a par with other foreign imperialists.
To save the CER, Witte insisted on bringing regular Russian troops into Manchuria. The fury of the Japanese from this only intensified.
Subsequently, Witte, perhaps, was ready to withdraw the troops. But it was already too late. At court, she received the influence of the so-called. "Bezobrazovskaya clique" (named after State Secretary Bezobrazov), which began to insist on pursuing an openly adventurist policy in the Far East. This group included the uncle and at the same time the son-in-law of the Tsar, Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, and the new, since 1902, Minister of the Interior Plehve. The latter proved to be the most consistent opponent of Witte. He was able to distribute falsified documents that Witte was preparing a coup d'état, and the Sovereign believed it (when in 1904, after the murder of Plehve, the deception was revealed, the frustrated Nikolai was unable to understand how Plehve could go to such meanness).
In 1903, Witte was nevertheless removed. The "bezobrazovtsy" took his place in the Far East, finally refused to withdraw troops from Manchuria, while the Japanese, with a clear conscience, started the war.
It is absolutely clear that we were carried away by the Far East and found ourselves drawn into an international conflict involving England, and then the United States - solely thanks to Witte. Experts believe that Witte generally overestimated Russian opportunities in that region and nothing could have come of his idea from the beginning. A. I. Denikin wrote back in 1908 that Witte’s policy towards China since the end of the 19th century. "acquired a specific shade of Machiavellianism, which did not correspond to the state interests of Russia"

- But why didn't the king himself try to delve into controversial issues?
- Firstly, he was very busy with clerical work. His signatures were required on many papers. He had such responsibility for what he was doing that he could not entrust it to anyone. And then he thought that he did not need to go into details if there were people who were put on this, experts in their field, who would find the right solution. And the experts argued with each other, started intrigues.
Because of this, there were a lot of unresolved issues in the state.
The sovereign thought that if laws were given to society, then people would definitely observe them. But, you understand that, unfortunately, it was not so. It was precisely in violation of the labor legislation given by Alexander III that the capitalists mercilessly exploited the workers. And no one followed it. That is, the officials had to follow, but they received bribes from the capitalists and left everything in its place. In pre-revolutionary Russia, unfortunately, there were a lot of unacceptable things: the lawless actions of the capitalists (although here, of course, there were welcome exceptions), the arbitrariness of officials, the arbitrariness of local nobles, who, on the contrary, just according to the law given by Alexander III, had unlimited power over the peasants (law on zemstvo chiefs of 1889).
The peasants sincerely wondered why they could not dispose of most of the arable land, why it belonged to the landowners. The government, unfortunately, did not solve this issue. Some of the ministers - conservatives - preferred to freeze everything and in no case touch it. The other part - Westerners and liberals - insisted on the need for decisive changes, but in a Western way that did not correspond to Russian traditions. This included not only the elimination of landownership, with which, indeed, something had to be done, but also the abolition of the peasant community, a traditional and indispensable form of management in our country. There were practically no people with a lively religious and at the same time state, patriotic consciousness around the Tsar. I repeat that there was not much hope for anyone. But the Sovereign, with his gullibility towards people, hoped, each time being deceived.

- But after all, there were some successful undertakings? Stolypin?
- Stolypin was the greatest patriot of Russia, a real knight. But, unfortunately, he was a man of Western convictions. "Liberal reforms and strong state power" - that was his slogan. Stolypin also stood for the destruction of the community, which, in his opinion, hindered the free development of Russia. However, it was in the community, in the conditions of joint transfer of difficulties and responsibility for each other, that it was most convenient to fulfill, in the words of the Apostle Paul, “the law of Christ” (Eph. 6, 2). Not to mention the fact that in the conditions of the Non-Black Earth Region and the Russian North, the peasant community was the only possible system of management. Ordinary people, in general, perceived Stolypin's efforts to destroy the community very painfully - it was for him more proof that the government was against ordinary people. This prepared the revolution.
It is clear that the revolution was a godless thing, we are not going to justify it. But the government could still, along with the spread of parochial schools that strengthened the faith of the people (which, thank God, Pobedonostsev did), conduct a more popular policy towards the countryside.

What was it supposed to be?
- In support of the peasant community, the dissemination of advanced methods of farming through the community, in the careful development of peasant self-government. After all, it was before in Rus', it was familiar to her. This could lead to the revival of the zemstvo, conciliar principle, to a genuine agreement between the authorities and the people.
However, this did not happen, and the people were more and more inclined towards their dream of arranging a kingdom of happiness and justice here on earth, to which only rebellion and revolution could help.
The first signs of a peasant revolution appeared in 1902 in the adjacent counties of the Poltava and Kharkov provinces. Then, a whole revolution unfolded in 1905. In both cases, the peasants acted in concert, using the communal organization, often under the leadership of their elected elders. Everywhere there was a fair division of the land, taverns were sealed, the communal militia acted (although absolutely terrible violence was committed against the landowners and their property). In 1905, in this way, without any help from the revolutionaries, a number of peasant republics arose in Russia.
Looking ahead, it must be said that out of the same motives, wanting to realize their dream of land and freedom, the peasants supported the Bolsheviks, excluding the period of the surplus appraisal (1918-1920). When, after the end of the Civil War, the Bolsheviks returned freedom to the village, secured the land for the communities, the people in the earthly dimension began to live really happily. But, unfortunately, no one understood that the price of this happiness was terrible: violence against the landlords, betrayal of their Tsar and the former statehood, an alliance with the godless Bolsheviks. Therefore, the retribution was terrible: the most severe collectivization (which, of course, was a parody of communality), which led to the death of the peasantry as a class
It is no coincidence that the community spirit now exists only in a gangster environment: mutual assistance, a common fund, “die yourself, but help a comrade out,” etc. This is all because the Russian people went to crime to save their communal tradition.

- Sometimes there is a feeling that Tsar Nicholas could not communicate with people, he was a very secretive person.
- Couldn't communicate? It's just the opposite. Nicholas II was a very charming person. During his visit to the pavilion of Russian artists at the All-Russian exhibition in Nizhny Novgorod, the Tsar literally enchanted everyone. Here is what one of the organizers of the art exhibition, Prince Sergei Shcherbatov, writes: “His simplicity (alien to many members of the Romanov family), the gentle look of unforgettable gray eyes left a memory for life. There was a lot in this look: both the desire to trust, to believe to the bottom of the person who was speaking to him, and sadness, some anxiety at the seeming worthy calmness, to be on guard, not to make a "gaf", and the need to throw it all off and simply treat the person - all this was felt in the beautiful, noble Sovereign, whom, it seemed, not only to be suspected of something bad, but also to offend in any way, was a crime ... ".
The historian Mikhail Nazarov owns an interesting and partly very accurate comparison of the Sovereign with Prince Myshkin.
At the same time, in childhood, the Emperor was a very spontaneous, lively and even quick-tempered child. But he learned to deal with his temper, acquired amazing self-control and evenness of soul. It's hard to imagine that he could yell at someone.

- The opposition honored him with might and main. Why did he allow this, which none of the then rulers allowed?- He was very tolerant and was an amazingly benevolent person. There are no such people now. Those who were lucky enough to communicate with representatives of the Russian emigration, Russians brought up outside of Russia (such as, for example, Bishop Vasily (Rodzianko), Father Alexander Kiselev), can imagine what it means when a person is benevolent. We are all cursed with aggression and evil. We are surprisingly unkind people.
After the revolution of 1905, the Sovereign was offered to destroy several hundred revolutionaries. But he didn't allow it. A person is subject to the action of evil, but he can repent, the Sovereign believed in a completely Christian way.

In what area was he especially talented?
- He was very fond of military affairs. He was in his midst in the army, among the officers. He believed that this was the most important thing for the Emperor. And he was by no means a martinet.

- And how competent was he in the military? Was he involved in making strategic important decisions?- In the First World War, before the Sovereign took over the supreme command in August 1915, a number of erroneous actions were committed. Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, who was then commander, threw the entire non-commissioned officer (sergeant) staff into the inferno of the first days of the war. And thus he actually killed all experienced people, veterans of previous campaigns. It is known that without non-commissioned officers the army does not exist. This was done not out of malice, but because of a lack of competence. Together with other miscalculations, this led to the spring retreat of 1915, when Nikolai Nikolayevich fell into a hysterical state, in the presence of the Sovereign, wept.
Mindful of what the prayers of Nikolai Nikolayevich were worth (in the autumn of 1905 he begged Nicholas II to introduce constitutional freedoms - otherwise threatening to put a bullet in his forehead), the Sovereign decided to take his place.
The sovereign did not consider himself a military genius, but nevertheless, having a military education, and realizing that the responsibility, in the end, lies with him, he took over the supreme command. There were no such mistakes with him. Under him, there was a Brusilovsky breakthrough in 1916, an offensive operation was planned in the spring of 1917, which was prevented by the revolution.
The sovereign had considerable personal courage, which is important for a military leader. In November 1914, after Turkey's unexpected entry into the war, he visited Sevastopol, which had suffered from Turkish bombardment, and then went by ship to Batum, although he was warned that it was not safe - the Turks dominated the sea. But the Sovereign wanted to show that the Black Sea is ours - and this greatly encouraged the sailors. Then in the Caucasus, he went to the front line, where he presented soldier awards. I think more examples can be given.

“Couldn’t this war have been avoided altogether?”

Demonstration on Palace Square in anticipation of the announcement by Nicholas II of the manifesto on Russia's entry into the war. Photo July 20, 1914

The sovereign could not but get involved in the war. He believed that he, as the Emperor of the Russian Orthodox Empire, was obliged to take care of the Orthodox in the Balkans (and, indeed, he cared a lot). And then, in 1914, he could not help but help Serbia, which was incredibly humiliated by the ultimatum of the Austrian Empire. After the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Bosnian Serb terrorists (who, by the way, was a potential friend of Russia and believed that Russia should not be at war), Austria demanded the introduction of its troops into Serbia to control the actions of the Serbian public and identify terrorists. This is what America is doing now...
Serbia could not accept such an ultimatum, and Russia could not but support it in this. However, the assassination of the Archduke was planned by officers of the Serbian General Staff, who were under the influence of French political circles, who wanted revenge for the humiliation in the Franco-Prussian War and sought to take Alsace and Lorraine back from Germany. They, of course, expected that the Sovereign, their ally, as a man of duty, could not help but protect Serbia, Germany, an ally of Austria, would attack him, and then France would enter the war with a clear conscience. That's how it all happened.

So he just fell into a trap?
- Yes, you can count it that way.

- In general, to what extent did the Sovereign fall under random influence?
- You and I have already seen that quite often: Witte, Plehve, Stolypin. Only this was not an accidental influence, but trust in people vested with full power. There was also the fatal trust in a simple Russian man, as Grigory Rasputin seemed to the Sovereign.
The sovereign always believed that our people live strictly according to the commandments, having real faith. From Christ, in his opinion, only the intelligentsia retreated, dragging along the gullible people during the revolution of 1905 (this point of view was supported by the Tsar and the conservative bureaucracy, which did not want change). And it so happened that it was during the revolution of 1905 that the sovereign met Rasputin. This acquaintance became a saving outlet for him: behold, a simple man came from the people who would support him and help him govern Russia in harmony with the people. Then it turned out that Rasputin had miraculous abilities.
Rasputin, indeed, as a simple peasant, easily came to the palace to pray for the ailing heir, bringing with him an icon of the holy righteous Simeon of Verkhoturye, the people's saint. This saint once helped Rasputin himself heal from a serious illness - insomnia and diuresis. Having been healed, Rasputin left his former sinful life and began to live in piety. Suddenly, he began to heal people and show unusual abilities. However, once in Petersburg, Rasputin changed a lot. He could not resist the sinful temptation and fell low.
Rasputin did not have a spiritual leader, that is, he considered someone as such, but did not listen to him, but listened only to himself. Such a person is usually subject to the action of his passions and cannot overcome them. When Rasputin sinned, he discovered with horror that he did not want to, but was unable to control himself - he was sinning. If he had a confessor whom he obeyed, he would come to him and repent. I would have received forgiveness and admonition, but this did not happen. And Rasputin then invented a theory according to which, if you don’t sin, you won’t repent. Only when you sin will you feel the sweetness of repentance. It is clear that this is a charm.
The emperor knew nothing about this. Information about this began to come from people who were opposed to the king, from among the same liberal intelligentsia who wanted to change power. The sovereign believed that these were inventions of the enemies of the throne. Therefore, even when spiritual people - including Elizaveta Feodorovna - began to tell him the truth about Rasputin, the Emperor did not believe them.
Rasputin's approach to the Tsar was facilitated by Bishop Feofan (Bystrov), then still an archimandrite. And when he saw how his people's saint had changed (with whom he himself had been fascinated from his time), he tried to persuade him to repent. But Rasputin did not listen to him, then Vladyka Feofan denounced Gregory in front of other people. Rasputin stood his ground, not wanting to repent, and then Bishop Feofan told the Tsar about everything, but the Tsar did not believe the lord, believing that he had fallen under the influence of liberal circles. Theophan was exiled to Astrakhan, and then transferred to Poltava.

The death of sinners is fierce: the corpse of Rasputin and the act of burning it. The embalmed body of the murdered "old man" was brought from Tsarskoe Selo to Petrograd, where they were burned in the boiler room of the Polytechnic Institute on the night of March 11, 1917. The participants of this action drew up an act (signed by A. Lunacharsky), in which the very fact of burning was recorded, but its place was indicated in a veiled form: "near the Lesnoy highway to Piskarevka in the forest." This was done deliberately in order to prevent Rasputin's admirers from turning the boiler room into a place of worship.

Rasputin is both a symbol of the Russian people of that time and a symbol of faith in the people on the part of the Tsar. After all, just as in Rasputin, the Sovereign had boundless faith in the Russian people. And this people lived for a long time actually without God, only formally remaining Orthodox. The First World War became the catalyst for the process of dechurching. After all, the people are accustomed to pray ritually: we give God our attention, prayer for some time, and He must give us prosperity, help in earthly affairs for this. And what happens, we prayed to God in the war, so that we would soon win and go home, but the Lord, it turns out, did not help. Why, you ask, did we pray? So, we must ourselves, without God, dispose of our own destiny.
Just at this time, at the beginning of 1917, a conspiracy began to be carried out against the Tsar by the Duma members and some generals. First, all relatives and military leaders renounced Nicholas II: all the commanders of the fronts and fleets (except for Admiral Kolchak) and all the Grand Dukes sent him telegrams to the Headquarters that the abdication was necessary. Seeing the general betrayal of those whom he first of all hoped for, in whom he saw the support and glory of Russia, the Sovereign experienced a terrible shock and was forced to make a fatal decision to abdicate, writing in his diary: “treason and cowardice and deceit are all around.” Then the people also renounced. Rejoicing at the front was widespread, like at Easter - you will read this in any memoirs. Meanwhile, the Holy Week of Great Lent was going on. That is, people were looking for earthly joy without the Cross.

Rejoicing at the front over the abdication of Nicholas II. Photo of early March 1917

It is known that when the Provisional Government came to power and abolished compulsory services at the front, only 10% of the soldiers began to go to churches.

- That is, the renunciation was justified? Was there no other way out?
- Yes. Otherwise, the Civil War would have started. Seeing the general retreat, the Sovereign considered it good to abdicate. In fact, you see, it was the people who renounced him. It is known that only two people sent news of their readiness to side with the Tsar - Khan of Nakhichevan, a Muslim, head of the Wild Division, and General Fyodor Arturovich Keller, a German by birth. These people felt more Russian than Russian people.
If the Tsar had said: “No, I do not renounce,” then this Wild Division would have gone against the Russian units. The sovereign did not want bloodshed. He believed that if there is a government that takes control of the country and undertakes to wage war to a victorious end, then let it govern - for the sake of victory. The main goal then was to defeat the Germans. An offensive was planned for the spring of 1917, together with the allies. It was supposed to lead to the defeat of Kaiser Germany, but it did not take place, because the February Revolution led to a drop in discipline, there were massacres of officers. The army has ceased to be an army.

Can it be said that despite all good intentions, the reign was a failure and resulted in disaster?
- Everything went to this. The sovereign and his entourage, and indeed most of the country, lived, as in two different worlds, different cities, according to the word of Blessed Augustine: the City of God and the city of the world. In the first, where the Sovereign was, there was love, joy, peace, hope in God, in the other - division, pride, unbelief. People did not understand the Liturgy at all, they did not understand the meaning of Holy Communion, for them it was a heavy duty. They tried to partake of the Holy Mysteries as little as possible. By this, the whole teaching of Christ was distorted. Everyone was pulling. Like the builders of the Tower of Babel, the Russian people have lost agreement among themselves. The revolution was the natural outcome.

Watercolor sketches from nature by Ivan Vladimirov vividly convey to us the atmosphere of the revolution and the post-revolutionary period. Here are the rebellious sailors and soldiers in the palace

The collapse was a foregone conclusion. But it was a saving grace. The Lord, as it were, threw off the masks from all the participants in this drama, and it was revealed who really is who. And when the Sovereign saw that everything around was not as he imagined, that our people had long ceased to be Orthodox, but a debauched, terrible people, he did not renounce his Russia (although she renounced him), he did not go crazy , did not lay hands on himself, did not run away from prison when such an opportunity presented itself - but preferred to be with his country to the end. It was evident how during all the last months of his imprisonment he, along with all his relatives, was preparing for martyrdom, fortifying himself by reading the holy fathers and prayer.
Father Alexander Schmemann in his "Diary" has wonderful words about Chekhov's story "The Bishop". Not yet old, but suffering from consumption, the bishop dies on Great Saturday next to his old mother. Here are Schmemann's words:
“The mystery of Christianity: the beauty of defeat, liberation from success… “I hid this from the wise” (Matt. 11, 25)… Everything in this story is defeat, and it all shines with an inexplicable, mysterious victory: “Now the Son of Man is glorified…” (Jn. 13, 31). back 11 On the peasant question in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, there is a very thorough study by T. Shanin “Revolution as a moment of truth. 1905-1907 - 1917-1922" (M.: "Ves Mir", 1997).