Dedicated to the centenary of revolutionary events.

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

The candidate of historical sciences Gleb Eliseev tells.

Black legend about Nicholas II

Rally in Petrograd, 1917

Already 17 years have passed since the canonization of the last emperor and his family, but you are still faced with an amazing paradox - many, even completely Orthodox, people dispute the justice of reckoning Tsar Nikolai Alexandrovich to the canon of saints.

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, after a brief period of confusion, the new emperor firmly took up the helm of state administration and held it for twenty-two years, until he fell victim to an apex conspiracy. Until “treason, and cowardice, and deception” swirled around him in a dense cloud, as he himself noted in his diary on March 2, 1917.

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

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

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

And the slander, repeated over the years, that the tsar, despite the Khodynka tragedy, went to the ball and had fun there, sounds absolutely vile. The sovereign was really forced to go to an official reception at the French embassy, ​​which he could not help attending for diplomatic reasons (an insult to the allies!), He paid his respects to the ambassador and left, having been there only 15 (!) minutes.

And from this they created the myth of a heartless despot having fun while his subjects die. From here the absurd nickname “Bloody” created by the radicals and picked up by the educated public crawled.

The myth of the monarch's guilt in unleashing the Russo-Japanese war

The emperor admonishes the soldiers of the Russo-Japanese War. 1904

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

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

Kuropatkin, Rozhestvensky, Stessel, Linevich, Nebogatov, and any of the generals and admirals, but not the sovereign, who was thousands of miles from the theater of operations and nevertheless did everything for victory.

For example, the fact that by the end of the war 20, and not 4 military echelons per day (as at the beginning) went along the unfinished Trans-Siberian Railway - the merit of Nicholas II himself.

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

The myth of Bloody Sunday

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

Let's start with the simplest fact - the sovereign was not in Zimny, he was in his country residence, in Tsarskoye Selo. He was not going to come to the city, since both the mayor I. A. Fullon and the police authorities assured the emperor that they had "everything under control." By the way, they did not deceive Nicholas II too much. In a normal situation, the troops brought out into the street would have been sufficient to prevent riots.

No one foresaw the scale of the demonstration on January 9, as well as the activities of provocateurs. When Socialist-Revolutionary fighters began to shoot at the soldiers from the crowd of allegedly “peaceful demonstrators”, it was not difficult to foresee response actions. From the very beginning, the organizers of the demonstration planned a clash with the authorities, and not a peaceful procession. They did not need political reforms, they needed "great upheavals".

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

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

The myth of how the tsar "surrendered" Stolypin

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

The myth of Rasputin's omnipotence

Tales about the last sovereign cannot do without constant stories about the “dirty peasant” Rasputin, who enslaved the “weak-willed king”. Now, after many objective investigations of the “Rasputin legend”, among which A. N. Bokhanov’s “The Truth about Grigory Rasputin” stands out as fundamental, it is clear that the influence of the Siberian elder on the emperor was negligible. And the fact that the sovereign "did not remove Rasputin from the throne"? How could he remove it? From the bed of a sick son, whom Rasputin saved, when all the doctors had already abandoned Tsarevich Alexei Nikolayevich? Let everyone think for himself: is he ready to sacrifice the life of a child for the sake of stopping public gossip and hysterical newspaper chatter?

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

Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II. Photo by R. Golike and A. Vilborg. 1913

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And who could? It was beyond human strength.

The myth of voluntary renunciation

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

Now, again, after the meticulous work of modern researchers, it becomes clear that no voluntary there was no abdication. Instead, a real coup d'état took place. Or, as the historian and publicist M. V. Nazarov aptly noted, it was not a “renunciation”, but a “rejection” that took place.

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

Related material

On March 2, 1917, the Russian Emperor Nicholas II signed the abdication in favor of his brother Mikhail (who soon also abdicated). This day is considered the date of the death of the Russian monarchy. But there are still many questions about renunciation. We asked Candidate of Historical Sciences Gleb Eliseev to comment on them.

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

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

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

But even under pressure from the conspirators, the emperor did not dare to go against the law and conscience. The manifesto he compiled clearly did not suit the envoys of the State Duma. The document, which was eventually made public as the text of the renunciation, raises doubts among a number of historians. The original has not been preserved; the Russian State Archives has only a copy of it. There are reasonable assumptions that the sovereign's signature was copied from the order that Nicholas II assumed the supreme command in 1915. The signature of the Minister of the Court, Count V. B. Fredericks, was also forged, allegedly confirming the abdication. Which, by the way, the count himself clearly spoke about later, on June 2, 1917, during interrogation: “But in order for me to write such a thing, I can swear that I would not have done it.”

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

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

That is - why did not start a civil war?

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

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

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

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

They couldn't help but kill him.

The myth that the execution of the royal family was the arbitrariness of the Ural Regional Council

Emperor Nicholas II and Tsarevich Alexei
in exile. Tobolsk, 1917-1918

The more or less vegetarian, toothless early Provisional Government limited itself to the arrest of the emperor and his family, the socialist clique of Kerensky achieved the exile of the sovereign, his wife and children in. And for whole months, until the very Bolshevik coup, one can see how the dignified, purely Christian behavior of the emperor in exile and the vicious fuss of the politicians of the “new Russia”, who sought “for a start” to bring the sovereign into “political oblivion”, contrast with each other.

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

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

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

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

Indeed, for some reason, years after the Yekaterinburg murder, rumors spread that only one sovereign was shot. Then they announced (even at a completely official level) that the killers of the king were severely condemned for abuse of power. And even later, almost the entire Soviet period, the version of the “arbitrariness of the Yekaterinburg Soviet”, allegedly frightened by the white units approaching the city, was officially adopted. They say that the sovereign was not released and did not become the "banner of the counter-revolution", and he had to be destroyed. The fog of fornication hid the secret, and the essence of the secret was a planned and clearly conceived savage murder.

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

Now only a few unambiguous facts are clear.

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

Was this an initiative of the Yekaterinburg Soviet, not coordinated with the Central Committee? Hardly. Judging by indirect data, in early July 1918, the top leadership of the Bolshevik Party (primarily Lenin and Sverdlov) decided to "liquidate the royal family."

For example, Trotsky wrote about this in his memoirs:

“My next visit to Moscow fell after the fall of Yekaterinburg. In a conversation with Sverdlov, I asked in passing:

Yes, where is the king?

- It's over, - he answered, - shot.

Where is the family?

And his family is with him.

All? I asked, apparently with a hint of surprise.

Everything, - Sverdlov answered, - but what?

He was waiting for my reaction. I didn't answer.

- And who decided? I asked.

We have decided here. Ilyich believed that it was impossible to leave us a living banner for them, especially in the current difficult conditions.

(L.D. Trotsky. Diaries and letters. M .: Hermitage, 1994. P. 120. (Entry dated April 9, 1935); Lev Trotsky. Diaries and letters. Edited by Yuri Felshtinsky. USA, 1986 , p.101.)

At midnight on July 17, 1918, the emperor, his wife, children and servants were awakened, taken to the basement and brutally murdered. Here in the fact that they were killed brutally and cruelly, in an amazing way, all the testimonies of eyewitnesses, which differ so much in the rest, coincide.

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

The Yekaterinburg victims had a premonition of their fate, and it was not for nothing that Grand Duchess Tatyana Nikolaevna, while imprisoned in Yekaterinburg, crossed out the lines in one of the books: “Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ went to their death as if on a holiday, facing inevitable death, retaining the same wondrous peace of mind that never left them for a minute. They walked calmly towards death because they hoped to enter into a different, spiritual life, opening up for a person beyond the grave.

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

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

On the screen saver is a photo fragment: Nicholas II in the imperial train. 1917

According to official history, on the night of July 16-17, 1918, Nikolai Romanov, along with his wife and children, was shot. After the burial was opened and identified, the remains were reburied in 1998 in the tomb of the Peter and Paul Cathedral in St. Petersburg. However, then the ROC did not confirm their authenticity.

“I cannot rule out that the church will recognize the royal remains as genuine if convincing evidence of their authenticity is found and if the examination is open and honest,” said Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, in July this year.

As you know, the Russian Orthodox Church did not participate in the burial of the remains of the royal family in 1998, explaining this by the fact that the church is not sure whether the true remains of the royal family are buried. The Russian Orthodox Church refers to the book of the Kolchak investigator Nikolai Sokolov, who concluded that all the bodies were burned.

Some of the remains collected by Sokolov at the place of burning are stored in Brussels, in the church of St. Job the Long-suffering, and they have not been examined. At one time, a version of the note by Yurovsky, who supervised the execution and burial, was found - it became the main document before the transfer of the remains (along with the book of the investigator Sokolov). And now, in the upcoming year of the 100th anniversary of the execution of the Romanov family, the Russian Orthodox Church has been instructed to give a final answer to all the dark places of execution near Yekaterinburg. To obtain a final answer under the auspices of the Russian Orthodox Church, research has been conducted for several years. Once again, historians, geneticists, graphologists, pathologists and other specialists are rechecking the facts, powerful scientific forces and prosecutors are again involved, and all these actions again take place under a dense veil of secrecy.

Research on genetic identification is carried out by four independent groups of scientists. Two of them are foreign, working directly with the ROC. At the beginning of July 2017, the secretary of the church commission for studying the results of the study of the remains found near Yekaterinburg, Bishop Tikhon (Shevkunov) of Yegoryevsk, said: a large number of new circumstances and new documents were discovered. For example, Sverdlov's order to execute Nicholas II was found. In addition, according to the results of recent research, forensic experts confirmed that the remains of the king and queen belong to them, since a trace was suddenly found on the skull of Nicholas II, which is interpreted as a trace from a saber blow he received when visiting Japan. As for the queen, dentists identified her by the world's first porcelain veneers on platinum pins.

Although, if you open the conclusion of the commission, written before the burial in 1998, it says: the bones of the sovereign's skull are so destroyed that the characteristic callus cannot be found. The same conclusion noted severe damage to the teeth of the alleged remains of Nikolai by periodontal disease, since this person had never been to the dentist. This confirms that it was not the tsar who was shot, since the records of the Tobolsk dentist, whom Nikolai turned to, remained. In addition, the fact that the growth of the skeleton of "Princess Anastasia" is 13 centimeters larger than her lifetime growth has not yet been found. Well, as you know, miracles happen in the church ... Shevkunov did not say a word about the genetic examination, and this despite the fact that the genetic studies of 2003, conducted by Russian and American specialists, showed that the genome of the body of the alleged empress and her sister Elizabeth Feodorovna do not match , which means no relationship

In addition, in the museum of the city of Otsu (Japan) there are things left after the injury of the policeman Nicholas II. They have biological material that can be examined. According to them, Japanese geneticists from the Tatsuo Nagai group proved that the DNA of the remains of "Nicholas II" from near Yekaterinburg (and his family) does not 100% match the DNA of biomaterials from Japan. During the Russian DNA examination, second cousins ​​were compared, and in the conclusion it was written that "there are matches." The Japanese compared relatives of cousins. There are also the results of a genetic examination of the President of the International Association of Forensic Physicians, Mr. Bonte from Dusseldorf, in which he proved that the found remains and twins of the family of Nicholas II Filatov are relatives. Perhaps, from their remains in 1946, the “remains of the royal family” were created? The problem has not been studied.

Earlier, in 1998, the Russian Orthodox Church, on the basis of these conclusions and facts, did not recognize the existing remains as authentic, but what will happen now? In December, all the conclusions of the Investigative Committee and the commission of the Russian Orthodox Church will be considered by the Council of Bishops. It is he who will decide on the attitude of the church to the Yekaterinburg remains. Let's see why everything is so nervous and what is the history of this crime?

Worth the fight for that kind of money

Today, some of the Russian elites have suddenly awakened interest in one very piquant story of relations between Russia and the United States, connected with the Romanov royal family. Briefly, the story is this: more than 100 years ago, in 1913, the United States created the Federal Reserve System (FRS) - the central bank and printing press for the production of international currency, which still operates today. The Fed was created for the emerging League of Nations (now the UN) and would be a single world financial center with its own currency. Russia contributed 48,600 tons of gold to the "authorized capital" of the system. But the Rothschilds demanded that Woodrow Wilson, who was then re-elected as President of the United States, transfer the center to their private property along with gold. The organization became known as the Fed, where Russia owned 88.8%, and 11.2% - 43 international beneficiaries. Receipts stating that 88.8% of gold assets for a period of 99 years are under the control of the Rothschilds, six copies were transferred to the family of Nicholas II.

The annual income on these deposits was fixed at 4%, which was supposed to be transferred to Russia annually, but settled on the X-1786 account of the World Bank and on 300 thousand accounts in 72 international banks. All these documents confirming the right to 48,600 tons of gold pledged to the FRS from Russia, as well as income from leasing it, the mother of Tsar Nicholas II, Maria Fedorovna Romanova, deposited in one of the Swiss banks. But the conditions for access there are only for the heirs, and this access is controlled by the Rothschild clan. For the gold provided by Russia, gold certificates were issued that allowed the metal to be claimed in parts - the royal family hid them in different places. Later, in 1944, the Bretton Woods Conference confirmed Russia's right to 88% of the Fed's assets.

This “golden” issue was once proposed by two well-known Russian oligarchs – Roman Abramovich and Boris Berezovsky. But Yeltsin "did not understand" them, and now, apparently, that very "golden" time has come ... And now this gold is remembered more and more often - though not at the state level.

Some speculate that the surviving Tsarevich Alexei later grew up to be Soviet Prime Minister Alexei Kosygin.

For this gold they kill, fight and make fortunes on it

Today's researchers believe that all wars and revolutions in Russia and in the world occurred due to the fact that the Rothschild clan and the United States did not intend to return the gold to the Russian Federal Reserve. After all, the execution of the royal family made it possible for the Rothschild clan not to give away gold and not pay for its 99-year lease. “Now, out of three Russian copies of the agreement on gold invested in the Fed, two are in our country, the third is presumably in one of the Swiss banks,” researcher Sergei Zhilenkov believes. - In the cache, in the Nizhny Novgorod region, there are documents from the royal archive, among which there are 12 "golden" certificates. If they are presented, then the global financial hegemony of the United States and the Rothschilds will simply collapse, and our country will receive a lot of money and all the opportunities for development, since it will no longer be strangled from across the ocean, ”the historian is sure.

Many wanted to close questions about royal assets with the reburial. Professor Vladlen Sirotkin also has an estimate for the so-called military gold exported to the West and East during the First World War and the Civil War: Japan - 80 billion dollars, Great Britain - 50 billion, France - 25 billion, USA - 23 billion, Sweden - 5 billion, the Czech Republic - $1 billion. Total - 184 billion. Surprisingly, officials in the US and UK, for example, do not dispute these figures, but are surprised at the lack of requests from Russia. By the way, the Bolsheviks remembered Russian assets in the West in the early 20s. Back in 1923, People's Commissar for Foreign Trade Leonid Krasin ordered a British law firm to evaluate Russian real estate and cash deposits abroad. By 1993, the firm reported that it had amassed a $400 billion data bank! And this is legal Russian money.

Why did the Romanovs die? Britain did not accept them!

There is a long-term study, unfortunately, by Professor Vladlen Sirotkin (MGIMO), who has already passed away, “Foreign Gold of Russia” (M., 2000), where the gold and other holdings of the Romanov family accumulated in the accounts of Western banks are also estimated at no less than 400 billion dollars, and together with investments - more than 2 trillion dollars! In the absence of Romanov heirs, the closest relatives turn out to be members of the English royal family... These are the interests of which may be the background of many events of the 19th-21st centuries...

By the way, it is not clear (or, on the contrary, it is understandable) for what reasons the royal house of England denied asylum three times to the Romanov family. The first time in 1916, at the apartment of Maxim Gorky, an escape was planned - the rescue of the Romanovs by abduction and the internment of the royal couple during their visit to an English warship, then sent to Great Britain. The second was Kerensky's request, which was also rejected. Then they did not accept the request of the Bolsheviks. And this despite the fact that the mothers of George V and Nicholas II were sisters. In the surviving correspondence, Nicholas II and George V call each other "Cousin Nicky" and "Cousin Georgie" - they were cousins ​​with an age difference of less than three years, and in their youth these guys spent a lot of time together and were very similar in appearance. As for the queen, her mother, Princess Alice, was the eldest and beloved daughter of the English Queen Victoria. At that time, 440 tons of gold from the gold reserves of Russia and 5.5 tons of personal gold of Nicholas II were in England as collateral for military loans. Now think about it: if the royal family died, then to whom would the gold go? Close relatives! Isn't that the reason why Cousin Georgie was denied admission to Cousin Nicky's family? To get gold, its owners had to die. Officially. And now all this must be connected with the burial of the royal family, which will officially testify that the owners of untold wealth are dead.

Versions of life after death

All versions of the death of the royal family that exist today can be divided into three. The first version: the royal family was shot near Yekaterinburg, and their remains, with the exception of Alexei and Maria, were reburied in St. Petersburg. The remains of these children were found in 2007, all examinations were carried out on them, and they, apparently, will be buried on the day of the 100th anniversary of the tragedy. When confirming this version, it is necessary for accuracy to once again identify all the remains and repeat all examinations, especially genetic and pathological anatomical ones. The second version: the royal family was not shot, but was scattered throughout Russia and all family members died of natural causes, having lived their lives in Russia or abroad, in Yekaterinburg, a family of twins was shot (members of the same family or people from different families, but similar members of the emperor's family). Nicholas II had twins after Bloody Sunday 1905. When leaving the palace, three carriages left. In which of them Nicholas II sat is unknown. The Bolsheviks, having seized the archive of the 3rd department in 1917, had these twins. There is an assumption that one of the families of twins - the Filatovs, who are distantly related to the Romanovs - followed them to Tobolsk. The third version: the secret services added false remains to the burial places of members of the royal family as they died naturally or before opening the grave. For this, it is necessary to carefully track, among other things, the age of the biomaterial.

Here is one of the versions of the historian of the royal family, Sergei Zhelenkov, which seems to us the most logical, although very unusual.

Before investigator Sokolov, the only investigator who published a book about the execution of the royal family, worked investigators Malinovsky, Nametkin (his archive was burned along with his house), Sergeev (dismissed from the case and killed), Lieutenant General Diterikhs, Kirsta. All these investigators concluded that the royal family was not killed. Neither the Reds nor the Whites wanted to disclose this information - they understood that the American bankers were primarily interested in obtaining objective information. The Bolsheviks were interested in the money of the king, and Kolchak declared himself the Supreme Ruler of Russia, which could not be with a living sovereign.

Investigator Sokolov conducted two cases - one on the fact of the murder and the other on the fact of the disappearance. In parallel, military intelligence in the person of Kirst conducted an investigation. When the whites left Russia, Sokolov, fearing for the collected materials, sent them to Harbin - some of his materials were lost on the way. Sokolov's materials contained evidence of the financing of the Russian revolution by the American bankers Schiff, Kuhn and Loeb, and Ford became interested in these materials, in conflict with these bankers. He even called Sokolov from France, where he settled, to the USA. When returning from the USA to France, Nikolai Sokolov was killed.

Sokolov's book came out after his death, and many people "worked" on it, removing many scandalous facts from there, so it cannot be considered completely truthful. The surviving members of the royal family were watched by people from the KGB, where a special department was created for this, which was dissolved during perestroika. The archive of this department has been preserved. The royal family was saved by Stalin - the royal family was evacuated from Yekaterinburg through Perm to Moscow and fell into the hands of Trotsky, then People's Commissar of Defense. To further save the royal family, Stalin carried out a whole operation, stealing it from Trotsky's people and taking them to Sukhumi, to a specially built house next to the former house of the royal family. From there, all family members were distributed to different places, Maria and Anastasia were taken to the Glinsk desert (Sumy region), then Maria was transported to the Nizhny Novgorod region, where she died of illness on May 24, 1954. Anastasia subsequently married Stalin's personal bodyguard and lived very secluded on a small farm, died on June 27, 1980 in the Volgograd region.

The eldest daughters, Olga and Tatyana, were sent to the Serafimo-Diveevsky convent - the empress was settled not far from the girls. But they did not live here for long. Olga, having traveled through Afghanistan, Europe and Finland, settled in Vyritsa, Leningrad Region, where she died on January 19, 1976. Tatyana lived partly in Georgia, partly in the territory of the Krasnodar Territory, was buried in the Krasnodar Territory, died on September 21, 1992. Alexei and his mother lived in their dacha, then Alexei was transferred to Leningrad, where he was "made" a biography, and the whole world recognized him as a party and Soviet leader Alexei Nikolaevich Kosygin (Stalin sometimes called him a prince in front of everyone). Nicholas II lived and died in Nizhny Novgorod (December 22, 1958), and the tsarina died in the village of Starobelskaya, Lugansk region, on April 2, 1948, and was subsequently reburied in Nizhny Novgorod, where she and the emperor share a common grave. Three daughters of Nicholas II, except for Olga, had children. N.A. Romanov talked with I.V. Stalin, and the wealth of the Russian Empire was used to strengthen the power of the USSR ...

Yakov Tudorovsky

Yakov Tudorovsky

The Romanovs were not shot

According to official history, on the night of July 16-17, 1918, Nikolai Romanov, along with his wife and children, was shot. After the burial was opened and identified, the remains were reburied in 1998 in the tomb of the Peter and Paul Cathedral in St. Petersburg. However, then the ROC did not confirm their authenticity. “I cannot rule out that the church will recognize the royal remains as genuine if convincing evidence of their authenticity is found and if the examination is open and honest,” said Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, in July this year. As you know, the Russian Orthodox Church did not participate in the burial of the remains of the royal family in 1998, explaining this by the fact that the church is not sure whether the true remains of the royal family are buried. The Russian Orthodox Church refers to the book of the Kolchak investigator Nikolai Sokolov, who concluded that all the bodies were burned. Some of the remains collected by Sokolov at the place of burning are stored in Brussels, in the church of St. Job the Long-suffering, and they have not been examined. At one time, a version of the note by Yurovsky, who supervised the execution and burial, was found - it became the main document before the transfer of the remains (along with the book of the investigator Sokolov). And now, in the upcoming year of the 100th anniversary of the execution of the Romanov family, the Russian Orthodox Church has been instructed to give a final answer to all the dark places of execution near Yekaterinburg. To obtain a final answer under the auspices of the Russian Orthodox Church, research has been conducted for several years. Once again, historians, geneticists, graphologists, pathologists and other specialists are rechecking the facts, powerful scientific forces and prosecutors are again involved, and all these actions again take place under a dense veil of secrecy. Research on genetic identification is carried out by four independent groups of scientists. Two of them are foreign, working directly with the ROC. At the beginning of July 2017, the secretary of the church commission for studying the results of the study of the remains found near Yekaterinburg, Bishop Tikhon (Shevkunov) of Yegoryevsk, said: a large number of new circumstances and new documents were discovered. For example, Sverdlov's order to execute Nicholas II was found. In addition, according to the results of recent research, forensic experts confirmed that the remains of the king and queen belong to them, since a trace was suddenly found on the skull of Nicholas II, which is interpreted as a trace from a saber blow he received when visiting Japan. As for the queen, dentists identified her by the world's first porcelain veneers on platinum pins. Although, if you open the conclusion of the commission, written before the burial in 1998, it says: the bones of the sovereign's skull are so destroyed that the characteristic callus cannot be found. The same conclusion noted severe damage to the teeth of the alleged remains of Nikolai by periodontal disease, since this person had never been to the dentist. This confirms that it was not the tsar who was shot, since the records of the Tobolsk dentist, whom Nikolai turned to, remained. In addition, the fact that the growth of the skeleton of "Princess Anastasia" is 13 centimeters larger than her lifetime growth has not yet been found. Well, as you know, miracles happen in the church ... Shevkunov did not say a word about the genetic examination, and this despite the fact that the genetic studies of 2003, conducted by Russian and American specialists, showed that the genome of the body of the alleged empress and her sister Elizabeth Feodorovna do not match , which means no relationship.

Who was Nicholas II?

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

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

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

He received many awards and titles from European countries, and in 1915. English King George V promoted his cousin Nikolai Alexandrovich to the field marshals of the British army.

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

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

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

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

1917 year

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 were coming for the Empire, 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 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 his 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 peaceful nature 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 in 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 communal 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 all experienced people, veterans of previous campaigns, thereby actually killed. 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 Bishop 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).

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 the 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.