V.L. Makhnach
Did Nicholas II make mistakes?
I had to write about the Emperor even before his canonization. And from an unusual angle. I asserted and continue to assert that Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich was highest quality a man of his era. He was kind and people-loving.
It should be noted that the tragic regicides associated with revolutions took far from the worst monarchs. So Charles I C Tuart was a snob, an aristocrat, but he loved England very much and cared about English interests. Louis XVI of Bourbon was a very people-loving monarch. He was a wonderful family man, he loved his wife, just as she loved him.
Returning to the personality of Nikolai Alexandrovich, we must note his moral greatness. He was a good family man. At the same time, both Nicholas I and Alexander III were good family men, but it is to the Family of the last Emperor of the Romanov dynasty that the word “ideal” is applicable.
In essence, the family of Nicholas II is an icon of the family. He was brilliantly educated - there was someone to teach him. He had a higher law degree and a higher military education and was quite competent in these matters. Demanding from him that he be a great commander is pointless, because that’s what commanders are for (in the First World War there was no longer such a concept, and the only gender the leader who did not lose a single battle was Nikolai Yudenich). But at the same time, the Sovereign’s merit as the Commander-in-Chief, of course, is there. It is about creating an atmosphere in the army: raising morale, establishing the principles of hierarchy. Also, our army suffered fewer losses than our opponents. All the talk about littering opponents with corpses is a lie! Total losses our army is a little larger due to the fact that there were many prisoners of war who appeared during the period of the Provisional Government.
At the same time, certain obligations are imposed on the emperor of the leading country in the Orthodox world. This is how the emperor has been thought since Iranian times. He is not the head of everyone, but he is an arbitrator, a peacemaker. This awareness survived into the twentieth century. Today Russia is not only the Eastern European leader, although it does not have Orthodox statehood at all, but also the heart Christendom. And therefore, back in the late 80s, when I could not publish, I said publicly that the phenomenon of Russophobia is extremely clear. Probably every nation hates someone. It's sad, but it's a fact. At the same time, hatred of Russians goes beyond all limits.
Why? Because Russophobia is anti-Orthodoxy, hatred of Orthodoxy. If the Russians were not Orthodox or were lukewarm, then someone would not love us, but there would not be such hatred towards us.
This is always the case, so they came up with fantastic things. For example, about the toughness of John IV, but his older contemporary Henry VIII They shed much more blood, but they were touched by them. How did they scare Peter I? As soon as his fake will appeared. But he didn't write any political testament. All more or less decent historians in the West have come to the conclusion that this is a fake.
Here is a moment for which one can blame the Russian emperors, but least of all Nicholas II. One can blame Nicholas I, certainly Alexander II, and even Alexandra III. Liberation took place under them Balkan peoples, and Russia was perceived everywhere with delight, and it was necessary to use this moment, including direct pressure, to prevent conflict between Balkan Christians.
Why was Bulgaria an official enemy of Russia in two world wars? Moreover, not a single Bulgarian shot at a Russian and vice versa. Why is Bulgaria an ally of Germany? Because of the Bulgarian-Serbian and Bulgarian-Greek disputes, including territorial ones. It was Russia that could heal half a century before the war. She could encourage young Bulgarians not to go to study in France, and Greeks to England, but to study together in Russia. So that a Greek, a Serb, a Russian and a Romanian would end up in the same classroom. We see concern about the situation back in the 19th century in the reviews and letters of Metropolitan Philaret and Konstantin Leontyev. The latter, a diplomat in the Balkans, generally saw everything from the inside. Having liberated the Balkans from the Ottoman hegemon, Russia failed to become one itself, although it should have become one.
The only one who cannot be blamed for the lack of a well-thought-out Balkan policy is Nikolai Alexandrovich. When the second one is ripe Balkan war 1912, Russia had the foresight not to join it. And the Bulgarians and Greeks, in turn, were enough to defeat the Turks.
Having admitted the mistakes of the Romanovs in relation to the ruling Russian people, I cannot help but notice that the icon of the New Martyrs with the Royal Passion-Bearers appeared in my office long before their canonization (though, after their canonization in the ROCOR). So I honor them. However, I can say that we ourselves do a poor job of Orthodox education. Jesuitism has always been alien to Orthodoxy. The truth, even the bitter one, should always be told. The saints were wrong, but she was an absolutely sinless person Holy Mother of God. When we study with pink drool instead of history and are afraid to point out mistakes and conflicts, we thereby undermine sincere faith. This is always an opening for the enemy to attack. There is no need to allow dirt and disrespect, but mistakes must be admitted. Nicholas II also made mistakes. There was only one terrible mistake - sending Russian battalions to France. They were the best there, they received orders, but they also shed blood there.
Let's also remember provocations and provocateurs (described in detail in Alexander Bokhanov's book about Rasputin). They tried to discredit, to lay false accusations against the Royal Family, against the monarchy, against the dynasty - but they were released. Meanwhile, the former Minister of War, General Sukhomlinov, was accused of treason and tried by a military court. He came and sat down in the dock in his ceremonial uniform and decorations. But under no circumstances should ordinary soldiers be shown a general in full dress uniform sitting in the dock. Sukhomlinov, naturally, was acquitted; he was not a traitor at all. In France - for comparison - Marshal Joffre was replaced by General Forche, and no one whole month did not know. And this is in freedom-loving France! And because there was war, no one dared to make a word. We had strikes, at the end of 1916 this became noticeable. But in England there could be no strikes close to war production. Freedom-loving parliamentary England, as soon as the war began, mobilized workers into the active army. Therefore, the strike automatically turned into a riot, and this is the gallows. But a man of the 19th century in humane-loving Russia could not behave this way.
Yes, when he was betrayed, and he was betrayed - some indirectly (like General Alekseev), others directly (like General Ruzsky, who delayed the train with the emperor in 1917). You can see how this happened minute by minute in Kobylin’s book “Anatomy of Betrayal.”
So, all is not lost at all. Ruzsky came and threatened, almost shouting at his Emperor. On the train with the emperor are his friend Rear Admiral Nilov (hero of the Japanese war), the ancient decrepit Minister of Foreign Affairs Fredericks and the convoy. You can shout to Nilov and hang Ruzsky. Send a telegram through Fredericks that the traitor has been hanged and the situation is under control.
A man of the 18th or 20th century could have done this, but a man of the 19th century could not! With all the heroism of Emperor Alexander Alexandrovich, I doubt that he could have acted differently, because he is a man of his own - the 19th - century. You need to know all this when we talk about time, about an era.
Now look at the conversations of our era. To repeat “backwards” that the Emperor was “weak”, “henpecked” after everything that has been written is pointless. We need to tell people not to lie. And the one who continues to spread lies is most often a villain. The one who repeats after the villain is undoubtedly a fool. You can't let this get away with it.
Some people today want to remove the theme of the Sovereign. Praise and forget. As, for example, the French did. It's easy for them to write about Louis XVI, they say, there was such a good monarch, but this is all antiquity. We are not in this position, we are ethnically 400 years younger than the French, and they have no mission. We can’t do anything without the Emperor. Our democracy, as ancient as the monarchy, has always relied on the Sovereign, and not on parties. Zemstvos existed only because their guarantee and foundation was the Sovereign. We cannot have unity without the Sovereign, because all empires are monarchies. The sovereign is a symbol of unity, and as long as Nicholas II was, Russia was united with its more than 200 different peoples, including the smallest ones, some of which no longer exist due to the “efforts” of revolutionaries. The Russian monarchy did not destroy a single people.
We can receive a special blessing from the Church through the anointing of the new Sovereign. This should not be forgotten. We, of course, can elect a president, and it is possible that he will turn out to be decent person. But we cannot anoint replacement presidents by asking for special gifts for them; that would be blasphemous.
We have the right to believe that Russia is a monarchy, since there is not a single act abolishing it. Last acting ruler, he ruled for one day and refused to be Sovereign, Grand Duke Michael, left the solution to the question - monarchy or republic - Constituent Assembly, which did not take place. No one returned to this issue again. Therefore, Russia is still a monarchy, but it does not yet have a monarch. This is exactly the case, and we must take these positions. This has happened in history. England remained a kingdom during the revolution, and Crown Prince Charles, as soon as his father's head was cut off, became Charles II Stuart, but simply did not reign temporarily. Spain under Generalissimo Franco was a monarchy, there simply was no monarch. Towards the end of Franco's reign, a monarch emerged.
Russia should be treated this way. We're just taking a break. A break that went on too long.
We talk about the role of this extraordinary personality in history with the famous philosopher, writer and historian, Professor Viktor Trostnikov.
- Society is divided into two irreconcilable camps: those who adore Nicholas II, and those who see him as the source of all Russia’s troubles. Which one is right?
I think as a private individual, as a person, Nicholas II should be assessed according to one criteria, but how statesman- according to others. As for the first aspect, he was the one about whom they usually say: “ wonderful person" His integrity was absolute; he never deceived anyone. In relation to his family, children, and wife, he could serve as a model for his subjects. If Peter I was called the best carpenter in Russia, then he could be called the best family man in the country.
But as for Nikolai Alexandrovich as a statesman... Unfortunately, he did not look brilliant in this field. He made many mistakes that led to disaster, to the fall of the empire.
Dead ends of freedom
- What were these mistakes?
In the 19th century, Russia came under strong influence Western ideology, and Nicholas, continuing the path of Alexander III, began to build the state along the capitalist, Protestant path, and not on indigenous Russian foundations. We had a green street open to any rogues, at the most short time incredibly rich people appeared: railroad magnates, bankers, factory owners, etc., who aroused hatred among the population. Is our collective consciousness rejects inequality, division into the very rich and the very poor.
Nicholas, following the Westerners, immediately gave a lot of freedom, apparently believing that every person has an “instinct” of morality and conscience. As a result, for the time being, for example, the radicals got away with everything. During the reign of Nicholas II, a real hunt for civil servants began. Stolypin tried to correct the situation and began to hang terrorists. But there was such a hubbub! Leo Tolstoy, having one foot in the grave, wrote an angry article “I Can’t Be Silent”, where he spoke out against death penalty terrorists. Although over the entire period Stolypin executed 8 thousand people, and terrorists killed 32 thousand. 4 times more!
Nikolai Alexandrovich did not fulfill his national duty - he did not with a steady hand order in Russia did not cut short the greedy businessmen and capitalists. I left the questions to chance moral education nation. Allowed promiscuity, open revolutionary agitation. Russia lived with a premonition of something terrible, and this terrible thing came... In my opinion, by the way, the most terrible threat to our country today is internal. Because we are following the same path of liberalism along which Nicholas II led Russia.
- What role, in your opinion, did Rasputin play?
I read Alexandra Feodorovna’s diary, where every time after a meeting with Rasputin she wrote down what they talked about, what he advised her. And I did not find any deviations from Orthodox views in his speeches. No sectarianism, no Khlystyism. There were no political topics there either. Moreover, he was only casually acquainted with Nikolai Alexandrovich. Well, they bumped into each other a couple of times at the door of the Empress’s chambers, bowed, and that’s all. Rasputin was truly extremely capable person, a kind of nugget from the people who really knew how to alleviate the suffering of the heir who suffered from hemophilia (Rasputin had psychic abilities, which I used). And this, for the empress, was certainly the most important thing in the world. But his presence in inner chambers palace gave rise to the creation of an image evil genius, a demon who subjugated the royal family.
- As you know, history does not tolerate subjunctive mood. However, could Nicholas have prevented the revolution?
Easily. When a small detachment under the command of General Ivanov detained royal composition, the emperor was obliged to shoot this same general and immediately go to St. Petersburg to restore order there. In his delicacy towards his subjects, Nicholas II forgot that he was not just a man, but the captain of a ship of state. Some subjects of Peter I would have tried to detain him! Even the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (chapter 13) said: “A ruler does not bear the sword in vain: he is God’s servant, an avenger to punish those who do evil.”
People are indifferent to the monarchy
- For many, it is unclear how, in this case, Nicholas deserved the rank of saint?
- Nikolai Alexandrovich, of course, was a deeply religious person. And it was precisely this firm Christian faith of his that helped him endure the shame of his deposition and meet with dignity. martyrdom. He managed to give his life into the hands of God. Realizing that this is the greatest reward with which the Lord can crown a person. It was these qualities that quite rightly led our Church to the decision to canonize him as a passion-bearer.
- However, the Church does not yet recognize the authenticity of the remains of the last king. Why do you think?
The Church never said that the Yekaterinburg remains were fake. But she is in no hurry to declare them relics for the reason that the people are indifferent to this. There is an erroneous opinion: here he is - a saint, a martyr, with him - people's love. But this is a fiction. There is no popular veneration of the king! To the aisle Peter and Paul Fortress where the remains are buried imperial family, in theory there should be a queue. But it's empty. Another example: it is 99% proven that Alexander I did not die in Taganrog in 1825, but went into seclusion in order to appear a little later in the form of elder Fyodor Kuzmich in Tomsk. To this day, healings occur at the relics of this saint, which are still kept in Tomsk. In order to be 100% sure, it is enough to carry out a basic DNA examination, comparing a microscopic grain of the saint’s relics and a lock of hair of Alexander I stored in the museum. The price of such a study is a thousand dollars. But... no one needs this. Apparently, the prejudice against the monarchy, implanted by the Bolsheviks, has not yet evaporated.
By the end of this winter, one can count how many journalists and media managers have lost their jobs for reasons that suspiciously resemble political ones. There are about 30 notable people on the list of victims. The owner and editor of the Yekaterinburg agency Ura.ru, Aksana Panova, resigned after a criminal case was filed against her, and the Openspace portal, headed by Maxim Kovalsky, was closed literally in one day. The conditions under which journalists work are becoming increasingly harsh.
But there is always something to compare with. A hundred years ago in Russia there was also a regime that was very afraid of revolution. On the eve of the magnificently celebrated 300th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty, dozens of newspapers were closed, many editors ended up in court, and some were even expelled from the country. Public calls for a change in the monarchical system were punishable not under the article of libel, but much more harsh laws Russian Empire.
In 1902, the writer Alexander Amfitheatrov was exiled to Minusinsk without trial for his pamphlet “The Deceitful Lords” (meaning the Romanovs). The editor of the magazine “Byloe”, Pavel Shchegolev, was first sent under police supervision to Yuryev in 1908. Then, by decision of the Trial Chamber, the magazine was “closed forever,” and Shchegolev was sentenced to 3 years in prison in 1909 and served in solitary confinement in the Peter and Paul Fortress until amnesty in January 1911. According to far incomplete data, in 1913, 372 fines worth 140,000 rubles were imposed on the Russian press, 216 issues of publications were confiscated, 20 newspapers were closed and 63 editors were arrested.
The police authorities were guided by the thesis of Nicholas II: “Since newspapers are pushing for revolution, they should be closed down directly. It is impossible to fight anarchy using legal measures. The government is obliged to save the people from the poison being poured into them, and not just rely on the law.”
Nothing new: an autocracy does not need an independent press.
During the time of Nicholas II, the Government Gazette and the Senate Gazette seemed to be the crown of creation, and journalism was perceived as a loyal servant. And just as now, the monarchy needed fierce, albeit not too disinterested, defenders.
Here, too, parallels can be drawn with our time. On Wednesdays on Echo of Moscow, Alexander Prokhanov is at your service with conspiracy theories in the spirit of “War” dark forces» Nikolai Markov II. Publicist Maxim Sokolov is outwardly unlike the “novo-time” Mikhail Menshikov, but in his negative propaganda in favor of the autocratic regime as a lesser evil, he fully follows his tradition. Leonid Radzikhovsky, of course, is not a repentant Narodnaya Volya, like the editor of the semi-official Moskovskie Vedomosti Lev Tikhomirov, but only a democrat who has seen the light in time. But he, no worse than the former bomber and author of the work “Monarchical Statehood,” whose newspaper the government needed received government advertisements worth 100,000 rubles a year, will grimly explain to you the pattern of what is happening now and the unrealizability of hopes for a better future. If you need a simpler version, without intellectual grace, the authorities have at their disposal the political scientist Sergei Markov, who once worked at the American Carnegie Endowment, and is somewhat similar to the loyal editor of the Moskovskie Vedomosti newspaper Vladimir Gringmut.
What is the real contribution of brilliant conservative minds to the development of Russia? For example, the chief prosecutor of the Synod, Konstantin Pobedonostsev, raised the short-lived heir to the throne in a firm belief in divine destiny, in the inviolability of the institutions of the monarchy and the perfection of autocracy. He predicted that “the extension of the existing system depends on the ability to maintain the country in a frozen state. The slightest warm breath of spring, and everything will collapse.”
The guards blamed terrorists and high school students, students and foreigners corrupted by the West for everything.
In general, “Bolotnaya Square”. More often they saw then, however, not the hand of the North American United States, but the constant “English woman” and the usual “world behind the scenes”. Diverging in details, adherents of the system advocated the preservation of autocratic statehood, against political modernization, for Orthodoxy, nationality and identity.
Raised by publicists loyal to the throne, the “nashi” of that time beat the seditionists in a pogrom frenzy. They killed two Duma deputies and even tried to blow up Sergei Witte by putting a bomb in the chimney. They took revenge former prime minister for the Manifesto of October 17, 1905, which saved the regime and for the land reform plan approved by him, but unfortunately not implemented, with the alienation of part of the land from the landowners in favor of land-poor peasants. Even the effective monarchist Peter Stolypin, who sent tens of thousands of dissenters to hard labor and exile, seemed to the radical retrogrades to be an enemy of the throne for his alliance with the Octobrists and the attempt on the community in the countryside.
Conservatives received targeted subsidies. The magazine "Citizen" of Prince Meshchersky, for example, had a government subsidy from the beginning of 1902 - 24,000 rubles per year. “Do not hand over the multi-million Russian people to a gang of reckless constitutionalists!” - the prince appealed to the sovereign.
Pyotr Stolypin fed the more moderate and formally independent newspaper Rossiya, which, however, was published “with the close guidance and assistance of the time-based press department formed under the Main Directorate for Press Affairs.” With a subscription price of 4 rubles, state subsidies provided “Russia” with the opportunity widespread by free mailing. Why not “Evening Moscow”, which is displayed at entrances and handed out at the metro station by the selflessly loving mayor of the capital?
The authorities in each region paid for the boring “Gubernskie Gazette”. Subsidies for guards for “Zemshchina”, “Bell”, “Russian Banner” were given from the secret fund of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the amount of 250,000-300,000 rubles annually. In his memoirs, Vasily Shulgin tells how he received a large sum of cash directly from the hands of the minister for the newspaper “Kievlyanin”. True, the honest monarchist later returned this money.
It is believed that the tsarist regime was capable of slow evolution, and if not for the First World War, then the “red wheel” would not have rolled across Russia in 1917. There was a chance, but let me remind you that for the first revolution it was not even defeat that was enough, but only stable failure in the local Russo-Japanese War, which took place against the backdrop of the sluggish global economic crisis of 1900-1906. A new conflict in the Balkans, given the regime’s tendency to get involved in patriotic adventures, it was almost inevitable.
How the stabilization of the 1910s in Russia collapsed is well known. Already in the summer of 1914, the empire was shaking under pressure from the liberals and their allies from the Moscow merchant group. Patriotic consolidation lasted for three years, and in March 1917, as Vasily Rozanov wrote, old Russia“faded”... The adherents of the autocracy hid, they were not visible on the fronts of the fight against Bolshevism.
Let us remember that the seemingly unshakable USSR was crippled by 1985 not by dissidents, but by exorbitant expenses for Afghan war and the arms race, which Alexander Prokhanov sang. The crash started when the peak government spending coincided with the fall in world commodity prices. There was nothing to pay the bills issued to the people. Hence Mikhail Gorbachev’s tossing and turning in attempts to escape from a trap not built by him. There was not enough time for full-fledged reforms, and last chance The conspirators incited by Sergei Kurginyan, the GKAC members, took away from the system from collapsing...
Today Putin's Russia again has inflated geopolitical ambitions, an explosive increase in military and police spending and a budget where “debit meets credit” only thanks to the peak export of raw materials that have become more expensive. Sluggish world economic crisis is a fact. At the same time, the modernization efforts of more far-sighted politicians, who see themselves in the role of Sergei Witte, are blocked by the forces whose defenders are the modern Markovs, Purishkeviches and Tikhomirovs in the press.
The authorities are quietly putting pressure on media owners to purge inconvenient “writers” themselves or close publications. At the same time, one cannot refuse Vladimir Putin a certain sequence.
In the Marxist way, the Kremlin believes that the press should serve the “master”, and they consider the budget not the money of all taxpayers, but their own wallet.
Problems primarily arise among those critics of the regime who indirectly use public money.
However, now there is an important, but non-public line of power. In contrast to the openly repressive inhabitants of Tsarskoye Selo, the Kremlin is doing a lot to systematically reduce the number of commercial players capable of financing the independent press.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the state tried to resist society in the newspaper and magazine market with the help of the state-owned press and subsidies to allies from right-wing parties. The field was cleared, closing seditious newspapers through the courts and repressing editors. Today there are targeted repressions. We see calculated attempts to create a powerful PR veil that combines state monopoly on the television market and the mass press controlled from Old Square. Self-censored media projects loyal to the authorities should no longer be paid for from the funds of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Police Department, but from the accounts of businessmen close to the Kremlin.
True, the irritation spreading throughout the network that is not yet controlled by the state, exactly as 100 years ago it went from door to door, is not cured by tireless, but less and less effective work colleagues Gringmut and Markov. Internal tension has in modern Russia quite objective reasons and it won’t go away any time soon.
Nicholas II is the last Russian emperor. He took the Russian throne at the age of 27. In addition to the Russian crown, the emperor also inherited a huge country, torn apart by contradictions and all kinds of conflicts. A difficult reign awaited him. The second half of Nikolai Alexandrovich’s life took a very difficult and long-suffering turn, the result of which was the execution of the Romanov family, which, in turn, meant the end of their reign.
Dear Nicky
Niki (that was the name of Nicholas at home) was born in 1868 in Tsarskoe Selo. In honor of his birth in northern capital 101 gun salvos were fired. The highest-ranking officials attended the christening of the future emperor. Russian awards. His mother - Maria Fedorovna - from the very early childhood instilled in her children religiosity, modesty, courtesy, good manners. In addition, she did not allow Nicky to forget for a minute that he was the future monarch.
Nikolai Alexandrovich sufficiently heeded her demands, having learned the lessons of education perfectly. Future Emperor He was always distinguished by tact, modesty and good manners. He was surrounded by love from his relatives. They called him "sweet Nicky."
Military career
At a young age, the Tsarevich began to notice a great desire for military affairs. Nikolai eagerly took part in all parades and shows, and in camp gatherings. He strictly observed military regulations. It is curious that his military career began at... 5 years old! Soon the crown prince received the rank of second lieutenant, and a year later he was appointed ataman in the Cossack troops.
At the age of 16, the Tsarevich took an oath of “allegiance to the Fatherland and the Throne.” Served in and rose to the rank of colonel. This rank was his last military career, since, as emperor, Nicholas II believed that he did not have “any quiet or quiet right” to independently assign military ranks.
Accession to the throne
Nikolai Alexandrovich took the Russian throne at the age of 27. In addition to the Russian crown, the emperor also inherited a huge country, torn apart by contradictions and all kinds of conflicts.
Emperor's Coronation
It took place in the Assumption Cathedral (in Moscow). During the ceremony, when Nicholas approached the altar, the chain of the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called flew off his right shoulder and fell to the floor. Everyone present at the ceremony at that moment unanimously perceived this as a bad omen.
Tragedy on Khodynka Field
The execution of the Romanov family is perceived differently by everyone today. Many believe that the beginning of the “royal persecution” began precisely in holidays on the occasion of the coronation of the emperor, when one of the most terrible stampedes in history occurred on the Khodynka field. More than half a thousand (!) people died and were injured in it! Later, significant sums were paid from the imperial treasury to the families of the victims. Despite Khodynka tragedy, the planned ball took place in the evening of the same day.
This event caused many people to speak of Nicholas II as a heartless and cruel tsar.
Nicholas II's mistake
The emperor understood that something urgently needed to be changed in government. Historians say this is why he declared war on Japan. It was 1904. Nikolai Alexandrovich seriously hoped to win quickly, thereby stirring up patriotism among Russians. This became his fatal mistake... Russia was forced to suffer a shameful defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, losing such lands as Southern and Far Sakhalin, as well as the Port Arthur fortress.
Family
Shortly before the execution of the Romanov family, Emperor Nicholas II got married to his only beloved - German princess Alice of Hesse (Alexandra Fedorovna). The wedding ceremony took place in 1894 in Winter Palace. Throughout his life, Nikolai and his wife remained in a warm, tender and touching relationship. Only death separated them. They died together. But more on that later.
Right on time Russo-Japanese War The heir to the throne, Tsarevich Alexei, was born into the emperor's family. This is the first boy; before that, Nikolai had four girls! In honor of this, a salvo of 300 guns was fired. But doctors soon determined that the boy was sick incurable disease- hemophilia (incoagulability of blood). In other words, the crown prince could bleed even from a cut on his finger and die.
"Bloody Sunday" and the First World War
After shameful defeat During the war, unrest and protests began to arise throughout the country. The people demanded the overthrow of the monarchy. Dissatisfaction with Nicholas II grew every hour. On Sunday afternoon, January 9, 1905, crowds of people came to demand that their complaints about the terrible and hard life. At this time, the emperor and his family were not in Winter. They were vacationing in Tsarskoye Selo. The troops stationed in St. Petersburg, without the order of the emperor, opened fire on the civilian population. Everyone died: women, old people and children... Along with them, the people’s faith in their king was killed forever! In that " bloody sunday“130 people were shot and several hundred were wounded.
The emperor was very shocked by the tragedy that happened. Now nothing and no one could calm public discontent with the entire royal family. Unrest and rallies began throughout Russia. In addition, Russia entered the First World War, which Germany declared on it. The fact is that in 1914 hostilities began between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, and Russia decided to protect the small Slavic state, for which she was challenged “to a duel” by Germany. The country was simply fading away before our eyes, everything was going to hell. Nikolai did not yet know that the price for all this would be execution royal family Romanovs!
Abdication
The First World War dragged on for long years. The army and the country were extremely dissatisfied with such a vile tsarist regime. Among the people in the northern capital, imperial power has actually lost its power. A Provisional Government was created (in Petrograd), which included the Tsar’s enemies - Guchkov, Kerensky and Milyukov. The Tsar was told about everything that was happening in the country in general and in the capital in particular, after which Nicholas II decided to abdicate his throne.
October Revolution and the execution of the Romanov family
On the day when Nikolai Alexandrovich officially abdicated the throne, his entire family was arrested. The provisional government assured his wife that all this was being done for their own safety, promising to send them abroad. After some time, he himself was arrested former emperor. He and his family were brought to Tsarskoe Selo under guard. Then they were sent to Siberia to the city of Tobolsk in order to finally stop any attempt at restoration royal power. The entire royal family lived there until October 1917...
It was then that the Provisional Government fell, and after October revolution The life of the royal family deteriorated sharply. They were transported to Yekaterinburg and kept in harsh conditions. The Bolsheviks, who came to power, wanted to arrange a show trial of the royal family, but they were afraid that it would again warm up the feelings of the people, and they themselves would be defeated. After the regional council in Yekaterinburg, on the topic of the execution of the imperial family, it was decided positive decision. The Urals Executive Committee granted the request for execution. There is less than a day left before it disappears from the face of the earth. last family Romanovs.
The execution (there is no photo for obvious reasons) took place at night. Nikolai and his family were lifted out of bed, saying that they were transporting them to another place. A Bolshevik named Yurovsky quickly said that White Army wants to free the former emperor, so the Council of Soldiers' and Workers' Deputies decided to immediately execute the entire royal family in order to put an end to the Romanovs once and for all. Nicholas II did not have time to understand anything, when random shooting immediately rang out at him and his family. Thus ended the earthly journey of the last Russian emperor and his family.
We talk about the role of this extraordinary personality in history with famous philosopher, writer and historian, professor Viktor Trostnikov.
Society is divided into two irreconcilable camps: those who adore Nicholas II, and those who see him as the source of all Russia’s troubles. Which one is right?
I think that as a private person, as a person, Nicholas II should be assessed according to one criteria, and as a statesman - according to others. Regarding the first aspect, he was what people usually say about: “a wonderful person.” His integrity was absolute; he never deceived anyone. In relation to his family, children, and wife, he could serve as a model for his subjects. If Peter I was called the best carpenter in Russia, then he could be called the best family man in the country.
But as for Nikolai Alexandrovich as a statesman... Unfortunately, he did not look brilliant in this field. He made many mistakes that led to disaster, to the fall of the empire.
Dead ends of freedom
- What were these mistakes?
In the 19th century, Russia came under the strong influence of Western ideology, and Nicholas, continuing the path of Alexander III, began to build the state along the capitalist, Protestant path, and not on indigenous Russian foundations. We had a green street open to any crooks, and in the shortest possible time incredibly rich people appeared: railroad magnates, bankers, factory owners, etc., who aroused hatred among the population. Our collective consciousness rejects inequality, the division between the very rich and the very poor.
Nicholas, following the Westerners, immediately gave a lot of freedom, apparently believing that every person has an “instinct” of morality and conscience. As a result, for the time being, for example, the radicals got away with everything. During the reign of Nicholas II, a real hunt for civil servants began. Stolypin tried to correct the situation and began to hang terrorists. But there was such a hubbub! Leo Tolstoy, with one foot in the grave, wrote an angry article “I Can’t Be Silent,” where he spoke out against the death penalty for terrorists. Although over the entire period Stolypin executed 8 thousand people, and terrorists killed 32 thousand. 4 times more!
Nikolai Alexandrovich did not fulfill his national duty - he did not bring order to Russia with a firm hand, did not short-circuit the greedy businessmen and capitalists. He left the issues of moral education of the nation to chance. He allowed licentiousness and open revolutionary agitation. Russia lived with a premonition of something terrible, and this terrible thing came... In my opinion, by the way, the most terrible threat to our country today is internal. Because we are following the same path of liberalism along which Nicholas II led Russia.
- What role, in your opinion, did Rasputin play?
I read Alexandra Feodorovna’s diary, where every time after a meeting with Rasputin she wrote down what they talked about, what he advised her. And I did not find any deviations from Orthodox views in his speeches. No sectarianism, no Khlystyism. There were no political topics there either. Moreover, he was only casually acquainted with Nikolai Alexandrovich. Well, they bumped into each other a couple of times at the door of the Empress’s chambers, bowed, and that’s all. Rasputin was truly an extremely capable person, a kind of nugget from the people who really knew how to alleviate the suffering of the heir who suffered from hemophilia (Rasputin had extrasensory abilities, which he used). And this, for the empress, was certainly the most important thing in the world. But his presence in the inner chambers of the palace gave rise to the creation of the image of an evil genius, a demon who subjugated the royal family.
As you know, history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. However, could Nicholas have prevented the revolution?
Easily. When a small detachment under the command of General Ivanov detained the royal staff, the emperor was obliged to shoot this same general and immediately go to St. Petersburg to restore order there. In his delicacy towards his subjects, Nicholas II forgot that he was not just a man, but the captain of a ship of state. Some subjects of Peter I would have tried to detain him! Even the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (chapter 13) said: “A ruler does not bear the sword in vain: he is God’s servant, an avenger to punish those who do evil.”
People are indifferent to the monarchy
- For many, it is unclear how, in this case, Nicholas deserved the rank of saint?
Nikolai Alexandrovich, of course, was a deeply religious man. And it was precisely this firm Christian faith that helped him endure the shame of deposition and face martyrdom with dignity. He managed to give his life into the hands of God. Realizing that this is the greatest reward with which the Lord can crown a person. It was these qualities that quite rightly led our Church to the decision to canonize him as a passion-bearer.
- However, the Church does not yet recognize the authenticity of the remains of the last king. Why do you think?
The Church never said that the Yekaterinburg remains were fake. But she is in no hurry to declare them relics for the reason that the people are indifferent to this. There is an erroneous opinion: here he is - a saint, a martyr, with him - people's love. But this is a fiction. There is no popular veneration of the king! In theory, there should be a queue in the aisle of the Peter and Paul Fortress, where the remains of the imperial family are buried. But it's empty. Another example: it is 99% proven that Alexander I did not die in Taganrog in 1825, but went into seclusion in order to appear a little later in the form of elder Fyodor Kuzmich in Tomsk. To this day, healings occur at the relics of this saint, which are still kept in Tomsk. In order to be 100% sure, it is enough to carry out a basic DNA examination, comparing a microscopic grain of the saint’s relics and a lock of hair of Alexander I stored in the museum. The price of such a study is a thousand dollars. But... no one needs this. Apparently, the prejudice against the monarchy, implanted by the Bolsheviks, has not yet evaporated.
Dossier
Viktor Nikolaevich Trostnikov born in 1928 in Moscow. Graduated Faculty of Physics Moscow State University. Candidate philosophical sciences. Professor at the Russian Orthodox University.