S
Sasyexa
Guest
This is a translation of a series of articles about Nicholas II by Elena Il'yina - Восстановим историческую справедливость! . Accompanied by English-subtitled videos.
Later, a staff headed by A.I. Guchkov was established, which envisioned replacing the current monarchical ruler with a minor constitutional ruler.
The conspirators' plan was to seize the imperial train during one of the tsar's trips to the Stavka. Arresting the Emperor, it was intended to immediately force him to abdicate in favor of Tsesarevich Alexei under the regency of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, and in case of refusal - to kill him. At the same time a constitutional order would be introduced in the country.
The author of this plan was Guchkov. Appropriate manifestos were prepared in advance. It was planned to perform all this during the night and in the morning the whole Russia and the army would know about the abdication. All this was done in the fateful days of February and March of the February Revolution in 1917.
But A. F. Kerensky had his own plans, and after the coup he saw Russia only as a democratic republic, which would be headed not by a council of regents, but by a constituent assembly. That is, not a monarchy in any form, but a republic. And Kerensky made Guchkov's plan part of his plan, because he understood that by acting openly, he would not succeed.
Guchkov established connections with the supreme military command: Adjutant General M. Alexeyev, the chief of staff of the Stavka, Adjutant General N. Ruzsky, the commander-in-chief of the armies of the Northern Front, Adjutant General A. Brusilov, Adjutant General V. Gurko, the commander-in-chief of the armies of the South-Western Front, General of cavalry. They played a crucial role in the success of the coup.
The question of abdication was foregone.
On February 22, 1917 the Emperor was lured to Stavka by General Alexeev and torn from the capital, which immediately began rioting. The sovereign's order to send troops to suppress the unrest was not carried out. The Tsar was seized by the conspirators and imprisoned.
What is the paper that is commonly thought of as a manifesto?
"The so-called Manifesto of Renunciation is a forgery. It was drawn up with gross violations of pre-revolutionary paperwork, has edits, erasures, printed using different typewriters", says P. Multatuli.
We can see that the paper was torn, i.e. was made up of pieces of different texts.
It can be seen that the letter "й" in the first half of the text was not printed fully, but in the second half it was clearly and distinctly printed.
It can be seen that the inscription "Г. Псков" was printed on a different typewriter.
Instead of the title introducing the manifesto there is the inscription: "To the Chief of Staff". It was talking about the chief of staff of the conspirators. We can assume that it was Kerensky, to whom Guchkov sent a telegram stating that the Tsar had agreed to the abdication.
The signature of the Emperor was made in pencil and traced through the glass.
Nicholas II always personally drew up the most important documents. Therefore, another document proves the invalidity of the fake manifesto: a draft of the manifesto on the abdication, made at the headquarters of the Supreme Command. The basic text is typewritten. But it contains changes by hand. At the end of the document written by the hand of Alexeev are the words, which are the beginning of a trumped-up manifesto of abdication.
Thus, Nicholas II never wrote or signed the Manifesto of Renunciation! He was captured by the conspirators in the train at the Pskov station Dno and forcibly deprived of power in favor of the Provisional Government.
There was no abdication!
It was not the Tsar who abdicated from the throne, it was Russia who abdicated from the Tsar.
Source
In terms of industrial production, Russia ranked fourth in Europe and fifth in the world, second only to the United States, Germany, Great Britain and France. In terms of growth rates of national income and labor productivity, Russia ranked first in the world.
The plan of electrification of the country was approved back in 1909, its implementation was planned for 1915, but because of the war it was postponed until 1920. After the revolution, the GOELRO plan was appropriated by the Bolsheviks.
2,000 km of railroads were built annually. The Great Trans-Siberian Railway, which entered the Guinness Book of Records as the longest road in the world and which connected the Far East with the European part of Russia, was the brainchild of Nicholas II.
From 1895 to 1906 the river fleet doubled in size. It was the biggest in the world.
By the production of major agricultural products Russia came in first place. It accounted for 2/5 of the world exports of agricultural products.
Thanks to the progressive Stolypin reform, which was approved and strongly promoted by the Tsar, in 1916 over 90% of the land belonged to the peasants. According to the All-Russian District Census of 1917, peasants owned 89.3% of the crops and 94% of the livestock. What did Lenin's "Decree on Land" proclaim then?
During the reign of Nicholas II, the ruble was convertible to gold and did not depend on the currencies of other countries. The tsarist ruble was ahead of the mark, franc and other foreign currencies, second only to the pound sterling and the dollar. "Russia owed its metallic gold circulation exclusively to Emperor Nicholas II", wrote S. Yu. Witte, a minister of the tsarist government.
Russia was not a raw materials appendage! The Emperor expressly forbade the export of round (uncut) wood and crude oil from Russia. Only Russian oil products were supplied abroad, and Russian motor oil was the best in the world.
The population of Russia for 23 years of the reign of Nicholas II grew by more than 60 million people! After 1917, the population only decreased (by 65 million after the repressions, famine and the Great Patriotic War).
Colossal achievements were made in the fields of invention, science, education, medicine, culture, and the social sphere. For example, spending on education and culture during the reign of Nicholas II increased eightfold and was more than twice as much as that of France and 1.5 times as much as that of England. Medicine was free, and by the number of doctors Russia was second in Europe and third in the world. In 1908 free primary education was introduced. By 1916 over 50% of the population of the empire was literate, among young people - 85%.
Under the last Emperor Russia became the pinnacle of Russian civilization, possessing political, economic, military power, the highest culture and advanced science.
Could it happen under a weak ruler?
Testimonies of historians and politicians - contemporaries of Nicholas II - about the qualities of the Emperor:
"It is said of the Russian Emperor that he is accessible to various influences. This is deeply untrue. The Russian Emperor pursues his own ideas. He defends them with consistency and great strength. He has maturely thought out and carefully worked out plans. On the realization of them he works tirelessly."
"His manners are so modest and he shows so little outward determination that it is easy to conclude that he lacks a strong will; but the people around him assure us that he has a very definite will, which he is able to carry out in the calmest manner."
"The sovereign, on top of his iron hand, had a velvet glove. His will was like no thunderbolt. It did not manifest itself in explosions or violent clashes; it was more like the steady run of a stream from a mountain height to the plain of the ocean. It skirts obstacles, deviates sideways, but, in the end, approaches its goal with unwavering consistency."
Nicholas II is one of the strongest rulers of Russia and of the world! This is proven by his deeds and the successes of Russia during his reign.
The myth of the weak ruler has been debunked!
А. Borisyuk:
"In Soviet times, one of the main myths was born, the myth of the dark pre-revolutionary kingdom. That is, during the Soviet era they created the illusion of a leap from the dark kingdom to a bright future. And to do this, they created this very "dark kingdom" in the minds of people. I am showing that there was no "dark kingdom" and that the history of Russia's success is not just 70 years of Soviet times. It's a thousand years of history...
Practically all the technologies of the 20th century and modern ones were born in pre-revolutionary Russia".
Sources:
Where did the nickname "bloody" come from? It is associated with two events: the Khodynka tragedy and "The Bloody Sunday". But it is enough to compare the number of victims of these tragedies with the consequences of the revolutionary terror of 1905-1910 and repressions of the 1930s by the Soviet government to understand who was a bloody terrorist in reality.
Crowds on Khodynka Field.
May 30, 1896.
January 9, 1905. A group of demonstrators blocked by troops
The Khodynka tragedy took place in Moscow in May 1896 and is associated with the coronation of Tsar Nicholas II.
After the coronation, according to tradition, there were to be festivities for the people: huge tables were set up on Khodynka Field near the city walls. The townspeople and peasants were invited to a lavish festive meal as guests of the Emperor. Early in the morning, even before dawn, more than half a million people gathered on Khodynka.
"Due to the unexpected number of people gathered, the police were unable to cope with the crowd, and at the moment the distribution of gifts began there was an incredible crush. After 10-15 minutes order was restored, but it was too late. There were 1282 dead and several hundred wounded on the spot".
Of course, Nicholas II was not personally responsible for this tragedy, but like any head of state, he took full responsibility for what had happened. He ordered to issue 1,000 rubles to each family of those killed on Khodynka field, assigned personal pensions to the families of the dead and maimed, established a special orphanage for orphaned children, and assumed all the costs of the funeral at his expense.
None of the participants in the tragedy blamed the 26-year-old Tsar, who had just ascended the throne. When the tsar visited the wounded in hospital, many of them worried and tearfully asked the tsar to forgive them, "unwise", who had spoiled "such a holiday".
"By coincidence, on the day of the misfortune a brilliant reception was scheduled at the French embassy, for which our allies the French had long prepared, having expended enormous means and much effort on these celebrations. At the presentation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Sovereign, with a heavy heart, decided not to cancel His visit, lest He should provoke political quarrels. He put the duty of royal service above all else. At the appointed hour the Emperor arrived at the French embassy, stayed there for the minimum time stipulated by protocol, and then departed, instructing the ambassador to convey His gratitude to the French people for their friendly feelings towards Russia... His courageous gesture was rightly appreciated in the foreign press, especially the French. As for the Russian liberal public and the leftist press, they tried, for propaganda purposes, to use this incident to represent the Emperor as a heartless, ruthless and cruel man."
One of the key figures in the conspiracy was the priest G. Gapon, organizer of the strike and a mass march of workers to the tsar with a petition.
Calling for a "peaceful march", at one of the meetings Gapon addressed the workers:
"If... they won't let us through, we will force our way through. If the troops shoot at us, we will defend ourselves. Part of the troops will come over to our side, and then we will have a revolution. We'll set up barricades, smash up armory stores, smash up the prison, occupy the telegraph office and the telephone. The SRs promised bombs... and ours will take it." (Iskra newspaper No. 86 of 1905).
The St. Petersburg Committee of the Bolsheviks issued a proclamation:
"Not to beg or even demand from the tsar, not to humiliate ourselves before our sworn enemy, but to throw him off the throne and expel with him the whole autocratic gang - only in this way can we win freedom."
This is what the petrels of the "peaceful" march looked like.
This was purely a political provocation by the revolutionaries, who attempted, under the difficult conditions of the Russian-Japanese war, to present political demands to the tsarist authorities on behalf of the people.
On Sunday morning, January 9, 1905 demonstrators marched from all over the city to the Winter Palace. In addition to the banners (taken by force from the church), red banners and banners with the slogans "Down with autocracy!", "Long live the revolution!" and "To arms, comrades!" appeared over the crowds.
"The first to open fire were the provocateurs of the "peaceful" procession. The first to be killed were the police. In response, a company of the 93rd Irkutsk Infantry Regiment opened fire on the armed demonstration. There was no other way out for the police officers in principle. They were doing their duty."
Further on the report said that "in January 9th there turned out to be 96 people killed (including the warden) and up to 333 wounded, of whom 34 died before January 27th (including one assistant bailiff)", i.e. the total number of the killed was 130 people. The reports about "thousands of victims", spread by the liberal press in the country and abroad did not correspond to the facts.
On the same day, the workers expressed complete remorse about what had happened in an appeal to the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg: "Only through our darkness did we allow certain persons alien to us to express political desires on our behalf".
Once again the tsar shows mercy and concern for the victims. He orders to allocate 50,000 rubles of his own funds to help the families of the dead and wounded (this was reported in the "Bulletin of St. Petersburg. Hradonachstvo" 16 of January 20, 1905). History knows of no other such case in which, during a difficult war, funds were allocated for charitable assistance to the families of the victims of an anti-state demonstration.
The question arises whether the decision to use weapons was not a mistake. Perhaps the authorities should have made concessions to the workers?
The historian S.S. Oldenburg, a contemporary of those events, gives an unambiguous answer: "Concession to the advancing crowd either leads to the collapse of power or to even worse bloodshed".
After January 1905, a real revolutionary terror unfolded in the country.
"The turmoil that began in January 1905 engulfed the entire empire. Dozens of people died daily at the hands of terrorists. From January 1905 to 1907 terrorists killed 9 thousand people, from January 1908 to January 1910 - 7 thousand 634 people. The total number of victims of terror was 16,634 people. It is noteworthy that the Russian liberal intelligentsia "traditionally" sympathized not with the victims of terror, but with terrorists, in whom progressives saw the front line of the struggle against the hated autocracy."
Nicholas II did not need mass repression against the entire nation.
The subsequent crackdown on terrorists and rioters led to the fact that by early 1908 the revolutionary moods in the country were suppressed, the wave of bloody crimes was stopped, and life returned to normal.
Let us compare a few figures.
Under Nicholas II in 1908 (a record number of executions), 1,300 people were executed.
According to official OGPU-NKVD data (source: O.B. Mozokhin) :
- In 1921, when the Russian Civil War was in full swing, 9,701 people were executed by the OGPU:
- In 1937 (the height of Stalin's repressions), 353074 people were subjected to capital punishment!
The result of tsarist repressions was 7.5 times less than in the early years of Soviet power, and 270 times less than in one of the worst years of Stalinism.
And this is if we compare it with the official data of the OGPU-NKVD.
But there are other statistical sources.
Thus, A.I. Ivanov's study "Demographic Losses of Russia - USSR" provides other figures based on archival statistical data. It speaks about "the total losses of the country's population with the formation of the Soviet state, caused by its domestic policy, its conduct of the civil and world war in 1917-1959".
The author cites such figures:
"1. The establishment of Soviet power in 1917-1929. The number of human losses - more than 30 million people.
2. the costs of building socialism (collectivization, industrialization, elimination of the kulaks and the remnants of the "old classes") 1930-1939. - 22 million people."
(Published in the journal "Russian Renaissance" #16 for 1981)
Total - more than 52 million people.
So who is really bloody?
Proclaiming Nicholas II as bloody, the ideologists of the Soviet regime tried to draw attention away from their bloody crimes.
The label "bloody" should be forever removed from the name of Emperor Nicholas the Second!
Doctor of Historical Sciences, Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences V.M. Lavrov:
"The Bolsheviks used to say, and now the Communists continue to say, that Nicholas II was bloody. It is the communists who should be silent. No one in Russian history was more bloody than their leaders Lenin and Stalin!"
Sources:
Russo-Japanese war was a reaction of several states - Japan, Great Britain and USA - on successfully developing Great Asian program of Emperor Nikolai II, who aspired to "cut a window to Asia" and to provide Russia with an access to non-freezing seas. Thanks to the Trans-Siberian Railway the possibility of rapid transfer of Russian goods, military equipment and troops to the Far East increased dramatically.
Foreign powers did not want to put up with this. By pitting Japan against Russia in the war they pursued the goal of depleting the strong rivals who held leading positions in politics and economics. It was the United States and Britain that supplied Japan with coal, warships and weapons for the war with Russia. A total of 40% of Japan's military expenditures were foreign capital.
Russo-Japanese War broke out in January 1904. Japan began warfare, contrary to international custom, without a declaration of war, launching a surprise attack on the Russian squadron, standing on the outer roads of Port Arthur.
The first year of the war ended unsuccessfully for Russia: the fall of Port Arthur and a number of defeats in Manchuria. This was due to a number of reasons.
Russians hadn't yet had time to concentrate large forces in Manchuria. They had forces in the Far East over a huge territory of Manchuria, Primorye and Transbaikalia. Japanese troops outnumbered Russian troops in military equipment and strength by more than two times.
In addition, the railroads in February 1904 could pass only one supply line, the Trans-Siberian, with only four pairs of trains a day.
All these difficulties were successfully overcome. By early summer 1905, a powerful army, perfectly armed and numerically superior to the enemy, was concentrated in the theater of military operations, and the influx of forces continued at a rapid pace. The Russians were ready to throw the Japanese into the sea.
By this point Russia was in a stable economic position, while Japan was completely exhausted. The exchange rate of the ruble was still high. Whereas the yen had plummeted, and Japan's national debt had quadrupled. A telling fact: the tax burden due to military expenditures increased in Japan by 85%, while in Russia - only 5%.
However, a more serious danger than the Japanese threatened Russia from the "internal enemy". They tried to break Russia from within with the help of revolutionary parties, widely supported by the leftist intelligentsia and the notorious "public". Taking advantage of the war, these forces fomented turmoil in the country to overthrow the existing state system.
In January 1905 strikes broke out all over Russia. At a time when the country so badly needed resources for victory, the leading factories, which produced these resources, stopped!
The peaceful march of the workers on January 9, 1905, through the efforts of the organizers themselves, turned into an armed clash with the forces of law and order (see Fact 3 for details).
"Bloody Sunday" served as the beginning of the Russian Revolution and mass terror, the victims of which were thousands of officials, statesmen, representatives of the authorities.
This raises the question: who so generously financed the revolutionaries and supplied them with weapons? A huge role was played by Japanese, British and American money. The cause of the fight against Russian statehood brought together completely heterogeneous forces: Japanese diplomatic circles, British parliamentarians, American millionaires, Russian Social Revolutionaries, Bolsheviks and others.
In his memoirs, the prominent SRist Boris Savinkov wrote about one such fact:
"A member of the Finnish party, Connie Cilliacus, informed the central committee that through him a donation of one million francs was received for the Russian revolution from American millionaires. And the Americans made it a condition that this money should go to arm the people and be distributed among all the revolutionary parties. The Central Committee accepted this sum, deducting 100,000 francs for the militant organization."
Especially distinguished in subsidizing the revolutionaries was Jacob Schiff, owner of the banking house of "Kuhn, Leb & Co." in New York.
Not far behind America was Japan, whose military situation was worsening by the day. Only domestic turmoil in Russia could save it.
Japanese Colonel Motojiro Akashi was actively engaged in subversive activities against the Russian state. Akashi developed a plan to assist the Russian revolutionaries.
In the intercepted spy document there were precise indications as to whom, in what quantity and for what purpose the considerable sums of Japanese money were intended:
"The Japanese government, with the help of its agent Akashi, gave 15,300 pounds sterling, that is 382,500 francs, for the purchase of 14,500 rifles to various revolutionary groups. In addition, they gave 4,000 (100,000 francs) to Socialist revolutionaries and for the purchase of a yacht with the maintenance of the crew, 4,000 pounds (100,000 francs)."
Weapons and ammunition for the Russian revolutionaries were prepared so much that it was necessary to purchase a 315-ton steamboat, "John Grafton", which managed to make three trips to deliver the cargo. Other vessels were also purchased.
The Japanese government transferred no less than 1 million yen (about 5 billion yen or 35 million dollars at today's rate) during the war, which was at that time a huge sum.
The English journalist E. Dillon in his book "The Decline of Russia" wrote:
"The Japanese distributed money to Russian revolutionaries of known shades, and considerable sums were spent on this. I must say that this is an indisputable fact."
Jurist, publicist A. Yu. Sorokin states:
"The total amount of foreign money directed 'to the revolution' in Russia was at least $50 million."
Under the tutelage of Japan, the liberal, socialist, and nationalist branches of the anti-Russian forces colluded. In autumn 1904 they held a meeting in Paris, which issued a resolution on the "destruction of the Autocracy" and the establishment of a "free democratic system". Its participants recognized the "usefulness" for the "liberation" of Russia of its defeat in the war with Japan and urged to contribute to it in any way possible.
The revolutionaries were directly preparing a bloody provocation and revolt. "Only I must wait," said Gapon, "for some external event; let Arthur fall.
It is now clear that the events of January 9, 1905 have a completely different background than has been presented so far in all the textbooks.
In fact, it was a prearranged provocation - one of the first attempts at a color revolution in Russia!
Under these very difficult circumstances, the Emperor made the wisest decision to conclude a peace treaty with Japan - in response to Japan's repeated offers.
But the tsar stressed at once: "I am ready to end by peace the war which I have not begun, if only the conditions offered will be in accord with the dignity of Russia. I do not consider us defeated, our troops are intact, and I believe in them."
Although the situation on the front allowed to continue the war, but internal turmoil threatened the destruction of the state.
In addition, as a Christian, Nicholas II no longer wanted to shed Russian blood. After hearing the report of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, that for the final victory it would take another year of fighting and 200 thousand losses, the Emperor decided not to ruin people and begin negotiations for peace offered by Japan.
All the humiliating clauses Japan put forward for Russia were irrevocably rejected by Nicholas II. The Emperor said: "Any decent Russian agrees to continue the war to the end, if Japan will insist on two points: not one inch of our territory and not one ruble payment for the war expenses."
The peace treaty was signed on August 23 (September 5), 1905. The head of the Japanese delegation, Komura, announced in a steady voice that the Japanese government, in order to restore peace, accepted Russia's conditions. Those present, including the head of the Russian delegation, S.Y. Witte, were stunned. Nobody expected that the Japanese would refuse the contributions and agree to return half of Sakhalin which they had seized for free.
According to the academician A.N. Sakharov, the Portsmouth peace treaty, which ended the Russian-Japanese war, "grew out of the common interest of not having won Japan, and not having lost the war Russia".
Revolutionaries and opposition fanned the myth of the "defeat of tsarism" and the "national disgrace" that befell Russia, although it was their subversive activities that forced the tsar to negotiate and end the war.
Thus, the world powers, simultaneously supporting both the external and internal enemy of Russia, made great efforts to overthrow the Tsarist regime in 1905. But to carry out a color revolution in Russia was not possible.
Nicholas II did not lose the Russo-Japanese war!
"Bloody Sunday" - a provocation of the world powers to weaken Russia!
Doctor of Historical Sciences, academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences V.M. Lavrov:
"Maybe we should have continued the war. But on the other hand - 200 thousand people. After all, it was the Christian tsar who said: "Let us not destroy people." Could Lenin have said, "Let us not destroy people"? Could Stalin have said, "Let us not destroy people"? But Nicholas II said and saved many lives!"
Sources:
At the beginning of World War I the offensive of the Russian army was successful.
However, in 1915 the situation on the Eastern Front changed for the worse. The winter offensive of ill-prepared Russian army turned into a German counter-offensive in August. The Russian army was rapidly losing lost ground. Supreme Command was unable to cope with the situation, and the morale of the army was undermined.
Here is how military historian A.A. Kersnovsky describes the situation: "The apparatus of the Stavka began to show shortcomings. At the end of July it began to be noticed, and in mid-August it finally became clear that it was no longer able to control events. The grand retreat showed the absence of a general guiding idea. The troops were left to their own devices. <...> Physically and mentally exhausted fighters, losing faith in their strength, began to surrender in tens of thousands. If June was a month of bloody losses, August 1915 may be called a month of mass surrenders. A military disaster was looming over Russia, but this catastrophe was prevented by the Tsar."
August 23 (September 5), 1915 Emperor Nicholas II took over the Supreme Command, once again taking upon himself the heavy cross of imperial duty.
In this regard Kersnovsky wrote: "History has often seen monarchs becoming the leaders of victorious armies for the easy laurels of victory. But she had never yet met a crowned ruler, who took upon himself the cross to lead an army, seemingly hopelessly defeated, knowing in advance that here he could be crowned not with laurels, but only thorns."
The decision of the Sovereign to assume the duties of Supreme Commander-in-Chief caused acute dissatisfaction among both the liberal part of society and the ministers. They tried to force him to abandon this decision. Thus, the chairman of the State Duma M. V. Rodzianko, in a letter to the Tsar, insisted on keeping this post for the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, and afterwards most of the members of the Council of Ministers asked the Tsar to abandon this step. Even the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna was against the decision of her son.
But the Tsar again showed his firm will and his decision remained unchanged.
Some critics pointed out that the tsar was completely unprepared for the position of Supreme Commander. However, as a cesarevitch, Nicholas brilliantly underwent comprehensive combat training in all branches of service - infantry, cavalry, artillery and navy. He knew the armed forces from the inside, paid close attention to weapons and personnel of the top military command.
Of course, the tsar could not lead all major military operations alone, without the help of military specialists. But it was in the selection of such specialists that the strengths of Nicholas II as a military commander became apparent. He appointed the most prominent figure in this war, General Alexeev, as Chief of Staff.
After Nicholas II took the supreme command, the general crisis on the Eastern Front was overcome. The titanic efforts of the Emperor, his skillful organization of the high command, his knowledge in the military field, his unwavering faith in victory inspired many.
In the short term the "shell hunger" was overcome, the supply was established, and the morale of the army was raised.
In 1916 the "lost" Russian army responded with a powerful offensive. A large-scale operation (Brusilovsky breakthrough) was carried out, during which the armies of Austria-Hungary and Germany suffered a heavy defeat, and the Russian troops occupied Bukovina and Eastern Galicia.
The British politician W. Churchill praised the efforts of Russia and her monarch:
"Few episodes of the Great War are more striking than the resurrection, rearmament, and renewed gigantic effort of Russia in 1916. It was the last glorious contribution of the tsar and the Russian people to the cause of victory... By the summer of 1916 Russia, which 18 months before that had been almost unarmed and which in 1915 had suffered a continuous series of terrible defeats, had indeed succeeded, by her own efforts and with the help of the Allies, in fielding - organizing, arming and supplying - 60 army corps instead of the 35 with which she had begun the war."
The emperor was confident of the victory to come. He told V. I. Mamontov: "...I am now quite calm and confident about the future. I work hard and am aware of all our military activities, I am convinced that the victory is guaranteed for us."
The victory parade was scheduled for the summer of 1917. And it could have taken place, if not for the treachery of the tsar's entourage.
One of the main instigators of the February coup, P.N. Milyukov recalled:
"We knew that in the spring (referring to the spring of 1917 - auth. - ed.) the Russian army was going to win. In that case the prestige and charm of the Tsar among the people would again become so strong and enduring that all our efforts to undermine and overthrow the throne of the autocrat would be in vain. That is why we had to resort to a rapid revolutionary explosion."
The organizer of the conspiracy, N.I. Guchkov, wrote:
"In the autumn of 1916 a plan was born for a palace coup, as a result of which the tsar would be forced to sign an abdication with the transfer of the throne to the legitimate heir."
Ministers of the State Duma, members of high society, generals from the Stavka and the higher command of the fronts were involved in and supported the coup d'etat. Some deliberately betrayed, others cowardly submitted to the traitors, even though they showed sympathy for the Emperor, while others, wresting the abdication from the Emperor, lied to him that it was done in favor of the heir, but in reality sought to overthrow the monarchy in Russia.
The "allied" Britain also had a hand in the destruction of the Russian Empire. In his report in Paris on April 8, 1917 a French intelligence officer Captain de Malacy reported: "The prominent organizer (of the conspiracy - author - editor) was the British Ambassador Sir George Buchanan, who led everything with Guchkov. In the days of the revolution, Russian agents in British service handed out bundles of rubles to soldiers, urging them to wear red cockades". Member of the conspiracy knyaz' Vladimir Obolensky confirmed in his memoirs that many meetings were held at Buchanan's.
On March 1, 1917, the tsar was left alone, practically captive on the train, betrayed by his subordinates, separated from his family.
"Treason, cowardice, and deceit everywhere", Nikolai Alexandrovich wrote in his diary.
History professor Sergei Oldenburg wrote in his book "The Reign of Emperor Nicholas II": "The most difficult and most forgotten exploit of Emperor Nicholas II was that he led Russia to the threshold of victory under incredibly difficult conditions: his enemies did not let it cross this threshold."
To rearm the army and help the families of the dead and wounded, the Emperor invested his entire inheritance of 200 million rubles (i.e. about today's $10-20 billion). Soviet historians kept silent about this fact. And for modern officials and leaders of countries such selflessness and sacrifice of the Russian monarch is a feat that cannot be repeated.
Nicholas II did not lose World War I! By an incredible effort he created all the prerequisites for victory.
Russia's victory in the war was prevented by the treachery of the higher ranks.
Vladimir Lavrov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences:
"Nicholas II was winning the war! Lenin lost it by concluding the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty. Few people have read it. But what was in that treaty? They lost Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltics; they undertook to demobilize both the old army and the newly created Red Army. But what is a country without an army? In addition, a contribution in gold."
Sources:
Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna surrounded by courtiers
In the memoirs of his contemporaries, the Emperor Nicholas II and the entire royal family appear in radically different images, as if they were completely different people. To find the truth, it is enough to understand what motivated the people who left their memoirs: love and devotion to the royal couple or envy and resentment. Motive is always at the heart of actions.
During the reign of Nicholas II, the moral state of society, especially the members of the royal family, was one of the main reasons for the fall of the monarchy.
Already in the nineteenth century, the Imperial family greatly increased, as families often had five or six children. Individual clans and parties began to arise and the rivalry between them. Not all members of the family led such an impeccable life as Alexander III and his son Nicholas II. But if under Alexander III, who ruled the family brutally, with the help of orders, the members of the family restrained themselves for fear of the Emperor's anger, then under a more delicate sovereign, which was Nicholas II, all their dislike for the royal family and the desire to assert themselves manifested in full measure.
Certainly many of the Romanovs possessed sufficient intelligence and ability to serve the Czar and their motherland, but chose to channel these abilities into satisfying their own ambitions.
Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna. 1908
Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna recalled: "Most of us annoyed Nicky and even made scenes in his presence to satisfy our own interests, our petty thoughts. ... Too many of us Romanovs were selfish, eaten by an insatiable appetite for pleasure and honor. This was made clear most conspicuously by the appalling indiscretions exhibited by the last generation of our family in matters of marriage. The family scandals that followed one after another could not help but shock Russian society. But did any of them care what impression they made?"
Immediately after the accession of Emperor Nicholas II there was a series of matrimonial riots as the Grand Dukes Romanovs, in violation of existing law, began to enter into unequal marriages. Even Nicholas II's brother Mikhail Alexandrovich married a scandalous divorced woman.
In contrast to similar members of the dynasty, Nicholas II was crystal clear - he was a model of an excellent family man and a deeply religious man. He dealt with matters of state while secular society fostered gossip in the salons and lounges. He preferred quiet family evenings to revelry and balls. Morally and spiritually he was far above the majority of his entourage and the dynasty, and therefore the so-called high society had to bring him down to their level, mix him with dirt. It was not for nothing that Lili Den, a friend of the Empress, aptly called this part of society "secular rabble".
Thus intrigue and gossip were born in the salons of Olga Feodorovna, Princess of Baden, wife of Grand Duke Mikhail Nikolayevich (the fourth son of Emperor Nicholas I), who was known as "the first gossiper of the Empire". Anyone who did not fawn over her became her personal enemy. Brutal slander spread from her living rooms, discrediting the royal family.
After the death of their mother, the "Mikhailovichs" continued to play their games. Years later, already in exile, Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, grandson of Nicholas I, wrote memoirs filled with insinuations against his cousin Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna.
Olga Feodorovna, Princess of Baden, wife of Grand Duke Mikhail Nikolayevich (left), and Maria Pavlovna, wife of Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich
The court of Maria Pavlovna, wife of Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich (the third son of Emperor Alexander II), who was called "Mikhen" in kindred circles, was not far behind in its manifestations of hatred and generating lies. Mikhen especially disliked Alexandra Feodorovna.
As General A.A. Mosolov, who was acquainted with court life, wrote: "Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna, a clever and imperious woman, wanted to become the Empress's confidante and guardian, but immediately received a cold and decisive rebuff, thanks to which she began to dislike the Empress.
Even the dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna disapproved of her daughter-in-law and tried to direct her life. And after the slanders she allowed herself to criticize the tsarina in the presence of others.
"Thus," concluded A.A. Mosolov, "the Tsarina had against her the Court of the Dowager Empress and the powerful court of Maria Pavlovna, to which all St. Petersburg society adhered."
Why did Alexandra Feodorovna not please the higher society? The same reason as her husband Nicholas II. She was too sincere and wholehearted, a deep and passionate believer in God. All thoughts and feelings of the Tsarina were exalted and noble (as evidenced by her diaries and correspondence), she was ready to help and helped many at the call of her soul. She did not want and did not know how to be flattering and hypocritical, to participate in endless empty ceremonies. Such things were not forgiven or forgotten.
Alexandra Fyodorovna quickly recognized the falsehood and hostility of the aristocracy. Soon after her marriage, the Tsarina, with her usual shrewdness, wrote to her German friend the Prussian baroness Rantzau: "I feel that all those who surround my husband are insincere and that no one does their duty for the sake of duty and for Russia. All serve Him because of career and personal gain."
Everything was blamed on the Empress: the wrong "fold of the lips," the wrong facial expression, too often she nodded her head in greeting, did not support the idea of a ball in 1907, referring to the post-war mourning... Even the fact that the Empress had attracted her elder daughters to assist in surgical operations in the hospital, were condemned by society.
Empress Alexandra Feodorovna and Grand Duchesses Olga and Tatiana with the wounded and medical personnel in the infirmary
Often those who had direct contact with the Grand Duchess were surprised at the extent to which their judgments about her did not correspond to reality. For example, a senior nurse at the Tsarskoselsky Hospital, V. I. Chebotareva, who for many months watched the Tsarina and the Grand Duchesses during their work in the hospital, made a very revealing entry in her diary in February 1917: "The rumor has attributed all failures, all changes in appointments to the Grand Duchess. The hair stands on end: no matter what they accuse Her of, each stratum of society from its own point of view, but a common, united gust - dislike and distrust... but if you look into Her clear, intelligent eyes, you will understand that She is incapable of a low action - so direct and clear.
Nicholas II, whose narrow family circle never discussed anyone behind the scenes, did not gossip, deeply resented this feature of the aristocracy. In the memoirs of the French ambassador to Russia, Maurice Paleologue, a phrase of the Emperor at a reception in Tsarskoye Selo is recorded: "These miasmas of Petrograd ... You can feel them here at a distance of 22 versts, and this foul spirit comes not from the people's quarters, but from the salons. What a disgrace! What a nothingness! Can one be so devoid of conscience, patriotism, and faith?"
The gossip of high society was multiplied by the press, repeated by laymen, and relished by unscrupulous historians. If the Romanovs themselves allowed themselves to blacken the monarch, who embodied the highest power, God's anointed, then what about the other classes?
"The living rooms of lordly mansions, the aristocratic salons of the capital, and the private rooms of fashionable restaurants and expensive taverns became arenas for heated discussion. Here was formed what in Russia was considered "public opinion". And it was not shaping up in favor of the new monarch. Gradually it spread to different social strata, and by the beginning of the 20th century a critical attitude towards the autocracy became a "good tone" in the circles of the so-called progressive society. To be called a "progressive" was quite easy: one had only to speak out against "despotism", criticizing and ridiculing all endeavors of the authorities. Petersburg society at that time was a fairground of human vanity, a triumph of conceit and human ambition, where simple and genuine thoughts and deeds had no place", Bokhanov rightly notes. And he draws an unambiguous conclusion: "This public anti-Tsar psychosis made a revolutionary catastrophe inevitable".
The more the Tsar and Tsarina did for the benefit of the Fatherland, the louder were the voices of their opponents. Moral lifestyle, devotion to God, pursuit of Russian spiritual traditions, the high human qualities of the monarchs - all this was a mute reproach to many representatives of high society, wallowing in envy, gossip, intrigue and a desire for pleasure. Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna "troubled the human conscience, preventing people from settling comfortably on earth without God. Therefore the lives of the holy ascetics were inevitably accompanied by blasphemy and slander.
It is on this basis of prejudiced "public opinion", abounding in intrigue and slander, was born a conspiracy of ministers and generals, which led to a coup d'etat in February 1917. In six months the power of the traitors also fell.
By denying Russian culture and discrediting the monarch, the court nobility betrayed the tsar, Russia and God. And this betrayal of the elite was the first major cause of the fall of the autocracy.
"Revolution is a phenomenon caused by a split among the elites." - Doctor of History Kirill Solovyov and historian, political scientist Alexei Martynov - about the factors that led to the revolution of 1917.
Fragment from the film "The Country that We Don't Pity".
Sources:
Fact 1: The abdication of Tsar Nicholas II is a lie!
View: https://youtu.be/oxtA1SwmqMY?list=PLav-Xs_e25S3lNkO9EwxXC6VI6wkE6MBW
View: https://youtu.be/oxtA1SwmqMY?list=PLav-Xs_e25S3lNkO9EwxXC6VI6wkE6MBW
| What is new to you in this article? 100 years after the October Revolution, a major lie about Emperor Nicholas II is revealed! How did General Alexeev forge the manifesto on the abdication of Nicholas II? Candidate of Historical Sciences Peter Multatuli: "The so-called Manifesto of Renunciation is a forgery". |
From a spiritual point of view
"He who is glorified by Almighty God needs no human rehabilitation", says P. Multatuli.From a legal point of view
The laws of the Russian Empire did not have such articles as the abdication of the reigning monarch. Lawyers argue that the document has no legal force. The Manifesto of Nicholas II was never published by the Senate, as required by law at the time, and its preparation was not attended by the Emperor himself, as the bearer of supreme power. That is, the fact of the abdication of the Emperor does not exist.From a historical point of view
The body of historical evidence shows that by the beginning of 1916 a conspiracy of the liberal and Kadet opposition and revolutionary factions, closely allied to certain political and financial forces in the West, had been finally formed, whose aim was to overthrow the Emperor Nicholas II.Later, a staff headed by A.I. Guchkov was established, which envisioned replacing the current monarchical ruler with a minor constitutional ruler.
The conspirators' plan was to seize the imperial train during one of the tsar's trips to the Stavka. Arresting the Emperor, it was intended to immediately force him to abdicate in favor of Tsesarevich Alexei under the regency of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, and in case of refusal - to kill him. At the same time a constitutional order would be introduced in the country.
The author of this plan was Guchkov. Appropriate manifestos were prepared in advance. It was planned to perform all this during the night and in the morning the whole Russia and the army would know about the abdication. All this was done in the fateful days of February and March of the February Revolution in 1917.
But A. F. Kerensky had his own plans, and after the coup he saw Russia only as a democratic republic, which would be headed not by a council of regents, but by a constituent assembly. That is, not a monarchy in any form, but a republic. And Kerensky made Guchkov's plan part of his plan, because he understood that by acting openly, he would not succeed.
Guchkov established connections with the supreme military command: Adjutant General M. Alexeyev, the chief of staff of the Stavka, Adjutant General N. Ruzsky, the commander-in-chief of the armies of the Northern Front, Adjutant General A. Brusilov, Adjutant General V. Gurko, the commander-in-chief of the armies of the South-Western Front, General of cavalry. They played a crucial role in the success of the coup.
The question of abdication was foregone.
On February 22, 1917 the Emperor was lured to Stavka by General Alexeev and torn from the capital, which immediately began rioting. The sovereign's order to send troops to suppress the unrest was not carried out. The Tsar was seized by the conspirators and imprisoned.
What is the paper that is commonly thought of as a manifesto?
"The so-called Manifesto of Renunciation is a forgery. It was drawn up with gross violations of pre-revolutionary paperwork, has edits, erasures, printed using different typewriters", says P. Multatuli.
We can see that the paper was torn, i.e. was made up of pieces of different texts.
It can be seen that the letter "й" in the first half of the text was not printed fully, but in the second half it was clearly and distinctly printed.
It can be seen that the inscription "Г. Псков" was printed on a different typewriter.
Instead of the title introducing the manifesto there is the inscription: "To the Chief of Staff". It was talking about the chief of staff of the conspirators. We can assume that it was Kerensky, to whom Guchkov sent a telegram stating that the Tsar had agreed to the abdication.
The signature of the Emperor was made in pencil and traced through the glass.
Nicholas II always personally drew up the most important documents. Therefore, another document proves the invalidity of the fake manifesto: a draft of the manifesto on the abdication, made at the headquarters of the Supreme Command. The basic text is typewritten. But it contains changes by hand. At the end of the document written by the hand of Alexeev are the words, which are the beginning of a trumped-up manifesto of abdication.
Thus, Nicholas II never wrote or signed the Manifesto of Renunciation! He was captured by the conspirators in the train at the Pskov station Dno and forcibly deprived of power in favor of the Provisional Government.
There was no abdication!
It was not the Tsar who abdicated from the throne, it was Russia who abdicated from the Tsar.
Source
Fact 2: Nicholas II is one of the strongest rulers in Russia. The myth about the weak ruler is debunked!
"His will resembled the steady running of a stream from a mountain height..."
View: https://youtu.be/0oNJ4HBTenI?list=PLav-Xs_e25S3lNkO9EwxXC6VI6wkE6MBW
"His will resembled the steady running of a stream from a mountain height..."
View: https://youtu.be/0oNJ4HBTenI?list=PLav-Xs_e25S3lNkO9EwxXC6VI6wkE6MBW
| At the beginning of the twentieth century, Western journalists vied with one another to write about the Russian economic miracle. The Russian Empire was ranked first in the world in terms of economic growth. Thanks to the wise rule of Emperor Nicholas II, successes were achieved in all areas of the country's life: economy, science, education, social and military spheres. What was done:
|
In terms of industrial production, Russia ranked fourth in Europe and fifth in the world, second only to the United States, Germany, Great Britain and France. In terms of growth rates of national income and labor productivity, Russia ranked first in the world.
The plan of electrification of the country was approved back in 1909, its implementation was planned for 1915, but because of the war it was postponed until 1920. After the revolution, the GOELRO plan was appropriated by the Bolsheviks.
2,000 km of railroads were built annually. The Great Trans-Siberian Railway, which entered the Guinness Book of Records as the longest road in the world and which connected the Far East with the European part of Russia, was the brainchild of Nicholas II.
From 1895 to 1906 the river fleet doubled in size. It was the biggest in the world.
By the production of major agricultural products Russia came in first place. It accounted for 2/5 of the world exports of agricultural products.
Thanks to the progressive Stolypin reform, which was approved and strongly promoted by the Tsar, in 1916 over 90% of the land belonged to the peasants. According to the All-Russian District Census of 1917, peasants owned 89.3% of the crops and 94% of the livestock. What did Lenin's "Decree on Land" proclaim then?
Russia was not a raw materials appendage! The Emperor expressly forbade the export of round (uncut) wood and crude oil from Russia. Only Russian oil products were supplied abroad, and Russian motor oil was the best in the world.
The population of Russia for 23 years of the reign of Nicholas II grew by more than 60 million people! After 1917, the population only decreased (by 65 million after the repressions, famine and the Great Patriotic War).
Colossal achievements were made in the fields of invention, science, education, medicine, culture, and the social sphere. For example, spending on education and culture during the reign of Nicholas II increased eightfold and was more than twice as much as that of France and 1.5 times as much as that of England. Medicine was free, and by the number of doctors Russia was second in Europe and third in the world. In 1908 free primary education was introduced. By 1916 over 50% of the population of the empire was literate, among young people - 85%.
Under the last Emperor Russia became the pinnacle of Russian civilization, possessing political, economic, military power, the highest culture and advanced science.
Could it happen under a weak ruler?
Testimonies of historians and politicians - contemporaries of Nicholas II - about the qualities of the Emperor:
"It is said of the Russian Emperor that he is accessible to various influences. This is deeply untrue. The Russian Emperor pursues his own ideas. He defends them with consistency and great strength. He has maturely thought out and carefully worked out plans. On the realization of them he works tirelessly."
-Former President of the French Republic, Émile Loubaix
"His manners are so modest and he shows so little outward determination that it is easy to conclude that he lacks a strong will; but the people around him assure us that he has a very definite will, which he is able to carry out in the calmest manner."
-The German diplomat Count Rex
"The sovereign, on top of his iron hand, had a velvet glove. His will was like no thunderbolt. It did not manifest itself in explosions or violent clashes; it was more like the steady run of a stream from a mountain height to the plain of the ocean. It skirts obstacles, deviates sideways, but, in the end, approaches its goal with unwavering consistency."
-Professor of History S. S. Oldenburg
Nicholas II is one of the strongest rulers of Russia and of the world! This is proven by his deeds and the successes of Russia during his reign.
The myth of the weak ruler has been debunked!
А. Borisyuk:
"In Soviet times, one of the main myths was born, the myth of the dark pre-revolutionary kingdom. That is, during the Soviet era they created the illusion of a leap from the dark kingdom to a bright future. And to do this, they created this very "dark kingdom" in the minds of people. I am showing that there was no "dark kingdom" and that the history of Russia's success is not just 70 years of Soviet times. It's a thousand years of history...
Practically all the technologies of the 20th century and modern ones were born in pre-revolutionary Russia".
Sources:
- Боханов А. В. Николай II. – М.: Вече, 2008. – (Императорская Россия в лицах).
- Бразоль Б. Л. Царствование Императора Николая II (1894 – 1917) в цифрах и фактах. – URL: http://legitimist.ru/lib/ideology/003_b_brazol_carstvovanie_imperatora_nikolaya_ii_v.pdf
- Кафенгауз Л.Б. Эволюция промышленного производства с 1887 по 1926 годы. – М.: Эпифания, 1994. — 849 с. — (Памятники экономической мысли).
- Ольденбург С.С. Царствование Императора Николая II. – URL: http://www.e-reading.mobi/bookreader.php/150563/Ol'denburg_-_Carstvovanie_imperatora_Nikolaya_II.html.
- Платонов О.А. История русского народа в XX веке. – URL: profilib.com.
Fact 3: Nicholas II was never "bloody"
A New Look at the First Russian Revolution of 1905 and "The Bloody Sunday"
View: https://youtu.be/v2_mVYyJ3h0?list=PLav-Xs_e25S3lNkO9EwxXC6VI6wkE6MBW
A New Look at the First Russian Revolution of 1905 and "The Bloody Sunday"
View: https://youtu.be/v2_mVYyJ3h0?list=PLav-Xs_e25S3lNkO9EwxXC6VI6wkE6MBW
| In Soviet times, all the textbooks told us about the rotten tsarist regime and the bloody Nicholas II. The Soviet Union has been gone for more than a quarter of a century, but the myths of Soviet propaganda still live on in our minds. You'll find out in this short article:
|
Where did the nickname "bloody" come from? It is associated with two events: the Khodynka tragedy and "The Bloody Sunday". But it is enough to compare the number of victims of these tragedies with the consequences of the revolutionary terror of 1905-1910 and repressions of the 1930s by the Soviet government to understand who was a bloody terrorist in reality.
Crowds on Khodynka Field.
May 30, 1896.
The Khodynka tragedy took place in Moscow in May 1896 and is associated with the coronation of Tsar Nicholas II.
After the coronation, according to tradition, there were to be festivities for the people: huge tables were set up on Khodynka Field near the city walls. The townspeople and peasants were invited to a lavish festive meal as guests of the Emperor. Early in the morning, even before dawn, more than half a million people gathered on Khodynka.
"Due to the unexpected number of people gathered, the police were unable to cope with the crowd, and at the moment the distribution of gifts began there was an incredible crush. After 10-15 minutes order was restored, but it was too late. There were 1282 dead and several hundred wounded on the spot".
-Historian S.S. Oldenburg
The Bolsheviks used this tragedy as an excuse to label Nicholas II as "bloody".Of course, Nicholas II was not personally responsible for this tragedy, but like any head of state, he took full responsibility for what had happened. He ordered to issue 1,000 rubles to each family of those killed on Khodynka field, assigned personal pensions to the families of the dead and maimed, established a special orphanage for orphaned children, and assumed all the costs of the funeral at his expense.
None of the participants in the tragedy blamed the 26-year-old Tsar, who had just ascended the throne. When the tsar visited the wounded in hospital, many of them worried and tearfully asked the tsar to forgive them, "unwise", who had spoiled "such a holiday".
"By coincidence, on the day of the misfortune a brilliant reception was scheduled at the French embassy, for which our allies the French had long prepared, having expended enormous means and much effort on these celebrations. At the presentation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Sovereign, with a heavy heart, decided not to cancel His visit, lest He should provoke political quarrels. He put the duty of royal service above all else. At the appointed hour the Emperor arrived at the French embassy, stayed there for the minimum time stipulated by protocol, and then departed, instructing the ambassador to convey His gratitude to the French people for their friendly feelings towards Russia... His courageous gesture was rightly appreciated in the foreign press, especially the French. As for the Russian liberal public and the leftist press, they tried, for propaganda purposes, to use this incident to represent the Emperor as a heartless, ruthless and cruel man."
-Historian E.E. Alferyev
Another event is associated with the "bloody Sunday" of January 9, 1905.One of the key figures in the conspiracy was the priest G. Gapon, organizer of the strike and a mass march of workers to the tsar with a petition.
Calling for a "peaceful march", at one of the meetings Gapon addressed the workers:
"If... they won't let us through, we will force our way through. If the troops shoot at us, we will defend ourselves. Part of the troops will come over to our side, and then we will have a revolution. We'll set up barricades, smash up armory stores, smash up the prison, occupy the telegraph office and the telephone. The SRs promised bombs... and ours will take it." (Iskra newspaper No. 86 of 1905).
The St. Petersburg Committee of the Bolsheviks issued a proclamation:
"Not to beg or even demand from the tsar, not to humiliate ourselves before our sworn enemy, but to throw him off the throne and expel with him the whole autocratic gang - only in this way can we win freedom."
This is what the petrels of the "peaceful" march looked like.
This was purely a political provocation by the revolutionaries, who attempted, under the difficult conditions of the Russian-Japanese war, to present political demands to the tsarist authorities on behalf of the people.
On Sunday morning, January 9, 1905 demonstrators marched from all over the city to the Winter Palace. In addition to the banners (taken by force from the church), red banners and banners with the slogans "Down with autocracy!", "Long live the revolution!" and "To arms, comrades!" appeared over the crowds.
"The first to open fire were the provocateurs of the "peaceful" procession. The first to be killed were the police. In response, a company of the 93rd Irkutsk Infantry Regiment opened fire on the armed demonstration. There was no other way out for the police officers in principle. They were doing their duty."
-Historian A. Borisyuk
A peaceful march turned into an armed clash with law enforcement. The result was casualties on both sides.From the report of the director of the police department, A. A. Lopukhin:
"Electrified by the agitation, the crowds of workers, defying the usual general police measures and even the attacks of the cavalry, persistently strode toward the Winter Palace, and then, irritated by the resistance, began to attack the military units themselves. This state of affairs necessitated the adoption of emergency measures to restore order, and the military units had to act against the huge crowds of workers with firearms.
...The crowd set up a barricade with a red flag on the 4th line of Vasilevsky Island. In the same area two more barricades made of planks were erected, and there was also an attack on the building of the 2nd police station of Vasilevsky Island, whose premises were broken, as well as attempts to damage telephone and telegraph messages.
Shots were fired from the windows of houses near the barricade and the Schaff's factory of cold steel arms was looted, and the crowd tried to arm themselves with stolen blades, most of which however were taken away.
...The same day on Petersburg side 5 private shops and on Vasilevsky Island 2 state liquor stores were plundered.
On the same day, the workers expressed complete remorse about what had happened in an appeal to the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg: "Only through our darkness did we allow certain persons alien to us to express political desires on our behalf".
Once again the tsar shows mercy and concern for the victims. He orders to allocate 50,000 rubles of his own funds to help the families of the dead and wounded (this was reported in the "Bulletin of St. Petersburg. Hradonachstvo" 16 of January 20, 1905). History knows of no other such case in which, during a difficult war, funds were allocated for charitable assistance to the families of the victims of an anti-state demonstration.
The question arises whether the decision to use weapons was not a mistake. Perhaps the authorities should have made concessions to the workers?
The historian S.S. Oldenburg, a contemporary of those events, gives an unambiguous answer: "Concession to the advancing crowd either leads to the collapse of power or to even worse bloodshed".
After January 1905, a real revolutionary terror unfolded in the country.
"The turmoil that began in January 1905 engulfed the entire empire. Dozens of people died daily at the hands of terrorists. From January 1905 to 1907 terrorists killed 9 thousand people, from January 1908 to January 1910 - 7 thousand 634 people. The total number of victims of terror was 16,634 people. It is noteworthy that the Russian liberal intelligentsia "traditionally" sympathized not with the victims of terror, but with terrorists, in whom progressives saw the front line of the struggle against the hated autocracy."
-Candidate of Historical Sciences P.V. Multatuli
So what is the fault of Nicholas II? That he defended his people and the existing state system from turmoil?Nicholas II did not need mass repression against the entire nation.
The subsequent crackdown on terrorists and rioters led to the fact that by early 1908 the revolutionary moods in the country were suppressed, the wave of bloody crimes was stopped, and life returned to normal.
Let us compare a few figures.
Under Nicholas II in 1908 (a record number of executions), 1,300 people were executed.
According to official OGPU-NKVD data (source: O.B. Mozokhin) :
- In 1921, when the Russian Civil War was in full swing, 9,701 people were executed by the OGPU:
- In 1937 (the height of Stalin's repressions), 353074 people were subjected to capital punishment!
The result of tsarist repressions was 7.5 times less than in the early years of Soviet power, and 270 times less than in one of the worst years of Stalinism.
And this is if we compare it with the official data of the OGPU-NKVD.
But there are other statistical sources.
The author cites such figures:
"1. The establishment of Soviet power in 1917-1929. The number of human losses - more than 30 million people.
2. the costs of building socialism (collectivization, industrialization, elimination of the kulaks and the remnants of the "old classes") 1930-1939. - 22 million people."
(Published in the journal "Russian Renaissance" #16 for 1981)
Total - more than 52 million people.
So who is really bloody?
Proclaiming Nicholas II as bloody, the ideologists of the Soviet regime tried to draw attention away from their bloody crimes.
The label "bloody" should be forever removed from the name of Emperor Nicholas the Second!
Doctor of Historical Sciences, Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences V.M. Lavrov:
"The Bolsheviks used to say, and now the Communists continue to say, that Nicholas II was bloody. It is the communists who should be silent. No one in Russian history was more bloody than their leaders Lenin and Stalin!"
Sources:
- Алферьев Е.Е. Император Николай II как человек сильной воли. Глава IX. Русско-японская война 1904-1905 гг. Заключение мира на выгодных условиях, благодаря непоколебимой воле Императора Николая II. – URL: http://litresp.ru/chitat/ru/А/alferjev-e-e/imperator-nikolaj-ii-kak-chelovek-siljnoj-voli/11
- Борисюк А.А. Миф 9 Николай II «кровавый». – URL: http://nick2.ru/nikolaj-krovavyj-razoblachaem-mif/
- Первая русско-японская революция. Интервью П.В. Мультатули журналу «Православие и современность». – URL: Первая русско-японская революция | Николай II
- Иванов А.И. Демографические потери России – СССР. – URL: Демографические потери России - СССР. А. И. Иванов - Журнал "Русское Возрождение". № 16. 1981 г. (IV) - Журнал "Русское Возрождение" - Архивы - Россия в красках
- Мозохин О.Б. Статистика репрессивной деятельности органов безопасности СССР. – URL: 1938 | Проект «Исторические Материалы»
- Ольденбург С.С. Царствование Императора Николая II. – URL: http://www.e-reading.mobi/bookreader.php/150563/Ol'denburg_-_Carstvovanie_imperatora_Nikolaya_II.html
Fact 4: Nicholas II did not lose the Russo-Japanese War
Doctor of History V.M. Lavrov: "Maybe we should have continued the war. But on the other hand - 200 thousand people. After all, it was the Christian tsar who said: "Let's not ruin people"
View: https://youtu.be/5nkNopDB_-g?list=PLav-Xs_e25S3lNkO9EwxXC6VI6wkE6MBW
Doctor of History V.M. Lavrov: "Maybe we should have continued the war. But on the other hand - 200 thousand people. After all, it was the Christian tsar who said: "Let's not ruin people"
View: https://youtu.be/5nkNopDB_-g?list=PLav-Xs_e25S3lNkO9EwxXC6VI6wkE6MBW
| What the history textbooks did not pay attention to: Why did the country's economic growth under Nicholas II and Russia's desire to cooperate with neighboring countries provoke so much hatred from the developed world powers? Who prepared and provoked the conflict between Japan and Russia? Is $50 million in 1905 a lot? Is that enough money to ruin Russia? "Bloody Sunday" - a provocation of the world powers to weaken Russia! Academician AN Sakharov: Portsmouth Peace Treaty "grew on the basis of the common interest of not victorious Japan and not losing the war Russia. |
Foreign powers did not want to put up with this. By pitting Japan against Russia in the war they pursued the goal of depleting the strong rivals who held leading positions in politics and economics. It was the United States and Britain that supplied Japan with coal, warships and weapons for the war with Russia. A total of 40% of Japan's military expenditures were foreign capital.
Russo-Japanese War broke out in January 1904. Japan began warfare, contrary to international custom, without a declaration of war, launching a surprise attack on the Russian squadron, standing on the outer roads of Port Arthur.
The first year of the war ended unsuccessfully for Russia: the fall of Port Arthur and a number of defeats in Manchuria. This was due to a number of reasons.
Russians hadn't yet had time to concentrate large forces in Manchuria. They had forces in the Far East over a huge territory of Manchuria, Primorye and Transbaikalia. Japanese troops outnumbered Russian troops in military equipment and strength by more than two times.
In addition, the railroads in February 1904 could pass only one supply line, the Trans-Siberian, with only four pairs of trains a day.
All these difficulties were successfully overcome. By early summer 1905, a powerful army, perfectly armed and numerically superior to the enemy, was concentrated in the theater of military operations, and the influx of forces continued at a rapid pace. The Russians were ready to throw the Japanese into the sea.
By this point Russia was in a stable economic position, while Japan was completely exhausted. The exchange rate of the ruble was still high. Whereas the yen had plummeted, and Japan's national debt had quadrupled. A telling fact: the tax burden due to military expenditures increased in Japan by 85%, while in Russia - only 5%.
However, a more serious danger than the Japanese threatened Russia from the "internal enemy". They tried to break Russia from within with the help of revolutionary parties, widely supported by the leftist intelligentsia and the notorious "public". Taking advantage of the war, these forces fomented turmoil in the country to overthrow the existing state system.
In January 1905 strikes broke out all over Russia. At a time when the country so badly needed resources for victory, the leading factories, which produced these resources, stopped!
The peaceful march of the workers on January 9, 1905, through the efforts of the organizers themselves, turned into an armed clash with the forces of law and order (see Fact 3 for details).
"Bloody Sunday" served as the beginning of the Russian Revolution and mass terror, the victims of which were thousands of officials, statesmen, representatives of the authorities.
This raises the question: who so generously financed the revolutionaries and supplied them with weapons? A huge role was played by Japanese, British and American money. The cause of the fight against Russian statehood brought together completely heterogeneous forces: Japanese diplomatic circles, British parliamentarians, American millionaires, Russian Social Revolutionaries, Bolsheviks and others.
In his memoirs, the prominent SRist Boris Savinkov wrote about one such fact:
"A member of the Finnish party, Connie Cilliacus, informed the central committee that through him a donation of one million francs was received for the Russian revolution from American millionaires. And the Americans made it a condition that this money should go to arm the people and be distributed among all the revolutionary parties. The Central Committee accepted this sum, deducting 100,000 francs for the militant organization."
Especially distinguished in subsidizing the revolutionaries was Jacob Schiff, owner of the banking house of "Kuhn, Leb & Co." in New York.
Not far behind America was Japan, whose military situation was worsening by the day. Only domestic turmoil in Russia could save it.
In the intercepted spy document there were precise indications as to whom, in what quantity and for what purpose the considerable sums of Japanese money were intended:
"The Japanese government, with the help of its agent Akashi, gave 15,300 pounds sterling, that is 382,500 francs, for the purchase of 14,500 rifles to various revolutionary groups. In addition, they gave 4,000 (100,000 francs) to Socialist revolutionaries and for the purchase of a yacht with the maintenance of the crew, 4,000 pounds (100,000 francs)."
Weapons and ammunition for the Russian revolutionaries were prepared so much that it was necessary to purchase a 315-ton steamboat, "John Grafton", which managed to make three trips to deliver the cargo. Other vessels were also purchased.
The Japanese government transferred no less than 1 million yen (about 5 billion yen or 35 million dollars at today's rate) during the war, which was at that time a huge sum.
The English journalist E. Dillon in his book "The Decline of Russia" wrote:
"The Japanese distributed money to Russian revolutionaries of known shades, and considerable sums were spent on this. I must say that this is an indisputable fact."
Jurist, publicist A. Yu. Sorokin states:
"The total amount of foreign money directed 'to the revolution' in Russia was at least $50 million."
Under the tutelage of Japan, the liberal, socialist, and nationalist branches of the anti-Russian forces colluded. In autumn 1904 they held a meeting in Paris, which issued a resolution on the "destruction of the Autocracy" and the establishment of a "free democratic system". Its participants recognized the "usefulness" for the "liberation" of Russia of its defeat in the war with Japan and urged to contribute to it in any way possible.
The revolutionaries were directly preparing a bloody provocation and revolt. "Only I must wait," said Gapon, "for some external event; let Arthur fall.
It is now clear that the events of January 9, 1905 have a completely different background than has been presented so far in all the textbooks.
In fact, it was a prearranged provocation - one of the first attempts at a color revolution in Russia!
Under these very difficult circumstances, the Emperor made the wisest decision to conclude a peace treaty with Japan - in response to Japan's repeated offers.
But the tsar stressed at once: "I am ready to end by peace the war which I have not begun, if only the conditions offered will be in accord with the dignity of Russia. I do not consider us defeated, our troops are intact, and I believe in them."
Although the situation on the front allowed to continue the war, but internal turmoil threatened the destruction of the state.
In addition, as a Christian, Nicholas II no longer wanted to shed Russian blood. After hearing the report of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, that for the final victory it would take another year of fighting and 200 thousand losses, the Emperor decided not to ruin people and begin negotiations for peace offered by Japan.
All the humiliating clauses Japan put forward for Russia were irrevocably rejected by Nicholas II. The Emperor said: "Any decent Russian agrees to continue the war to the end, if Japan will insist on two points: not one inch of our territory and not one ruble payment for the war expenses."
According to the academician A.N. Sakharov, the Portsmouth peace treaty, which ended the Russian-Japanese war, "grew out of the common interest of not having won Japan, and not having lost the war Russia".
Revolutionaries and opposition fanned the myth of the "defeat of tsarism" and the "national disgrace" that befell Russia, although it was their subversive activities that forced the tsar to negotiate and end the war.
Thus, the world powers, simultaneously supporting both the external and internal enemy of Russia, made great efforts to overthrow the Tsarist regime in 1905. But to carry out a color revolution in Russia was not possible.
Nicholas II did not lose the Russo-Japanese war!
"Bloody Sunday" - a provocation of the world powers to weaken Russia!
Doctor of Historical Sciences, academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences V.M. Lavrov:
"Maybe we should have continued the war. But on the other hand - 200 thousand people. After all, it was the Christian tsar who said: "Let us not destroy people." Could Lenin have said, "Let us not destroy people"? Could Stalin have said, "Let us not destroy people"? But Nicholas II said and saved many lives!"
Sources:
- Алферьев Е.Е. Император Николай II как человек сильной воли. Глава IX. Русско-японская война 1904-1905 гг. Заключение мира на выгодных условиях, благодаря непоколебимой воле Императора Николая II. – URL: http://litresp.ru/chitat/ru/А/alferjev-e-e/imperator-nikolaj-ii-kak-chelovek-siljnoj-voli/11
- Первая русско-японская революция. Интервью П.В. Мультатули журналу «Православие и современность». – URL: Первая русско-японская революция | Николай II
- Сахаров А.Н. Размышления о русско-японской войне 1904-1905 гг. // Вопросы истории. 2007. №4. С.3-15. – Русская императорская армия [Электронный ресурс]. – URL: http://regiment.ru/Lib/C/165.htm
- Сорокин А. «Союзнички»: японская разведка и российские революционеры в 1904-1905 гг. – URL: "Союзнички": японская разведка и российские революционеры в 1904-1905 гг.
Fact 5: Nicholas II led the country to the threshold of victory in World War I. He was prevented from crossing this threshold by traitors
View: https://youtu.be/6UcpXZDMC9g?list=PLav-Xs_e25S3lNkO9EwxXC6VI6wkE6MBW
View: https://youtu.be/6UcpXZDMC9g?list=PLav-Xs_e25S3lNkO9EwxXC6VI6wkE6MBW
| You will learn about the largest coup d'état in Russian history. A successful ruler is a talented military leader:
|
At the beginning of World War I the offensive of the Russian army was successful.
However, in 1915 the situation on the Eastern Front changed for the worse. The winter offensive of ill-prepared Russian army turned into a German counter-offensive in August. The Russian army was rapidly losing lost ground. Supreme Command was unable to cope with the situation, and the morale of the army was undermined.
Here is how military historian A.A. Kersnovsky describes the situation: "The apparatus of the Stavka began to show shortcomings. At the end of July it began to be noticed, and in mid-August it finally became clear that it was no longer able to control events. The grand retreat showed the absence of a general guiding idea. The troops were left to their own devices. <...> Physically and mentally exhausted fighters, losing faith in their strength, began to surrender in tens of thousands. If June was a month of bloody losses, August 1915 may be called a month of mass surrenders. A military disaster was looming over Russia, but this catastrophe was prevented by the Tsar."
August 23 (September 5), 1915 Emperor Nicholas II took over the Supreme Command, once again taking upon himself the heavy cross of imperial duty.
In this regard Kersnovsky wrote: "History has often seen monarchs becoming the leaders of victorious armies for the easy laurels of victory. But she had never yet met a crowned ruler, who took upon himself the cross to lead an army, seemingly hopelessly defeated, knowing in advance that here he could be crowned not with laurels, but only thorns."
But the Tsar again showed his firm will and his decision remained unchanged.
Some critics pointed out that the tsar was completely unprepared for the position of Supreme Commander. However, as a cesarevitch, Nicholas brilliantly underwent comprehensive combat training in all branches of service - infantry, cavalry, artillery and navy. He knew the armed forces from the inside, paid close attention to weapons and personnel of the top military command.
Of course, the tsar could not lead all major military operations alone, without the help of military specialists. But it was in the selection of such specialists that the strengths of Nicholas II as a military commander became apparent. He appointed the most prominent figure in this war, General Alexeev, as Chief of Staff.
After Nicholas II took the supreme command, the general crisis on the Eastern Front was overcome. The titanic efforts of the Emperor, his skillful organization of the high command, his knowledge in the military field, his unwavering faith in victory inspired many.
In the short term the "shell hunger" was overcome, the supply was established, and the morale of the army was raised.
In 1916 the "lost" Russian army responded with a powerful offensive. A large-scale operation (Brusilovsky breakthrough) was carried out, during which the armies of Austria-Hungary and Germany suffered a heavy defeat, and the Russian troops occupied Bukovina and Eastern Galicia.
The British politician W. Churchill praised the efforts of Russia and her monarch:
"Few episodes of the Great War are more striking than the resurrection, rearmament, and renewed gigantic effort of Russia in 1916. It was the last glorious contribution of the tsar and the Russian people to the cause of victory... By the summer of 1916 Russia, which 18 months before that had been almost unarmed and which in 1915 had suffered a continuous series of terrible defeats, had indeed succeeded, by her own efforts and with the help of the Allies, in fielding - organizing, arming and supplying - 60 army corps instead of the 35 with which she had begun the war."
The emperor was confident of the victory to come. He told V. I. Mamontov: "...I am now quite calm and confident about the future. I work hard and am aware of all our military activities, I am convinced that the victory is guaranteed for us."
The victory parade was scheduled for the summer of 1917. And it could have taken place, if not for the treachery of the tsar's entourage.
One of the main instigators of the February coup, P.N. Milyukov recalled:
"We knew that in the spring (referring to the spring of 1917 - auth. - ed.) the Russian army was going to win. In that case the prestige and charm of the Tsar among the people would again become so strong and enduring that all our efforts to undermine and overthrow the throne of the autocrat would be in vain. That is why we had to resort to a rapid revolutionary explosion."
The organizer of the conspiracy, N.I. Guchkov, wrote:
"In the autumn of 1916 a plan was born for a palace coup, as a result of which the tsar would be forced to sign an abdication with the transfer of the throne to the legitimate heir."
Ministers of the State Duma, members of high society, generals from the Stavka and the higher command of the fronts were involved in and supported the coup d'etat. Some deliberately betrayed, others cowardly submitted to the traitors, even though they showed sympathy for the Emperor, while others, wresting the abdication from the Emperor, lied to him that it was done in favor of the heir, but in reality sought to overthrow the monarchy in Russia.
The "allied" Britain also had a hand in the destruction of the Russian Empire. In his report in Paris on April 8, 1917 a French intelligence officer Captain de Malacy reported: "The prominent organizer (of the conspiracy - author - editor) was the British Ambassador Sir George Buchanan, who led everything with Guchkov. In the days of the revolution, Russian agents in British service handed out bundles of rubles to soldiers, urging them to wear red cockades". Member of the conspiracy knyaz' Vladimir Obolensky confirmed in his memoirs that many meetings were held at Buchanan's.
On March 1, 1917, the tsar was left alone, practically captive on the train, betrayed by his subordinates, separated from his family.
"Treason, cowardice, and deceit everywhere", Nikolai Alexandrovich wrote in his diary.
History professor Sergei Oldenburg wrote in his book "The Reign of Emperor Nicholas II": "The most difficult and most forgotten exploit of Emperor Nicholas II was that he led Russia to the threshold of victory under incredibly difficult conditions: his enemies did not let it cross this threshold."
To rearm the army and help the families of the dead and wounded, the Emperor invested his entire inheritance of 200 million rubles (i.e. about today's $10-20 billion). Soviet historians kept silent about this fact. And for modern officials and leaders of countries such selflessness and sacrifice of the Russian monarch is a feat that cannot be repeated.
Nicholas II did not lose World War I! By an incredible effort he created all the prerequisites for victory.
Russia's victory in the war was prevented by the treachery of the higher ranks.
Vladimir Lavrov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences:
"Nicholas II was winning the war! Lenin lost it by concluding the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty. Few people have read it. But what was in that treaty? They lost Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltics; they undertook to demobilize both the old army and the newly created Red Army. But what is a country without an army? In addition, a contribution in gold."
Sources:
- «Действия элит бездумно вели Россию к февральскому перевороту». Беседа с епископом Егорьевским Тихоном (Шевкуновым). – URL: «Действия элит бездумно вели Россию к Февральскому перевороту». Епископ Тихон (Шевкунов) / Православие.Ru
- Керсновский А.А. История русской армии. – URL: http://fb2.booksgid.com/content/E5/anton-kersnovskiy-istoriya-russkoy-armii/180.html
- Ольденбург С.С. Царствование Императора Николая II. – URL: http://www.e-reading.mobi/bookreader.php/150563/Ol'denburg_-_Carstvovanie_imperatora_Nikolaya_II.html
- Уинстон Черчилль о Николае II. – URL: Уинстон Черчилль о Николае II | Николай II
Fact 6: Nicholas II ruled in an atmosphere of envy, gossip and intrigue of secular society
Betrayal of the elite - one of the main reasons for the fall of the autocracy and the collapse of the entire country
Betrayal of the elite - one of the main reasons for the fall of the autocracy and the collapse of the entire country
| Doctor of History A.N. Bokhanov: "Petersburg society at that time was a fair of human vanity, a celebration of conceit and human ambition, where simple and genuine thoughts and actions had no place." By denying the Russian culture, discrediting the monarch, the court nobility betrayed the Tsar, Russia and God. And this betrayal by members of the royal family, princes, government officials and military generals was the first major cause of the fall of the autocracy. What questions historians have been searching for answers to for more than 100 years:
|
In the memoirs of his contemporaries, the Emperor Nicholas II and the entire royal family appear in radically different images, as if they were completely different people. To find the truth, it is enough to understand what motivated the people who left their memoirs: love and devotion to the royal couple or envy and resentment. Motive is always at the heart of actions.
During the reign of Nicholas II, the moral state of society, especially the members of the royal family, was one of the main reasons for the fall of the monarchy.
| Opinion: Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna, the younger sister of Nicholas II, recalling in exile the attitude of the Romanov dynasty toward the Tsar and Tsarina and family traditions, said: "There is no doubt that the collapse of the Russian Empire was facilitated by the last generation of Romanovs. The fact is that all those fateful years the Romanovs, who should have been the most steadfast and faithful defenders of the throne, did not meet the standards of morality and did not adhere to family traditions. |
Already in the nineteenth century, the Imperial family greatly increased, as families often had five or six children. Individual clans and parties began to arise and the rivalry between them. Not all members of the family led such an impeccable life as Alexander III and his son Nicholas II. But if under Alexander III, who ruled the family brutally, with the help of orders, the members of the family restrained themselves for fear of the Emperor's anger, then under a more delicate sovereign, which was Nicholas II, all their dislike for the royal family and the desire to assert themselves manifested in full measure.
Certainly many of the Romanovs possessed sufficient intelligence and ability to serve the Czar and their motherland, but chose to channel these abilities into satisfying their own ambitions.
Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna. 1908
Immediately after the accession of Emperor Nicholas II there was a series of matrimonial riots as the Grand Dukes Romanovs, in violation of existing law, began to enter into unequal marriages. Even Nicholas II's brother Mikhail Alexandrovich married a scandalous divorced woman.
In contrast to similar members of the dynasty, Nicholas II was crystal clear - he was a model of an excellent family man and a deeply religious man. He dealt with matters of state while secular society fostered gossip in the salons and lounges. He preferred quiet family evenings to revelry and balls. Morally and spiritually he was far above the majority of his entourage and the dynasty, and therefore the so-called high society had to bring him down to their level, mix him with dirt. It was not for nothing that Lili Den, a friend of the Empress, aptly called this part of society "secular rabble".
Thus intrigue and gossip were born in the salons of Olga Feodorovna, Princess of Baden, wife of Grand Duke Mikhail Nikolayevich (the fourth son of Emperor Nicholas I), who was known as "the first gossiper of the Empire". Anyone who did not fawn over her became her personal enemy. Brutal slander spread from her living rooms, discrediting the royal family.
After the death of their mother, the "Mikhailovichs" continued to play their games. Years later, already in exile, Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, grandson of Nicholas I, wrote memoirs filled with insinuations against his cousin Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna.
The court of Maria Pavlovna, wife of Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich (the third son of Emperor Alexander II), who was called "Mikhen" in kindred circles, was not far behind in its manifestations of hatred and generating lies. Mikhen especially disliked Alexandra Feodorovna.
As General A.A. Mosolov, who was acquainted with court life, wrote: "Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna, a clever and imperious woman, wanted to become the Empress's confidante and guardian, but immediately received a cold and decisive rebuff, thanks to which she began to dislike the Empress.
"Thus," concluded A.A. Mosolov, "the Tsarina had against her the Court of the Dowager Empress and the powerful court of Maria Pavlovna, to which all St. Petersburg society adhered."
Why did Alexandra Feodorovna not please the higher society? The same reason as her husband Nicholas II. She was too sincere and wholehearted, a deep and passionate believer in God. All thoughts and feelings of the Tsarina were exalted and noble (as evidenced by her diaries and correspondence), she was ready to help and helped many at the call of her soul. She did not want and did not know how to be flattering and hypocritical, to participate in endless empty ceremonies. Such things were not forgiven or forgotten.
Alexandra Fyodorovna quickly recognized the falsehood and hostility of the aristocracy. Soon after her marriage, the Tsarina, with her usual shrewdness, wrote to her German friend the Prussian baroness Rantzau: "I feel that all those who surround my husband are insincere and that no one does their duty for the sake of duty and for Russia. All serve Him because of career and personal gain."
Everything was blamed on the Empress: the wrong "fold of the lips," the wrong facial expression, too often she nodded her head in greeting, did not support the idea of a ball in 1907, referring to the post-war mourning... Even the fact that the Empress had attracted her elder daughters to assist in surgical operations in the hospital, were condemned by society.
Empress Alexandra Feodorovna and Grand Duchesses Olga and Tatiana with the wounded and medical personnel in the infirmary
Often those who had direct contact with the Grand Duchess were surprised at the extent to which their judgments about her did not correspond to reality. For example, a senior nurse at the Tsarskoselsky Hospital, V. I. Chebotareva, who for many months watched the Tsarina and the Grand Duchesses during their work in the hospital, made a very revealing entry in her diary in February 1917: "The rumor has attributed all failures, all changes in appointments to the Grand Duchess. The hair stands on end: no matter what they accuse Her of, each stratum of society from its own point of view, but a common, united gust - dislike and distrust... but if you look into Her clear, intelligent eyes, you will understand that She is incapable of a low action - so direct and clear.
Nicholas II, whose narrow family circle never discussed anyone behind the scenes, did not gossip, deeply resented this feature of the aristocracy. In the memoirs of the French ambassador to Russia, Maurice Paleologue, a phrase of the Emperor at a reception in Tsarskoye Selo is recorded: "These miasmas of Petrograd ... You can feel them here at a distance of 22 versts, and this foul spirit comes not from the people's quarters, but from the salons. What a disgrace! What a nothingness! Can one be so devoid of conscience, patriotism, and faith?"
| Opinion: Doctor of History A.N. Bokhanov describes aristocratic circles of that time: "During the reign of Nicholas II the dignified and court world was already so 'liberated', so 'emancipated' that the Tsar and Tsarina were seen by many as people 'of the public'. The times of reverent and awe-inspiring attitude toward royalty have fallen into oblivion. Claims of a philistine nature were often made against the Crowned Rulers, forgetting and unwilling to remember that they were elevated to this place by God. |
The gossip of high society was multiplied by the press, repeated by laymen, and relished by unscrupulous historians. If the Romanovs themselves allowed themselves to blacken the monarch, who embodied the highest power, God's anointed, then what about the other classes?
"The living rooms of lordly mansions, the aristocratic salons of the capital, and the private rooms of fashionable restaurants and expensive taverns became arenas for heated discussion. Here was formed what in Russia was considered "public opinion". And it was not shaping up in favor of the new monarch. Gradually it spread to different social strata, and by the beginning of the 20th century a critical attitude towards the autocracy became a "good tone" in the circles of the so-called progressive society. To be called a "progressive" was quite easy: one had only to speak out against "despotism", criticizing and ridiculing all endeavors of the authorities. Petersburg society at that time was a fairground of human vanity, a triumph of conceit and human ambition, where simple and genuine thoughts and deeds had no place", Bokhanov rightly notes. And he draws an unambiguous conclusion: "This public anti-Tsar psychosis made a revolutionary catastrophe inevitable".
The more the Tsar and Tsarina did for the benefit of the Fatherland, the louder were the voices of their opponents. Moral lifestyle, devotion to God, pursuit of Russian spiritual traditions, the high human qualities of the monarchs - all this was a mute reproach to many representatives of high society, wallowing in envy, gossip, intrigue and a desire for pleasure. Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna "troubled the human conscience, preventing people from settling comfortably on earth without God. Therefore the lives of the holy ascetics were inevitably accompanied by blasphemy and slander.
It is on this basis of prejudiced "public opinion", abounding in intrigue and slander, was born a conspiracy of ministers and generals, which led to a coup d'etat in February 1917. In six months the power of the traitors also fell.
| Fact: Not even nine months after the October Revolution, the new government killed the Tsar and the entire royal family - the last monarchs of Russia, who embodied the power of God on earth, the symbol of autocracy. What happened next is known to everyone: the millions of victims of the civil war, famine and repression. Sowing the wind, the country reaped the storm. |
By denying Russian culture and discrediting the monarch, the court nobility betrayed the tsar, Russia and God. And this betrayal of the elite was the first major cause of the fall of the autocracy.
"Revolution is a phenomenon caused by a split among the elites." - Doctor of History Kirill Solovyov and historian, political scientist Alexei Martynov - about the factors that led to the revolution of 1917.
Fragment from the film "The Country that We Don't Pity".
Sources:
- 12 встреч с Николаем II. Встреча вторая: Алиса. – URL: Встреча вторая. Алиса. — 12 встреч с Николаем II.
- Боханов А.Н. Святая царица. – М.: Вече, 2006. – 304с.
- Боханов А.Н. Николай II. – М.: Вече, 2008. – 528 с.
- Мемуары Великой Княгини Ольги Александровны / Запись Я. Ворреса. – М.: Захаров, 2003. – 272 с.
Last edited by a moderator:
