Now the main "trend" in the coverage of the events of 1917 is expressed in the fact that the Russian Empire of the early twentieth century was monolithic, united around the monarchy, around the Romanov dynasty state, ready to bear all related to the World War hardships in the name of continuing the existing social order, having almost class brotherhood, harmony, symphony and other positive features inherent in all respects of a positive state. "For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland". But it's not.
As it is not surprising for many current adherents of the “white movement”, the army, one of the main pillars of Emperor Nicholas II, played a leading role in his overthrow, starting all the other events of 1917 in Russia. The Russian Orthodox Church expressed sincere joy.
***
The first world war was on. The discontent of the people grew. The Imperial Headquarters was essentially a second government.But even at Headquarters, according to Professor Yu.V. Lomonosov, who during the war was a high railway official, dissatisfaction was ripening:
- “The surprising thing is that, as far as I heard, this discontent was directed almost exclusively against the king and especially the queen. At the headquarters and at Headquarters, the queen was scolded mercilessly, they talked not only about her imprisonment, but even about the deposition of Nicholas. They even talked about it at the general's tables. But always, with all the talk of this kind, the most likely outcome seemed to be a purely palace revolution, like the murder of Paul» . Paul's murders.
As General D.N. Dubensky, who was in the Emperor's retinue during the February events, about the chief of staff of the Supreme Commander gene. M.V. Alekseev, a few days before the coup:
« Mogilev. Friday, February 24th.<…>
Adjutant General Alekseev was so close to the tsar and his majesty believed Mikhail Vasilyevich so much, they became so close in joint hard work for a year and a half that, under these conditions, it seemed that there could be complications in the tsar's Headquarters. General Alekseev was: active, he sat for hours in his office, disposed of everything on his own, always meeting the full support of the supreme commander in chief.
Two days later, on March 1, upon the arrival of the royal and retinue trains in Pskov, the “retinues” met with the commander of the Northern Front gene. Ruzsky, and the same Dubensky writes:
- Less than two days have passed, i.e., February 28 and the day of March 1, since the sovereign left Headquarters and his adjutant general, chief of staff Alekseev, remained there and he knew why the tsar was going to the capital, and it turns out that everything is already a foregone conclusion and another Adjutant General Ruzsky recognizes the "winners" and advises to surrender to their mercy.
General Ruzsky, after negotiations with the Headquarters and Petrograd, insistently, sharply argued that Nicholas II should transfer the throne to the heir.
General Alekseev by this time already received the consent of all the other commanders-in-chief of the fronts with this opinion, and Ruzsky, the commander-in-chief of the Northern Front, announced this to the tsar.
Nicholas II practically did not interrupt, but, having reported that, before leaving, he agreed on everything with Alekseev, and asked:
Nicholas II lost all confidence in help from the army. Since all the heads of the fronts spoke in favor of his removal. Where could he go, who could he hope for?
This predetermined the renunciation.
Heads of fronts at that time:
Commanders-in-Chief:
Northern Front - Adjutant General Nikolai Vladimirovich Ruzsky.
Western - Adjutant General Alexei Ermolaevich Ever
Yugo Zapadny - Adjutant General Alexei Alekseevich Brusilov.
Romanian - General Vladimir Viktorovich Sakharov.
Caucasian front - Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich.
On the night of March 2, Generals Ruzsky and Chief of the General Staff Alekseev with the Chairman of the State Duma Rodzianko already drafted a renunciation manifesto. Its author was the master of ceremonies of the royal court, the director of the political office under the supreme commander Basili and General Quartermaster Stakes Lukomsky, and this act was edited by Adjutant General Alekseev. Bazili said in the morning that he did this on behalf of Alekseev.
Only two days after the last meeting of Nicholas II with Adjutant General Alekseev, whom he trusted very much ...
In the evening 2nd of March for abdication, with a manifesto in their hands, a member of the executive committee of the Duma, a monarchist, arrived V. V. Shulgin and War and Naval Minister of the Provisional Government A. I. Guchkov.
General Dubensky writes that he was surprised to see Shulgin, who was reputed to be an extreme right-wing member of the State Duma, a friend of V. M. Purishkevich.
(Shulgin- member of the monarchist organization Union of the Russian people honorary chairman of the branch of the Ostroh district, then joined Russian People's Union named after Michael the Archangel, since he considered its leader V. M. Purishkevich more energetic than the leader of the RNC A. I. Dubrovin)
The meeting was short-lived, Nikolai signed the renunciation, and a second copy was made just in case.
Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich was immediately appointed commander-in-chief. (March 11, satisfying the demand of the Provisional Government, handed over to him signed Prince Lvov, he resigned these powers in favor of the gene. Alekseev. What the Provisional Government announced only on May 27)
Here is how Nicholas II himself saw this situation, which was certainly tragic for him:
- on the evening of March 2, 1917, he wrote in his diary:
“In the morning Ruzsky came and read his long conversation on the phone with Rodzianko. According to him, the situation in Petrograd is such that now the ministry from the Duma seems to be powerless to do anything, since the Social-Democratic Party represented by the workers' committee is fighting against it. I need my renunciation. Ruzsky passed this conversation on to the headquarters, and Alekseev to all the commanders-in-chief. By 2 ½ o'clock the answers came from everyone. The bottom line is that in the name of saving Russia and keeping the army at the front in peace, you need to decide on this step. I agreed. A draft manifesto was sent from Headquarters. In the evening, Guchkov and Shulgin arrived from Petrograd, with whom I spoke and handed them the signed and revised manifesto. At one o'clock in the morning I left Pskov with a heavy sense of experience. Around treason and cowardice, and deceit!
Later, in Yekaterinburg, Nicholas II said the following words:“God does not leave me, he will give me the strength to forgive all my enemies, but I cannot defeat myself in one more thing: I cannot forgive General Ruzsky”.
It is not known whether he forgave Alekseev. Before the departure of Nicholas II from Headquarters, Adjutant General Alekseev announced to the sovereign about his arrest: "Your Majesty must consider himself as if arrested."
**
About Kornilov
Written by Gen. Mordvinov, who was also in the imperial retinue
«
At the same time (March 2) a telegram was brought from Alekseev from Headquarters, who requested the sovereign has permission to appoint, at the request of Rodzianko, General Kornilov Commander of the Petrograd Military District and his majesty expressed his consent to this. This was the first and last telegram that the sovereign signed as emperor and as supreme commander after his abdication.(At the request of Rodzyanka - that was how this surname was inclined then - they decided not to publish the manifesto yet.)
Nicholas II put a resolution on this telegram: "Execute."
The arrest of the queen and the entire royal family was produced freshly appointed Kornilov on the same day as the arrest of Nicholas II.
Here is what an entry in the Chamber Fourier journal says about this arrest:
“On March 8, 1917, by decision of the Provisional Government, the Commander-in-Chief of the Troops of the Petrograd Military District left for Tsarskoye Selo at 8:45 am to enforce the decree on the arrest of the former Empress Alexandra Feodorovna.
At 11 o'clock in the morning, Commander-in-Chief Lieutenant General Kornilov, accompanied by the head of the Tsarskoye Selo garrison, Colonel Kobylinsky, the Tsarskoye Selo commandant, Lieutenant Colonel Matsnev, and some officials of the headquarters, arrived at the Alexander Tsarsko-Selsky Palace and read to the former Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, who received it in the presence of Count Benckendorff and Count Apraksin , the decision of the Provisional Government on her arrest.
The arrest was made in the presence Colonel Kobylinsky, the new head of the Tsarskoye Selo guard.
General L.G. Kornilov personally awarded the St. George Cross to non-commissioned officer of the Volynsky regiment Kirpichnikov for the fact that on February 27, 1917, he shot in the back the head of the training team of the Volynsky regiment, staff captain Lashkevich. But this incident was the beginning of a soldier's revolt in the Volyn regiment.
L. G. Kornilov in August 1917, he spoke quite frankly about his political views and attitude towards Nicholas II:
“I declared that I would always stand for the fact that the fate of Russia should be decided by the Constituent Assembly, which alone can express the sovereign will of the Russian people. I declared that I would never support any political combination that aims to restore the Romanov dynasty, I believed that this dynasty, represented by its last representatives, played a fatal role in the life of the country.
As wrote Denikin in "Essays on Russian Troubles", when in June 1917, due to the catastrophic collapse of the Army, to Kornilov addressed with a proposal to carry out a coup and restore the Monarchy, he categorically stated that " he will not go on any adventure with the Romanovs».
***
back to M.V. Alekseev.
The decision to betray Alekseev was made not after the departure of the Tsar from Headquarters to Pskov, but much earlier.
P. N. Milyukov testified that back in the autumn of 1916, General Alekseev was developing "a plan for the arrest of the queen at headquarters and imprisonment."
One of the most prominent representatives of the royal family during the Revolution, the son of the youngest son of Nicholas I, is the Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich(1866-1933), who, by the way, was quite deservedly called "the father of Russian military aviation", wrote in his memoirs published (in the year of his death) in Paris: " General Alekseev connected himself with conspiracies with the enemies of the existing system".
At the end of 1916 the prince A.V. Obolensky asked Guchkov about the truth of the rumors about the upcoming coup. “Guchkov suddenly began to let me in on all the details of the conspiracy and name its main participants ... I realized that I had fallen into the very nest of the conspiracy. Chairman of the Duma Rodzianko, Guchkov and Alexei in were at the head of it. Other persons also took part in it, such as General Ruza and even knew about it A.A. Stolypin(brother of Peter Arkadyevich). England was with the conspirators. English Ambassador Buchanan took part in this movement, many meetings were held with him.
Recall that Alekseev and Kornilov - the founders of the Volunteer Movement, the White Army, who fought against the Bolsheviks. Some may conclude from this that the Bolsheviks were monarchists.
Alekseev's confidant, General Krymov, in January 1917, he spoke to the Duma members, pushing them towards a coup, as if giving guarantees from the army. He ended his speech with the words:
“The mood in the army is such that everyone will gladly welcome the news of the coup. A revolution is inevitable, and this is felt at the front. If you decide to take this extreme measure, we will support you. Obviously there is no other way. Everything has been tried by you and many others, but the harmful influence of a wife is stronger than honest words spoken to the King. There is no time to lose."
military censor at the headquarters of the Supreme Commander M.K. Lemke also talked about the participation in the conspiracy of General Krymov.
***
Note what was said Jubilee Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2000 in the report of Metropolitan Yuvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna, Chairman of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints:
«
... As external factors that took place in the political life of Russia and led to the signing of the Act of Abdication, we should first of all highlight ... the urgent demand of the Chairman of the State Duma M.V. Rodzianko of the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from power in the name of preventing internal political chaos in the context of a large-scale war being waged by Russia, the almost unanimous support provided by the highest representatives of the Russian generals to the demand of the Chairman of the State Duma.
That is, the Church knows the perpetrators of the overthrow of the Tsar.
About connections Guchkov wrote with officers Milyukov:
It was said in private that the fate of the Emperor and Empress remained unresolved in this case - until the intervention of the "Life Guards", as was the case in the 18th century; that Guchkov has connections with officers of the Guards regiments stationed in the capital, and so on. We left with full confidence that the coup would take place.”
General M.K. Dieterix, the future chief of staff of the Czechoslovak corps, in his book "The Murder of the Royal Family and Members of the House of Romanov in the Urals" confirms the role of the senior officers of the Russian Imperial Army in the coup:
“The participation of the top generals of the army, the leaders and authorities of the officers almost in the forefront of the February Revolution, in the abdication of the Tsar from the throne, in the political collapse of the army and the country by Kerenskyism, greatly undermined the unity of thoughts, feelings and worldviews of this strong and relatively unanimous in the old days organized corporation.”
Diterichs, having reached Vladivostok with the Czechoslovaks, supported Kolchak,"The Supreme Ruler of Russia", an officer of the British crown.
*
Let's listen and Kolchak.
Monarchist writer P. Multatuli writes that, according to the memoirs of General Spiridovich, known for the murder of Grigory Rasputin, Count Yusupov and others, Kolchak supported a conspiracy against Tsar Nicholas II, promising the loyalty of the Black Sea Fleet in the event of a coup.
The first visit upon arrival in Petrograd immediately after the February Revolution, he paid Plekhanov to which the word:
“Today... I had Kolchak. I really liked him. It is evident that in his field well done. Brave, energetic, not stupid. In the very first days of the revolution, he took her side and managed to maintain order in the Black Sea Fleet and get along with the sailors. But in politics, he seems to be completely innocent. He led me straight into embarrassment with his cheeky carelessness. He entered cheerfully, in a military way, and suddenly said: “I considered it my duty to introduce myself to you, as the oldest representative of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party.”
He was mistaken, Plekhanov was a Social Democrat, but the Socialist-Revolutionaries were not monarchists either.
His statement, by which his attitude towards the Autocracy is obvious:
“I took an oath to our first Provisional Government. I took the oath in good conscience, considering this Government as the only Government that had to be recognized under those circumstances, and I was the first to take this oath. I considered myself completely free from all obligations in relation to the monarchy, and after the revolution took place, I took the point of view on which I always stood - that I, after all, did not serve this or that form of government, but I serve my homeland, which I put it above everything, and I consider it necessary to recognize the Government that then declared itself at the head of Russian power.. And before that, he swore allegiance to the Tsar.
The last Minister of War of the Provisional Government, General A. I. Verkhovsky wrote in his memoirs:
" Since the time of the Japanese war, Kolchak has been in constant conflict with the tsarist government and, conversely, in close contact with representatives of the bourgeoisie in the State Duma.And when in June 1916 Kolchak became commander of the Black Sea Fleet,"This appointment of a young admiral shocked everyone: he was put forward a violation of all rights of seniority, bypassing a number of admirals personally known to the tsar and despite the fact that his proximity to the Duma circles was known to the emperor ... Kolchak's nomination was the first major victory of these (Duma ) circles". And in February, "the Socialist-Revolutionary Party mobilized hundreds of its members - sailors, partly old underground workers, to support Admiral Kolchak ... Lively and energetic agitators scurried around the ships, extolling both the admiral's military talents and his devotion to the revolution."
And finally, another relative of Nicholas II.
Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich(whose descendants recently visited the Crimea, sir) with a red bow on his chest, he brought the Guards crew at the disposal of the State Duma even before the abdication of the Sovereign.
There is still a lot of evidence, the scope of the article does not allow to provide them all. But these are enough to know that the Russian imperial army renounced the tsar-emperor. A year later, divided into Red and White. The first defended Russia from the interventionists and from the second, White.
***
Church
In 1917, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church (the highest body of church administration in Russia since 1721) reacted positively to the overthrow of the monarchy. Such telegrams
Even earlier, from January 1900, there was a reduction in the commemoration of the emperor at the proskomedia (the initial stage of the liturgy - the central Christian worship), and in February 1901 the reduction of the "loyal" part of the oath for the ordained bishop and the abolition of the oath for members of the Holy Synod .
Before the abdication of Nicholas II, February 26 comrade (deputy) of the synodal chief prosecutor prince N.D. Zhevakhov proposed to the Chairman of the Holy Synod Met. Kyiv Vladimir(Bogoyavlensky) to issue an appeal in support of the monarch. Metropolitan Vladimir refused.
The next day, February 27, with a proposal to condemn the revolutionary movement to St. The chief prosecutor himself turned to the synod N.P. Raev. The synod rejected it, motivating the refusal by the fact that it is still unknown where the betrayal comes from - from above or below.
At a meeting of the Holy Synod March 4 presided over by the Metropolitan of Kyiv Vladimir, and the new synodal Chief Procurator Prince V. N. Lvov announced the granting of freedom to the Russian Orthodox Church from the guardianship of the state, which, they say, had a detrimental effect on church and public life. Synod members expressed sincere joy about the advent of a new era in the life of the church. At the same time, on the initiative of the chief prosecutor, the royal chair was taken out of the meeting room of the synod to the archive, which in the eyes of the hierarchs was "a symbol of Caesaropapism in the Russian Church", i.e. the symbol "enslavement of the church by the state".
The next day, 5th of March, The Synod ordered that in all the churches of the Petrograd diocese, many years of the reigning house "not proclaimed from now on".
March 6-8. The Holy Synod ordered the removal of the commemoration of the royal power from the liturgical ranks, about which the first-present member of the Synod, the Metropolitan of Kiev Vladimir On March 6, on his own behalf, he sent telegrams to all the dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church (66 within Russia and 1 to New York) with the order that "prayers should be offered for the God-protected Russian state and its pious Provisional Government". Then there was some controversy within the Synod about the form of prayer for power, and on March 7-8, the Synod issued a definition according to which all Russian clergy were prescribed: “in all cases, at divine services, instead of commemorating the reigning house, offer a prayer “for the God-protected state of Russia and its faithful Provisional Government.”
Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich had not yet abdicated, and the house of the Romanovs had already been proclaimed "royal".
9th of March The synod sent a message To the faithful children of the Orthodox Russian Church on the occasion of the current events". The message began like this: “The will of God has been done. Russia has embarked on the path of a new state life. May the Lord bless our great Motherland with happiness and glory on its new path.”
De facto, by March 9, from the slogan of the church-monarchist slogan "For the Faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland" was removed "for the Tsar." The phrase "church-monarchical" also lost its meaning.
Thus, the ROC, represented by the Holy Synod, gave a religious sanction for February.
*
What about the monarchist parties?
In the case of "emergency circumstances", the right-wing parties assigned a certain organizing role to the Church:
- “during the years of World War I, their leadership developed tactics for their activities in case of possible “emergency circumstances” associated with an exacerbation of the political crisis and mass street demonstrations. The plan, created in 1915, provided for the gathering of all the right-wing forces of the city in the cathedral square. It was supposed to carry out the arming of all loyal subjects, the occupation by them of the most important administrative and economic institutions, etc. The signal for gathering and starting actions was to be the ringing of bells. Those. the local clergy, according to the plan, at the initial stage of its implementation was given a certain leadership role. However, in the revolutionary February-March days of 1917, church bells did not announce the gathering of right-wing forces.(Kiryanov Yu.I. Right parties in Russia. 1911-1917. Decree. Op. P. 384, 427).
Along with the officers, with the army, the role of the Church as the leading and determining force in the abolition of the monarchical system of Russia, in the overthrow of Tsar Nicholas II, is quite obvious.
But Svanidze will not talk about this in the program, Nikita Mikhalkov will keep silent about this in Besogon. The current so-called monarchists and their liberal brethren will keep silent about this. Thank God, TV is not the only medium of information.For other details, the reasons for such a complex of actions of the Church in relation to the Romanov dynasty, to the Russian monarchy, read in the works M.A. Babkina "The Clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Overthrow of the Monarchy" And “Priesthood and Kingdom. Research and materials (Russia, early XX century - 1918)"
***
The shattered Russian state could be saved only by a force that was ready to curb the discord and uncertainty that had reigned, which had lost the core of being and was ready to fall. At the feet of the "civilized world".
= =
The abdication of the throne by Nicholas II was a landmark event for Russian history. The overthrow of the monarch could not happen from scratch, it was prepared. It was promoted by many internal and external factors.
Revolutions, regime changes, overthrows of rulers do not happen instantly. This is always a labor-intensive, expensive operation, in which both direct performers and passive, but no less important for the result, card deballet are involved.
The overthrow of Nicholas II was planned long before the spring of 1917, when the historic abdication of the last Russian emperor took place. What path led to the fact that the centuries-old monarchy was defeated, and Russia was drawn into the revolution and the fratricidal Civil War?
Public opinion
The revolution takes place primarily in the mind; the change of the ruling regime is impossible without a lot of work on the minds of the ruling elite, as well as the population of the state. Today, this technique of influence is called the “path of soft power”. In the pre-war years and during the First World War, foreign countries, primarily England, began to show unusual sympathy for Russia.
British Ambassador to Russia Buchanan, together with British Foreign Minister Gray, organized two trips of delegations from Russia to Foggy Albion. First, Russian liberal writers and journalists (Nabokov, Egorov, Bashmakov, Tolstoy, and others) went on a cruise to imbue Britain with politicians (Milyukov, Radkevich, Oznobishin, and others).
Meetings of Russian guests were arranged in England with all the glamor: banquets, meetings with the king, visits to the House of Lords, universities. Returning writers, upon their return, began to write excitedly about how good it is in England, how strong its army is, how good parliamentarism is ...
But the returned "duma members" stood in February 1917 at the forefront of the revolution and entered the Provisional Government. The established ties between the British establishment and the Russian opposition led to the fact that during the allied conference held in Petrograd in January 1917, the head of the British delegation, Milner, sent a memorandum to Nicholas II, in which he almost demanded that the people needed for Britain be included in the government. The tsar ignored this petition, but there were already “necessary people” in the government.
Popular propaganda
How massive propaganda and “people's mail” was on the eve of the overthrow of Nicholas II can be judged by one amusing document - the diary of the peasant Zamaraev, which is stored today in the museum of the city of Totma, Vologda region. The peasant kept a diary for 15 years.
After the abdication of the tsar, he made the following entry: “Romanov Nikolai and his family have been deposed, they are all under arrest and receive all food on an equal basis with others on cards. Indeed, they did not at all care about the welfare of their people, and the patience of the people burst. They brought their state to hunger and darkness. What was going on in their palace? This is terrible and shameful! It was not Nicholas II who ruled the state, but the drunkard Rasputin. All the princes were replaced and dismissed from their posts, including the commander-in-chief Nikolai Nikolaevich. Everywhere in all cities there is a new administration, there is no old police.”
military factor
The father of Nicholas II, Emperor Alexander III, liked to repeat: “In the whole world we have only two faithful allies, our army and navy. All the rest, at the first opportunity, will take up arms against us.” The king-peacemaker knew what he was talking about. The way the “Russian card” was played in the First World War clearly showed that he was right, the Entente allies turned out to be unreliable “Western partners”.
The very creation of this bloc was in the hands, first of all, of France and England. The role of Russia was regarded by the "allies" in a rather pragmatic way. French Ambassador to Russia Maurice Palaiologos wrote: “In terms of cultural development, the French and Russians are not on the same level. Russia is one of the most backward countries in the world. Compare our army with this ignorant unconscious mass: all our soldiers are educated; in the forefront fight young forces who have shown themselves in art, in science, talented and refined people; this is the cream of humanity ... From this point of view, our losses will be more sensitive than Russian losses.
On August 4, 1914, the same Paleologus tearfully asked Nicholas II: “I beg Your Majesty to order your troops to go on an immediate offensive, otherwise the French army risks being crushed ...”.
The tsar ordered the troops that had not completed their mobilization to advance. For the Russian army, the haste turned into a disaster, but France was saved. Now it is surprising to read about this, given that by the time the war began, the standard of living in Russia (in large cities) was no lower than the standard of living in France, for example. Involving Russia in the Entente is only a move in a game played against Russia. The Russian army was presented to the Anglo-French allies as an inexhaustible reservoir of human resources, and its onslaught was associated with a steam roller, hence one of the leading places in Russia in the Entente, in fact the most important link in the “triumvirate” of France, Russia and Great Britain.
For Nicholas II, the bet on the Entente was a losing one. Significant losses that Russia suffered in the war, desertion, unpopular decisions that the emperor was forced to make - all this weakened his position and led to inevitable abdication.
Renunciation
The document on the abdication of Nicholas II is considered very controversial today, but the very fact of the abdication is reflected, among other things, in the diary of the emperor: “In the morning, Ruzsky came and read his long conversation on the phone with Rodzianko. According to him, the situation in Petrograd is such that now the ministry from the Duma seems to be powerless to do anything, since the Social-Democrats are fighting against it. party represented by the working committee. I need my renunciation. Ruzsky passed this conversation on to the headquarters, and Alekseev to all the commanders-in-chief. By 2½ o'clock the answers came from everyone. The bottom line is that in the name of saving Russia and keeping the army at the front in peace, you need to decide on this step. I agreed. A draft manifesto was sent from Headquarters. In the evening, Guchkov and Shulgin arrived from Petrograd, with whom I spoke and gave them a signed and revised manifesto. At one o'clock in the morning I left Pskov with a heavy sense of experience. Around treason, and cowardice, and deceit!
But what about the church?
Surprisingly, the official Church reacted calmly to the denial of the Anointed of God. The official synod issued an appeal to the children of the Orthodox Church, recognizing the new government.
Almost immediately, the prayerful commemoration of the royal family ceased, words with the mention of the king and the Royal House were thrown out of the prayers. Letters were sent to the Synod from believers asking whether the support of the new government by the Church was perjury, since Nicholas II did not abdicate voluntarily, but was actually overthrown. But in the revolutionary turmoil, no one received an answer to this question.
In fairness, it should be said that the newly elected Patriarch Tikhon subsequently nevertheless decided on the widespread service of memorial services with the commemoration of Nicholas II as emperor.
Shuffle of authorities
After the abdication of Nicholas II, the Provisional Government became the official body of power in Russia. However, in reality it turned out to be a puppet and unviable structure. Its creation was initiated, its collapse also became natural. The tsar had already been overthrown, the Entente needed to delegitimize power in Russia in any way so that our country could not participate in the post-war reconstruction of borders.
To do this with the help of the Civil War and the coming to power of the Bolsheviks was an elegant and win-win solution. The provisional government "surrendered" very consistently: it did not interfere with Lenin's propaganda in the army, turned a blind eye to the creation of illegal armed formations in the person of the Red Guard, and in every possible way persecuted those generals and officers of the Russian army who warned of the danger of Bolshevism.
Newspapers write
It is significant how the world tabloids reacted to the February revolution and the news of the abdication of Nicholas II.
In the French press, a version was given that the tsarist regime fell in Russia as a result of three days of a food riot. French journalists resorted to an analogy: the February Revolution is a reflection of the 1789 revolution. Nicholas II, like Louis XVI, was presented as a “weak monarch”, on whom “his wife” had a detrimental effect on the “German” Alexander, comparing this with the influence of the “Austrian” Marie Antoinette on the king of France. The image of "German Helen" came in very handy in order to once again show the pernicious influence of Germany.
The German press gave a different vision: “The end of the Romanov dynasty! Nicholas II signed the abdication of the throne for himself and his minor son,” shouted the Tägliches Cincinnatier Volksblatt.
The news talked about the liberal course of the new cabinet of the Provisional Government and expressed the hope that the Russian Empire would withdraw from the war, which was the main task of the German government. The February Revolution widened Germany's prospects for achieving a separate peace, and they stepped up their offensive in various directions. "The Russian Revolution has put us in a completely new position," wrote the Austrian-Hungarian Foreign Minister Czernin. “Peace with Russia,” the Austrian Emperor Charles I wrote to Kaiser Wilhelm II, “is the key to the situation. After its conclusion, the war will quickly come to a favorable end for us.”
It is widely known that the abdication of Nicholas II from the throne took place on March 2 (15), 1917 in a train carriage at the Pskov station. But why are legends still circulating that this happened at the station with the ugly name Dno, 100 km from Pskov? Maybe because of the desire to theatricalize the situation? "Russia in March 1917 sank to the Bottom." Sounds dramatic. Scary.
Today I was reading interesting material about the Malaya Vishera station and remembered that this town, one of the points of the Nikolaev railway, entered the history of the events of 1917 in the most direct way: it was here that the royal train was stopped under the pretext that the further points of Lyuban and Tosno were occupied rebels (which, by the way, is questioned by some researchers and regarded as misinformation).
Deciding to clarify some points related to this stage of the revolution, I was surprised to notice that different sources call the place of renunciation differently: some consider Pskov to be such (as I myself always believed), others - Dno station. Most often, messages of the latter type are encountered, sometimes accompanied by metaphors like "Russia sank to the Bottom on March 1, 1917." Russian Wikipedia (an unreliable source, but often quoted and used by everyone on the Internet) also gives the palm to Dn.
There are also messages like this:
Today, March 13, participants in a mixed religious procession from Moscow, St. Petersburg and Pskov set up a bow cross at the Dno railway station, where the last Russian Emperor Nicholas II abdicated in 1917, Interfax writes.
However, in Pskov there is also a chapel called "Royal" and erected precisely in memory of the abdication of the Sovereign, which, according to the Pskovites, took place in their city. And who is right in this situation?
I'm not the first to ask this question. Here, for example: http://my-my.livejournal.com/106492.htm l (pay attention to the comments - there are different versions).
But one does not need to be a great researcher to understand where one of the key events of 1917 nevertheless took place. Sovereign Nicholas II himself tells us about this in his diary ( in bold highlighted by me):
March 1st. Wednesday
At night, they turned back from M. Vishery, because Lyuban and Tosno turned out to be busy with the rebels. Let's go to Valdai Bottom and Pskov, where he stopped for the night. I saw Ruzsky. He, Danilov and Savvich were having lunch. Gatchina and Luga also turned out to be busy. Shame and shame! It was not possible to reach Tsarskoye. Thoughts and feelings are always there! How painful it must be for poor Alix to go through all these events alone! Help us Lord!
March 2nd. Thursday
In the morning Ruzsky came and read his long conversation on the phone with Rodzianko. According to him, the situation in Petrograd is such that now the ministry from the Duma seems to be powerless to do anything, since the Social[ial]-Dem[ocratic] Party represented by the workers' committee is fighting against it. I need my renunciation. Ruzsky passed this conversation on to the headquarters, and Alekseev to all the commanders-in-chief. By 2½ o'clock the answers came from everyone. The bottom line is that in the name of saving Russia and keeping the army at the front in peace, you need to decide on this step. I agreed. From the rate sent a draft manifesto. In the evening, Guchkov and Shulgin arrived from Petrograd, with whom I had a talk and gave them a signed and revised manifesto. At one o'clock in the morning I left Pskov with a heavy feeling of what I had experienced. Around treason and cowardice and deceit!
The Dno station appears in the diary on March 1, after which Pskov is immediately mentioned. And we are talking about abdication only the next day, March 2, when the emperor was already in Pskov. Therefore, it could only happen there.
Colonel Mordvinov, who accompanied the Sovereign in those February-March days, writes practically nothing about the Dno station - he only mentions it as one of the points on the way, first to Tsarskoye Selo, and then, after changing the route, to Pskov. The same can be seen in the memoirs of General Dubensky, Shulgin's memoirs, and other sources. None of the eyewitnesses speaks of the Dno station as the site of the Emperor's abdication. Official documents do not confirm this either.
Thus, by comparing the sources, we conclude that the story of the end of the Russian autocracy at the station with the speaking name "Dno" - myth. Beautiful ("sank to the Bottom"), repeated and replicated, but myth.
But here's what is still unclear: where did the legend about the Dno station come from? And why, with such an obvious delusion, they continue to repeat it (the installation of a worship cross at the station is another confirmation of this)?
It is sad, of course, that everyone forgot about the Malaya Vishera station - but its significance in those days turned out to be no lower than Pskov!
Where it would be more appropriate to place a worship cross here...
http://brusnik.livejournal.com/57698.html?media - link
On the abdication of the Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II
from the throne of Russia and about the resignation of the supreme power
Tsargrad: Today marks 102 years since the "abdication" of NicholasIIfrom the throne. Why is it now that the discussion about whether it was or not has been resumed?
Peter Multatuli: In fact, this topic is discussed continuously. There is no progress on this issue. I will say again that there was no so-called abdication of Emperor Nicholas II, and for a number of reasons. Not only because the so-called “Repudiation Manifesto” is, in my opinion, an absolute fake.
Emperor Nicholas II: voluntary abdication or planned overthrow
So, when abdicating the throne, they always imply the voluntariness of this act. Emperor Nicholas II was overthrown, was actually deprived of his freedom and was under the threat of blackmail that a front would be opened, a civil war would begin, and he would be guilty of it.
Don't forget that the law of succession was in effect. According to him, only a person who had the right to it could abdicate. The second most important principle, the principle of legality, was violated. If the abdication of the throne was not provided for by the legislation of the Russian Empire, then how could it happen? Only in violation of this law. And since there was no concept of renunciation, this agreement is legally null and void. Voluntariness and legality were violated.
Finally, the third most important point. Emperor Nicholas II, even if we imagine that he signed all these papers, did not turn them into law. That is, in order for the renunciation to become legitimate, they had to introduce a short story, which went through the legislative procedure. And then we could talk about the introduction of a new law. None of this was done. All papers, regardless of whether they are signed by the emperor or not, fake or real, are filkin's letter. That is, they are legally null and void.
An autocratic monarch cannot act in violation of the law. Now Emperor Akihito has decided to abdicate, although Japanese law requires the monarch to rule for life. Therefore, a special law is created for him. The same thing happened with the English king Edward VIII, who abdicated because of his marriage to an American. A special law was issued, the king himself abdicated in the presence of his three brother witnesses, who signed the document. He went on the radio to explain. In the case of Nicholas II, none of this happened.
Therefore, what happened is nothing but a coup d'état. Indeed, on March 2, 1917, the Provisional Government, before the official abdication, which they announced already at their first meeting, spoke of the “former emperor”, that Nicholas II and Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich should be expelled from Russia. That there will be no more State Duma. Officially, even according to their conversations, everything was to be decided by the Constituent Assembly. They had already decided everything long before the so-called renunciation.
Abdication is a lie. This is a completely invalid document.
C.: Are you talking about the legal side of the issue? But the laws can be re-written, as the Bolsheviks "made up", for example, the decree on the Red Terror.
"Renunciation" of the Sovereign: there were times harder, but it was not worse ... [Holy truth]
P. M.: In fact of the matter. It was not the Bolshevik Soviet of Deputies, but the Russian Empire, where the laws were strictly observed. If the emperor wanted to abdicate by law, he had to make a law. But from all sides - legal, spiritual, state - the renunciation was made in violation of the most important principle of any document - voluntariness.
By the way, we do not know how the "renunciation" actually took place. The sovereign wanted to escape from captivity and therefore could sign, in principle, any paper. There is a telegram allegedly written by him: “I am ready to abdicate in favor of my son under the regency of Mikhail Alexandrovich, and so that my son remains with us.”
But this did not suit the conspirators, they did not need the abdication of Nicholas II and the accession to the throne of another king. They needed the complete destruction of the monarchy. And this could be done only in the case when the throne was transferred to Mikhail Alexandrovich - a man who had neither a legitimate empress nor a legitimate heir.
C.: So the document was still there or not?
P. M.: In my opinion, this paper is an absolute fake. It's printed on at least three typewriters, times. In violation of all applicable standards for the design of the highest manifestos. The signature of Count Fredericks was first applied with some kind of dye, then written in ink over the dye. Then the emperor's signature is simply stuck in. Document A3 format, cardboard, in the form of a booklet. Well, it was impossible for him to sign on the back, why was it necessary to enter it on one sheet?
Most importantly, everyone who saw the procedure - Shulgin and other people - say that the manifesto was signed on telegraph quarters. What is a telegraph quarter? This is a small piece of paper. And here we see one big leaf. There are a number of subscriptions, amendments, wipes. What kind of document is this? From the point of view of the modern Civil Code of the Russian Federation, such paper will not be recognized at the state level at all, and even if Aunt Masha wants to conclude an agreement with Uncle Petya regarding the acquisition of a barn, then such an agreement will be declared null and void. Because it is impossible for the document to have erasures, erasures, corrections, some numbers stuck in.
C.: But there were senior officials, generals ...
P. M.: Firstly, no generals were present there. There was a conspirator - General Ruzsky. Two things stand out. The first is when the sovereign allegedly agreed to abdicate. The fact is that the text that is presented as a renunciation is written in the headquarters. Written by chamberlain Nikolai Bazili according to the act of General Alekseev. The first time such a text was about the introduction of a responsible ministry. Then they corrected him and made a renunciation in favor of the Tsarevich. Then it was already remade as a renunciation in favor of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich.
Nicholas Ruzsky. Photo: www.globallookpress.com
This is the same text, only with different inserts. There are drafts, where there is Alekseev's handwriting, Basili's handwriting with the editing of this document. To which chief of staff was this sent? The document has a notch in the middle. Why was it formed? An examination of this paper should have been carried out. It is said that it has been started. But it must be carried out publicly, openly, questions must be asked to the people who are involved in this, who raise questions. And the answers must be known. This is a matter of the highest national importance.
The important thing is not whether the emperor abdicated or not. I say again, even if he signed this paper, there was no renunciation. It was neither in essence nor in form, since it was an attempt by the sovereign to escape from this situation. Even if he signed this filkin letter. Therefore, they sent him to a controlled headquarters, so that in no case would he be among the faithful people and would not be able to refute everything that was done on March 2.
Who was the last Russian emperor? From a legal point of view, there is no exact answer to this seemingly elementary question.
Nicholas II in the uniform of the Life Guards of the 4th Infantry Battalion of the Imperial family. Photo from 1909
Late in the evening 2nd of March(15th New Style) 1917 in Pskov, in the carriage of the imperial train Nicholas II signed the act of abdication. Everything happened very quickly. The evening before, receiving news from Petrograd, which was in revolt, the autocrat could hardly agree to the creation of a government of people's trust to replace the ministers he had appointed. The next morning it became clear that only a radical measure could now save the country from revolutionary chaos - his renunciation of power. Chairman of the State Duma Mikhail Rodzianko, and the chief of staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief General Mikhail Alekseev, and the commanders of the fronts were convinced of this ... From the Headquarters, the emperor was sent a draft manifesto, over which he pondered the rest of the day.
Nicholas II signed at about 11:40 p.m., but the time in the Act of Abdication was indicated as daytime, before the arrival of the delegates of the Provisional Committee of the State Duma from the capital, in order to avoid suspicions that the decision was made under their pressure. And then the former emperor wrote in his diary: “I handed over ... a signed and redone manifesto. At one o'clock in the morning I left Pskov with a heavy feeling of what I had experienced. Around treason and cowardice, and deceit!
Act on the abdication of Nicholas II from the throne
On the right is the varnished signature of the emperor, made in pencil, as on many of his orders. On the left, in ink, the countersign of the act by the Minister in accordance with the requirements of the legislation: "Minister of the Imperial Court, Adjutant General Count Frederiks"
|
Rebellious soldiers in February 1917
Forgery or coercion?
There are several popular theories that the Act of Abdication is actually a fake, either in whole or in part. However, the decision that the emperor made and carried out is recorded not only in his diary. There were many witnesses to how Nicholas II considered the abdication, negotiated it, drafted and signed the document - the courtiers and officials who were with the sovereign, General Ruzsky, the commander of the Northern Front, emissaries from the capital Alexander Guchkov and Vasily Shulgin. All of them subsequently spoke about this in memoirs and interviews. Supporters and opponents of the renunciation testified: the monarch came to such a decision of his own free will. The version that the text was changed by the conspirators is also refuted by many sources - correspondence, diary entries, memoirs. The former emperor knew perfectly well what he signed and what was published, and did not dispute the content of the act after its publication, as did the witnesses to the preparation of the document.
So, The act of renunciation expressed the true will of the emperor. Another thing is that this will was contrary to the law.
Salon of the imperial train, in which Nicholas II announced his abdication
Cunning or negligence?
The rules of succession to the throne that were in force in the Russian Empire of those years were established by Paul I. This monarch was afraid all his life that his mother, Catherine II, would appoint her grandson as the successor, and immediately, as best he could, liquidated the right of the emperor, established by Peter I, to arbitrarily determine the heir to the throne. The corresponding decree was promulgated on April 5, 1797, the day of Paul's coronation. Since then, the emperor was obliged to obey the law, according to which the eldest son was considered the successor, if he was (or other close relatives in a clearly established order). Representatives of the imperial house, having reached the age of majority, took an oath: “I undertake and swear to observe all the decrees on the succession of the throne and the order of the family institution, depicted in the Basic Laws of the Empire, in all their strength and inviolability.” In 1832, the provisions of the document, with some additions, were included in Volume I of the Code of State Laws. They were also preserved in the Code of Fundamental State Laws of 1906, according to which the empire lived on the eve of revolutions.
According to the law, the throne after the abdication of Nicholas II passed to his 12-year-old son Alexei. However, on the day of the signing, the monarch consulted the doctor Sergei Fedorov about hemophilia, a severe hereditary disease that the Tsarevich suffered from. Fedorov confirmed that there was no hope of curing the attacks, and expressed the opinion that after the abdication, Nikolai would certainly be separated from his son. And then the emperor announced that, bypassing the crown prince, he was handing over the crown to his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. However, by law, the monarch had no right to do so. Michael, next in line to the throne, could have ascended the throne only if Alexei had died or abdicated himself at the age of 16, leaving no sons behind.
Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich Romanov
Paternal feelings of Nikolai are understandable, but what is the point of certifying a document whose incompetence is obvious? The leader of the Kadet Party, Pavel Milyukov, suspected a trick: “The refusal in favor of the brother is invalid, and this is the trick that was conceived and carried out in the absence of the Empress, but she fully approves ... Under the condition of the transfer of power, it was easier for Mikhail to subsequently interpret the entire act of renunciation as invalid ".
Salvation or usurpation?
Having signed the Act of Abdication, Nicholas sent a telegram to his brother as "His Imperial Majesty Michael the Second". However, by law, the prince could not be considered the next monarch. The very possibility of Nicholas II's abdication is already undeniable from a legal point of view, since in the Code of Fundamental State Laws, the renunciation of the throne is prescribed only for "a person entitled to it", and not for the reigning emperor (Article 37). However, Professor Nikolai Korkunov, like many prominent lawyers of that time, interpreted this provision as follows: “Can someone who has already ascended the throne renounce it? Since the reigning sovereign undoubtedly has the right to the throne, and the law gives everyone who has the right to the throne the right to abdicate, we must answer this in the affirmative. If, nevertheless, the abdication of Nicholas II is recognized, Alexei was technically considered the next emperor, regardless of the wishes of his father.
From a legal point of view, Alexei was considered the next emperor after Nicholas II, regardless of the wishes of his father.
Grand Duke Michael found himself in a difficult position. He was actually framed. The brother entrusted Mikhail with the mission of preserving the monarchy in Russia, but if the Grand Duke had taken the throne, from a legal point of view, he would have turned out to be a usurper. On March 3 (O.S.) in Petrograd, in the presence of ministers of the Provisional Government, as well as lawyers Nabokov and Baron Boris Nolde, Mikhail Alexandrovich signed the Act of Renunciation of the Throne. He just saw no other way.
Act on the refusal of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich of the throne
|
The assumption of Nicholas II that he had the right to make Mikhail emperor was wrong, admitted Nabokov, who helped the prince draw up the Act of Refusal, “but under the conditions of the moment it seemed necessary ... to use this act in order to, in the eyes of that part of the population for which he could have a serious moral significance - to solemnly reinforce the fullness of the power of the Provisional Government and its successive connection with the State Duma. At the suggestion of the Duma lawyers, the Grand Duke did not become a usurper on the throne, but at the same time he usurped the right to dispose of the supreme power, ceding the reins of government that did not belong to him to the Provisional Government and the future Constituent Assembly. So the transfer of power twice ended up outside the legislation of the Russian Empire, and on this shaky basis the new government asserted its legitimacy.
Mass burial ceremony of the victims of the February Revolution on the Field of Mars on March 23 (NS) 1917
A precedent has been set at the highest level of government when, in an unstable environment, laws are neglected as a formality. This trend was brought to its logical end by the Bolsheviks, who dispersed the popularly elected Constituent Assembly in January 1918. In the same year, Nicholas and Mikhail Alexandrovich, great-great-grandchildren of the creator of the unshakable rules of succession to the throne in Russia - Paul I, as well as Tsarevich Alexei, were executed. By the way, the descendants of Emperor Paul in the line of his daughter Anna still reign in the Netherlands today. Not so long ago, in 2013, Queen Beatrix abdicated due to age, and her son, Willem-Alexander, became her successor.
The news about the abdication of the Russian emperor on the cover of the British tabloid Daily Mirror
Victim of the revolution
Liberal from the royal family
After the October Revolution, 17 members of the Romanov dynasty were executed. Among the victims is the Emperor's cousin, the second Chairman of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society, Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich. The prince had merits in two fields of science: as a historian, author of works on the era of Alexander I, and an entomologist who discovered six species of butterflies.
The freethinker prince, who had a reputation at court as a "dangerous radical", was nicknamed Philippe Egalite, after the French revolutionary prince of the 18th century. However, as was the case with the rebellious prince of the blood, the revolution dealt with the prince. In January 1919, Romanov was shot, although scientists from the Academy of Sciences and the writer Maxim Gorky petitioned for his pardon. “The revolution does not need historians,” Lenin reportedly said in response to these requests.
Photo: Diomedia, Alamy (x2) / Legion-media, Rosarkhiv (archives.ru) (x2), Fine Art Images, Mary Evans / Legion-media
