The story of the abdication of Nicholas 2 from the throne is one of the most tragic and bloody moments of the twentieth century. This fateful decision predetermined the course of development of Russia for many decades, as well as the very decline of the monarchical dynasty. It is difficult to say what events would have occurred in our country if, on that very significant date of Nicholas 2’s abdication from the throne, the emperor would have made a different decision. It is surprising that historians are still arguing over whether this renunciation actually took place or whether the document presented to the people was a real forgery, which served as the starting point for everything that Russia experienced over the next century. Let's try to understand exactly how the events unfolded that led to the birth of citizen Nikolai Romanov instead of the Russian Emperor Nicholas II.
The reign of the last emperor of Russia: features
In order to understand what exactly led to the abdication of Nicholas 2 from the throne (we will indicate the date of this event a little later), it is necessary to give a brief description of the entire period of his reign.
The young emperor ascended the throne after the death of his father Alexander III. Many historians believe that the autocrat was not morally prepared for the events that Russia was approaching with leaps and bounds. Emperor Nicholas II was confident that in order to save the country it was necessary to strictly adhere to the monarchical foundations that were formed by his predecessors. He had difficulty accepting any reform ideas and underestimated the revolutionary movement that swept many European powers during this period.
In Russia, from the moment Nicholas 2 ascended the throne (on October 20, 1894), revolutionary sentiments gradually grew. The people demanded from the emperor reforms that would satisfy the interests of all sectors of society. After lengthy deliberation, the autocrat signed several decrees granting freedom of speech and conscience, and editing laws on the division of legislative power in the country.
For some time, these actions extinguished the flaring revolutionary fire. However, in 1914, the Russian Empire was drawn into the war and the situation changed dramatically.
The First World War: impact on the internal political situation in Russia
Many scientists believe that the date of Nicholas 2’s abdication from the throne simply would not have existed in Russian history if not for military actions, which turned out to be disastrous primarily for the economy of the empire.
Three years of war with Germany and Austria became a real test for the people. Each new defeat at the front caused discontent among ordinary people. The economy was in a deplorable state, which was accompanied by devastation and impoverishment of most of the country's population.
More than once, workers' uprisings arose in cities, paralyzing the activities of factories and factories for several days. However, the emperor himself treated such speeches and manifestations of popular despair as temporary and fleeting discontent. Many historians believe that it was this carelessness that subsequently led to events that culminated on March 2, 1917.
Mogilev: the beginning of the end of the Russian Empire
For many scientists, it still remains strange that the Russian monarchy collapsed overnight - in almost a week. This time was enough to lead the people to revolution, and the emperor to sign the document of abdication.
The beginning of the bloody events was the departure of Nicholas 2 to Headquarters, located in the city of Mogilev. The reason to leave Tsarskoye Selo, where the entire imperial family was located, was a telegram from General Alekseev. In it, he reported on the need for a personal visit by the emperor, and the general did not explain what caused such urgency. Surprisingly, historians have not yet figured out the fact that forced Nicholas 2 to leave Tsarskoye Selo and head to Mogilev.
However, on February 22, the imperial train departed under guard for Headquarters; before the trip, the autocrat talked with the Minister of Internal Affairs, who described the situation in Petrograd as calm.
A day after leaving Tsarskoye Selo, Nicholas II arrived in Mogilev. From this moment began the second act of the bloody historical drama that destroyed the Russian Empire.
February unrest
The morning of February twenty-third was marked by workers' strikes in Petrograd. About one hundred thousand people took to the streets of the city; the next day their number already exceeded two hundred thousand workers and members of their families.
It is interesting that for the first two days none of the ministers informed the emperor about the atrocities that were happening. Only on February 25, two telegrams flew to Headquarters, which, however, did not reveal the true state of affairs. Nicholas 2 reacted to them quite calmly and ordered to immediately resolve the issue with the help of law enforcement forces and weapons.
Every day the wave of popular discontent grew and by the twenty-sixth of February the State Duma was dissolved in Petrograd. A message was sent to the emperor, which described in detail the horror of the situation in the city. However, Nicholas 2 took this as an exaggeration and did not even respond to the telegram.
Armed clashes between workers and military began in Petrograd. The number of wounded and killed quickly grew, the city was completely paralyzed. But even this did not force the emperor to react somehow. Slogans about the overthrow of the monarch began to be heard on the streets.
Revolt of military units
Historians believe that on February 27 the unrest became irreversible. It was no longer possible to solve the problem and calm people down peacefully.
In the morning, military garrisons began to join the striking workers. All obstacles were swept away on the way of the crowd, the rebels seized weapons depots, opened the doors of prisons and burned government institutions.
The emperor was fully aware of what was happening, but did not issue a single intelligible order. Time was quickly running out, but at Headquarters they were still waiting for the autocrat’s decision, which would satisfy the rebels.
The emperor's brother informed him of the need to publish a manifesto on the change of power and publish several programmatic theses that would calm the people. However, Nicholas 2 announced that he plans to postpone making an important decision until he arrives in Tsarskoe Selo. On February 28, the imperial train departed from Headquarters.
Pskov: a fatal stop on the way to Tsarskoe Selo
Due to the fact that the uprising began to grow beyond Petrograd, the imperial train was unable to reach its destination and, turning around halfway, was forced to stop in Pskov.
On March 1, it was finally clear that the uprising in Petrograd was successful and all infrastructure facilities came under the control of the rebels. Telegrams were sent to Russian cities describing the events that took place. The new government took control of the railway communication, carefully guarding the approaches to Petrograd.
Strikes and armed clashes swept Moscow and Kronstadt; the emperor was fairly well informed about what was happening, but could not decide to take drastic actions that could correct the situation. The autocrat constantly held meetings with ministers and generals, consulting and considering various options for solving the problem.
By the second of March, the emperor was firmly convinced of the idea of abdicating the throne in favor of his son Alexei.
"We, Nicholas II": renunciation
Historians claim that the emperor was primarily concerned about the safety of the royal dynasty. He already understood that he would not be able to retain power in his hands, especially since his comrades saw the only way out of the current situation in abdication.
It is worth noting that during this period, Nicholas 2 still hoped to calm the rebels with some reforms, but the necessary time was missed, and the empire could only be saved by a voluntary renunciation of power in favor of others.
“We, Nicholas II” - this is how the document that predetermined the fate of Russia began. However, even here historians cannot agree, because many read that the manifesto had no legal force.
Manifesto of Nicholas 2 on the abdication of the throne: versions
It is known that the document of renunciation was signed twice. The first contained information that the emperor was renouncing his power in favor of Tsarevich Alexei. Since he could not independently govern the country due to his age, Michael, the emperor’s brother, was to become his regent. The manifesto was signed at approximately four o'clock in the afternoon, and at the same time a telegram was sent to General Alekseev informing about the event.
However, at almost twelve o'clock at night, Nicholas II changed the text of the document and abdicated the throne for himself and his son. Power was given to Mikhail Romanovich, who, however, the very next day signed another document of renunciation, deciding not to put his life in danger in the face of growing revolutionary sentiments.
Nicholas II: reasons for relinquishing power
The reasons for the abdication of Nicholas 2 are still being discussed, but this topic is included in all history textbooks and even appears when taking the Unified State Exam. It is officially believed that the following factors prompted the emperor to sign the document:
- reluctance to shed blood and fear of plunging the country into another war;
- the inability to receive reliable information about the uprising in Petrograd on time;
- trust in their commanders-in-chief, who actively advise publishing the abdication as soon as possible;
- desire to preserve the Romanov dynasty.
In general, any of the above reasons in itself and all together could have contributed to the fact that the autocrat made an important and difficult decision for himself. Be that as it may, the date of Nicholas 2’s abdication from the throne marked the beginning of the most difficult period in the history of Russia.
The Empire after the Emperor's Manifesto: a brief description
The consequences of Nicholas 2's abdication from the throne were catastrophic for Russia. They are difficult to describe in a nutshell, but we can say that the country, which was considered a great power, ceased to exist.
Over the following years, it was plunged into numerous internal conflicts, devastation and attempts to build a new branch of government. Ultimately, this is what led to the rule of the Bolsheviks, who managed to keep a huge country in their hands.
But for the emperor himself and his family, the abdication of the throne became fatal - in July 1918, the Romanovs were brutally murdered in the dark and damp basement of a house in Yekaterinburg. The empire ceased to exist.
March 2, 1917 Russian Emperor Nicholas II signed an abdication of the throne in favor of his brother Mikhail (who soon also abdicated). This day is considered the date of the death of the Russian monarchy. But there are still many questions about renunciation. We asked Gleb Eliseev, candidate of historical sciences, to comment on them.
1. When the version appeared that there was no renunciation?
The first time the version that abdication was legally unauthorized appeared back in 1921, at the Congress of Economic Reconstruction of Russia, held in the German city of Bad Reichenhall. In the speech of the former deputy chairman of the Main Council of the “Union of the Russian People” V.P. Sokolov-Baransky, it was stated that the abdication of “the Sovereign Emperor Nicholas, as forcibly extorted and illegal for his Son, is not valid, but the Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, as conditional before the Founding Meetings are illegal.” At the same time, it was emphasized that the “Basic Laws of the Russian Empire” in principle did not imply and did not legally discuss in any way the procedures for the abdication of the Sovereign from the throne. But the fact that there was no actual renunciation at all began to be discussed already in the nineties of the twentieth century, when the opportunity arose to freely study the so-called “Manifesto of Abdication” of Emperor Nicholas II. (In the literature it is also sometimes called the “act of renunciation,” which is strange, because the legal practice of the Russian Empire certainly did not know such documents).
Nicholas II
2. What sources were referenced?
A whole range of sources were considered, primarily the memoirs of eyewitnesses, who, naturally, “lie as eyewitnesses.” (The first collection of such materials was published under the Soviets,
to the 10th anniversary of the revolution). When studying the documents, researchers (especially the leading domestic specialist on this issue, P.V. Multatuli) identified such blatant contradictions in the memories that this destroyed the entire benign picture of “voluntary renunciation” that Soviet historiography had created for years. The second most important step was the consideration of a facsimile reproduction of the text of the “Manifesto of Abdication” of Emperor Nicholas II. Here, the most important role was played by A. B. Razumov’s article “Several remarks on the “Manifesto on the abdication of Nicholas II,” where it was convincingly proven that the signatures on the so-called abdication are almost certainly a fake.
3. To what extent are these sources can trust?
There is no need to confuse two points here - the sources themselves (I emphasize once again - mainly of memoir origin) must be trusted extremely carefully and double-checked. But the researchers’ arguments are quite easy to verify. Memoirs of “eyewitnesses” of the “renunciation” have been published many times and are widely available both in print and online. And even the text of the “Manifesto” is posted on the Internet, and everyone can check the arguments of A. B. Razumov or other experts by comparing their statements with the real document.
“Act of Abdication” signed by Emperor Nicholas II. State Archive of the Russian Federation
4. Indeed Nicholas II Did you sign the document in pencil?
The signature was actually written in pencil. And what? The real problem lies elsewhere - did the sovereign actually sign it? Or someone else for him?
5. Where is the document stored now? about renunciation?
Currently, the “Manifesto of Abdication” (under the title “Act of Abdication”) is stored in the State Archive of the Russian Federation (formerly the Central State Archive of the October Revolution and the Central State Archive of the RSFSR); its archival data (GA RF. F. 601. Op. 1. D. 2100a. L.5) A photocopy of it can be viewed on the GARF website.
6 . Is it true that signing in pencil rather than in ink automatically invalidates the document?
No, that's not true. On some unimportant documents (like individual telegrams to Headquarters), the sovereign had previously made notes in pencil. What makes this document invalid is not the pencil signature, but its incorrect execution according to the law: it was not drawn up according to the rules for this kind of documents (manifestos), it is not certified by the Imperial Seal, it is not approved by the Governing Senate, it is not approved by the State Council and the State Duma. That is, it is legally void.
The Imperial Train departs for Headquarters
7. Are there any historical evidence that during from March 1917 to July 1918 Nicholas II denied the authenticity his abdication?
Since March 8, 1917, the sovereign and members of his family were under arrest, their contacts with the outside world were sharply limited. Later, all the relatives with whom Nikolai Alexandrovich could have such conversations (his wife, personal physician E. S. Botkin, Prince V. A. Dolgorukov or Count I. L. Tatishchev) were also killed by the Bolsheviks.
Diary of Emperor Nicholas II for 1916–1917. “The point is that in order to save Russia and keep the army at the front calm, we need to decide on this step.”
9. Could it be that Nicholas II was simply arrested and his signature on the abdication was forged?
In Pskov, the emperor was first actually arrested, the royal train was detained supposedly to “ensure his safety” in connection with the unrest that had broken out. The Emperor was completely isolated from the outside world and was unable to even talk on the phone. And this situation remained until March 8, 1917, when the real arrest was simply formalized by the decision of the Provisional Government. And what is known in science as the “Act of Renunciation” is most likely a fake (A. B. Razumov’s arguments are very convincing). But in any case, even if, after a graphological examination, the signature of Nicholas II is recognized as genuine, this will not cancel any doubts about the sovereign’s approval of the rest of the text, typed on a typewriter, and not written in his own hand, nor the legal nullity of a document drawn up in such a way.
10. Did Nicholas II think that his abdication of the throne meant liquidation of the Russian monarchy?
In no case did the sovereign think so. Moreover, even the so-called “Manifesto of Abdication” speaks only of the transfer of supreme power to Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. And even the abdication of the Grand Duke did not mean the liquidation of the monarchy. By the way, members of the Provisional Government understood this very well. Even after the formal proclamation of the republic on September 1, 1917, only the Constituent Assembly had to finally decide the question of the form of government in Russia.
Significant deterioration in the socio-economic situation of the Russian Empire caused by the protracted First World War (1914-1918). Failures at the fronts, economic devastation caused by the war, worsening needs and misfortunes of the popular masses, growing anti-war sentiment and general discontent with the autocracy led to mass protests against the government and the dynasty in large cities and primarily in Petrograd (now St. Petersburg).
The State Duma was already ready to carry out a “bloodless” parliamentary revolution for the transition from autocracy to a constitutional monarchy. The Chairman of the Duma, Mikhail Rodzianko, continuously sent alarming messages to the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief in Mogilev, where Nicholas II was located, presenting, on behalf of the Duma, to the government more and more insistent demands for the reorganization of power. Part of the emperor’s entourage advised him to make concessions, agreeing to the formation by the Duma of a government that would be responsible not to the tsar, but to the Duma.
The material was prepared based on information from RIA Novosti and open sources
With the abdication of the emperor, the Romanov dynasty also fell. Why did the king take this step? Disputes about this fateful decision continue to this day. The site gave its assessment of the event Mikhail Fedorov, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor at St. Petersburg State University.
Empress - to the monastery
“As the revolutionary events of February 1917 developed, and the capital garrison went over to the side of the rebels, it became clear to a significant part of the elite: changes in the political structure of the state could not be avoided. The existing system of power ceased to meet the interests of the country and interfered with the successful conduct of the First World War - the population lost faith in the Crowned Knights. In the upper echelons of society there was an opinion that the removal of an unpopular empress from power would strengthen the authority of the dynasty. The wife of Nicholas II, Alexandra Feodorovna, was rumored to have been spying for Germany, although the granddaughter of Queen Victoria was raised English, not German.German propaganda also contributed its share: German planes scattered leaflets over the positions of Russian troops depicting the reigning couple with the icon of St. George the Victorious and Gregory Rasputin, accompanying them with the signatures “Tsar with Yegor, Tsarina with Gregory.” Hinting at the empress's love affair with the "elder".
Even before the February events, there was a plan among the oppositionists to imprison the empress, who was actively interfering in government, in a monastery, and send Nicholas II to Crimea. The heir to the throne, Alexei, was supposed to be proclaimed emperor under the regency of the tsar's younger brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. The scale of the revolutionary events in Petrograd made it impossible to take half measures. No expansion of the rights of the Duma in the form of a government appointed by it, and not by the tsar, could satisfy the revolutionary masses. They believed that the revolution had won and the dynasty had been overthrown.
The main problem of the last tsar was the lack of prompt and accurate information about the events in Petrograd. While at the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief (Mogilev) or while traveling on trains, he received news from various conflicting sources and with a delay. If the empress from quiet Tsarskoe Selo reported to Nicholas that nothing particularly terrible was happening, then messages came from the head of government, military authorities, and State Duma Chairman Mikhail Rodzianko that the city was in uprising and that decisive measures were needed.“There is anarchy in the capital. The government is paralyzed... General discontent is growing. Units of troops shoot at each other... Any delay is like death,” he writes to the emperor on February 26. To which the latter does not react, calling the message “nonsense.”
Hate for the dynasty
By the end of the day on February 27, the tsar was faced with a dilemma - either make concessions to the rebels, or take decisive measures. He chose the second path - a punitive detachment of General Ivanov, known for his determination and cruelty, was sent to the capital.
Hatred towards the royal family in society was off the charts. Photo: Public Domain
However, while Ivanov was getting there, the situation in Petrograd changed, and the Provisional Committee of the State Duma and the Petrograd Council of Workers' Deputies, representing the revolutionary masses, came to the fore. If the latter believed that the liquidation of the monarchy in Russia was an established fact, then the Provisional Committee sought to compromise with the regime and transition to a constitutional monarchy.
The high military command at Headquarters and the fronts, which had previously unconditionally supported Nicholas II, began to be inclined to think that it was better to sacrifice the tsar, but preserve the dynasty and successfully continue the war with Germany, than to get involved in a civil war with the troops of the capital's military garrison and suburbs who had sided with the rebels , and expose the front. Moreover, having met with the Tsarskoye Selo garrison, which had also gone over to the side of the revolution, the punisher Ivanov withdrew his echelons from the capital.
Finding himself in Pskov on March 1, 1917, where Nikolai was stuck while advancing to Tsarskoe Selo, he began to receive a rapidly increasing flow of information about events in the capital and ever new demands from the Provisional Committee. The final blow was Rodzianko’s proposal to abdicate the throne in favor of his young son Alexei, during the regency of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, since “hatred of the dynasty had reached its extreme limits.” Rodzianko believed that the voluntary abdication of the tsar would calm the revolutionary masses, and most importantly, would not allow the Petrograd Soviet to overthrow the monarchy.
For myself and my son
Manifesto of renunciation. Photo: Public Domain
The proposal to abdicate was presented to the monarch by the commander of the Northern Front, General Nikolai Ruzsky. And telegrams were sent to all front and fleet commanders asking them to support the Tsar’s abdication. At first, Nikolai, under various pretexts, tried to delay the resolution of the issue and refuse to renounce, but upon receiving news that the entire high command of the country was asking him to do this, including the generals of the Northern Front headquarters, he was forced to agree. Hence “treason, cowardice and deceit are all around” - the famous phrase of Nicholas II, written in his diary on the day of his abdication.
The abdication of the throne in favor of the 12-year-old Tsarevich Alexei was signed right in the carriage of the royal train. However, telegrams about the abdication were never sent to Headquarters and Rodzianko. Under pressure from his retinue, Nikolai changed his mind. The Tsar was convinced that such a renunciation meant separation from his only son, Tsarevich Alexei, who was terminally ill with hemophilia. The boy’s illness was carefully hidden from those around him and was the reason for his special position at the Court of Grigory Rasputin.
The elder was the only person in Russia who could stop the heir’s bleeding; official medicine was powerless. Transferring his son into the hands of his brother-regent, married in a morganatic marriage to a twice-divorced woman, the daughter of a Moscow lawyer, which was considered the height of obscenity, was absolutely unacceptable for Nicholas II.
Therefore, when Rodzianko’s envoys arrived in Pskov in the strictest secrecy, making sure that abdication was inevitable, he abdicated for himself and for his son. In violation of all the laws of the Russian Empire, transferring power to Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich.
The legal side of the abdication of God's anointed Emperor of All Rus' gave rise to many rumors. Why did the king do this? Did he not have a plan, in favorable circumstances, to abandon his abdication and re-assume the throne?
It is virtually impossible to answer this question now. However, the version about the unfortunate father’s desire to save the life of a sick child for as long as possible seems quite reasonable. Abdication for himself and for his son confused the cards of the Duma elite. Mikhail Alexandrovich also did not risk accepting the crown, having realistically assessed the scope of the revolutionary movement in the country. The 300-year-old Romanov dynasty has fallen.On March 9, 2017 at 11.30 Nicholas II arrived in Tsarskoe Selo as “Colonel Romanov.” The day before, the new commander of the Petrograd Military District, General Lavr Kornilov, personally arrested the Empress. According to the recollections of those close to him, the tsar asked to leave him in Russia, “to live with his family as a simple peasant” and earn his own bread.
This was not destined to happen. Together with his entire family and devoted servants, the last Russian emperor was shot by the Bolsheviks in Yekaterinburg on July 17, 1918.”
I have written and spoken more than once about the fact that Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov did not abdicate the throne. There are no documents entitled “The Abdication of Nicholas II” in the archives of Russia. What is there?
There is something very reminiscent of a fake and fake. Blogger material on this topic patriot
“The Tsarist period of our history has been slandered no less than the Soviet period. Recently I posted information about the reign of Nicholas II. As we can see, people under tsarist rule did not live at all the way they imagine it to us. The same thing applies to the “abdication” of the king from the throne. I bring to your attention a detailed analysis that proves that it actually did not exist. This fact immediately changes the idea of Nicholas II as a traitor and a rag. This man remained faithful to Russia to the end and accepted martyrdom for her sake.
Andrey Razumov. Emperor's signature
A few comments on the “Manifesto on the abdication of Nicholas II”
The official version of the abdication is spelled out in detail. Numerous memoirs of eyewitnesses, the smoke of newspaper reports and the meager lines of the Emperor’s diary - fragments of a mosaic formed the overall picture; the testimony of the Duma conspirators was intertwined in a bizarre pattern with the testimony of the Suite conspirators. According to their generalized version, on February 28, the Tsar left Headquarters for Tsarskoe Selo, but was stopped on his way by reports of unrest in Lyuban and Tosno. Having turned the trains around, the Emperor ordered them to bypass the rioting section through the station. Dno and Pskov to Tsarskoe. But in Pskov, Nicholas II was given telegrams from the commanders with pleas for renunciation, after which the Tsar renounced, signing two corresponding manifestos.
This is the official version. The ends of the intrigue are hidden securely, the facts of betrayal are carefully obscured. It’s as if there was no perjury at all - after all, the Emperor himself abdicated.
However, the fact of the conspiracy is not particularly hidden even by its participants. But what was the conspiracy, if there is a signed renunciation, if power, voluntarily or forced, but OWNLY was transferred to the conspirators? I will try to find an answer to this question.
Unfortunately, one cannot count on the help of people faithful to the Tsar - among the eyewitnesses around Him there were no faithful to the Tsar. “There is treason and cowardice and deceit all around!” It's nothing. We will be helped by “eyewitnesses” of a different kind, who were silent for a long time among the people who lied to us, and who brought to us their secrets and betrayals. These are sheets of copies of the “renunciation” that have turned yellow in the archives.
Let's take a closer look at these papers. A leisurely analysis of them will tell an inquisitive person a lot. For example, all researchers are struck by the fact that the Sovereign’s signatures were made in pencil. Surprised historians write that during the 23 years of his reign, this was the only time the Emperor put a pencil signature on a document. Fully sharing their surprise, let us step a little further and check the authenticity of the signatures of the Tsar and Fredericks, evaluate the structure of the text of the “renunciation” and identify its authors, count the letters in the text and clarify the number of known copies of the “renunciations”.
Who composed the Tsar’s “renunciation”?
The Emperor himself. So, at least, it follows from the testimony. According to them, the Emperor was offered “outlines” of renunciations, which He did not use.
This is exactly what eyewitness Shulgin writes: “The Emperor answered. After the excited words of A.I. (Guchkova - R.) His voice sounded calm, simple and precise. Only the accent was a little foreign - guards: - I decided to abdicate the throne... The Emperor stood up... Everyone stood up... Guchkov handed the Emperor a “sketch” (abdication - R.). The Emperor took it and left. After some time, the Emperor entered again. He handed Guchkov the paper, saying: “Here is the text... It was two or three quarters - the kind that were obviously used at Headquarters for telegraph forms.” But the text was written on a typewriter. The text was written in those amazing words that everyone knows now... How pitiful the sketch we brought seemed to me. The Emperor brought it too and put it on the table. There was nothing to add to the text of the renunciation...” Shulgin V.V. "Days". (All ellipses are the author’s. R.)
Another witness echoes him: “The description of the meeting of Guchkov and Shulgin with the Emperor on March 2, made by Shulgin, shortly after the deputies returned to Petrograd, was compiled quite correctly.” (Gen. D.N. DUBENSKY. “How the revolution took place in Russia.”)
The third witness, Colonel Mordvinov, although he refused, in his own words, to participate in the meeting of the Tsar with the Duma members, for some reason also began to ardently assure us of the veracity of Shulgin’s story: “Shulgin’s story, published in newspapers, which I subsequently read, is a lot resumed in my memory. With a few exceptions (Shulgin is silent about the certificate in the basic laws), he is generally correct and truthfully paints a picture of the reception of members of the Duma.” (Col. A. A. MORDVINOV. “The Last Days of the Emperor.”)
Let's take his word for it. It’s my own fault - they didn’t pull their tongue.
Let me summarize. Thus, the Emperor, according to the testimony of three witnesses, having familiarized himself with the “outline” of the renunciation kindly prepared for Him by Guchkov and Shulgin, rejected it as “pathetic” and, going out somewhere, composed his own version. Who typed with his own hand or dictated to an unknown typist “in those amazing words that everyone now knows.” Then he went out and signed. That's what the witnesses say.
Now let's look at the documents.
Telegram from Adjutant General Alekseev to the Tsar, No. 1865, dated March 1, 1917. According to the Soviet historian Shchegolev, reported to Nicholas II by General Ruzsky on March 1/14 in Pskov at 11 p.m.
“To His Imperial Majesty. The ever-growing danger of the spread of anarchy throughout the country, the further disintegration of the army and the impossibility of continuing the war in the current situation urgently requires the immediate issuance of the highest act that can still calm minds, which is only possible by recognizing the responsible ministry and entrusting its drafting to the Chairman of the State Duma.
Incoming information gives reason to hope that the Duma leaders, led by Rodzianko, can still stop the general collapse and that work can begin with them, but the loss of every hour reduces the last chances of preserving and restoring order and contributes to the seizure of power by extreme left-wing elements. In view of this, I earnestly beg your Imperial Majesty to deign to immediately publish the following manifesto from headquarters:
“We announce to all our faithful subjects: Grozny and the cruel enemy is straining his last strength to fight our homeland. The decisive hour is near. The fate of Russia, the honor of our heroic army, the well-being of the people, the entire future of our dear fatherland requires bringing the war to a victorious end at all costs. Striving harder rally all the people's forces to achieve victory as quickly as possible, I recognized the need to hold accountable representatives of the people ministry, entrusting its formation to the Chairman of the State Duma, Rodzianko, from persons enjoying the confidence of all of Russia. I hope that everything faithful sons of Russia, closely united around the throne and popular representation, together they will help the valiant army complete its great feat. In the name of our beloved homeland, I call on all Russian people to fulfill their sacred duty to it, in order to demonstrate again that Russia is as indestructible as always, and that no machinations of enemies will defeat it. May God help us." 1865. Adjutant General Alekseev. March 1, 1917"
Let us compare the text of Alekseev’s telegram, reported to the Tsar on the first of March, and the text of the “renunciation”, independently invented by the Tsar on the second of March. I have highlighted the matches between the two texts in red.
Headquarters for the Chief of Staff. In the days of the great struggle with an external enemy, who had been striving to enslave our Motherland for almost three years, the Lord God was pleased to send Russia a new ordeal. The outbreak of internal popular unrest threatens to have a disastrous effect on the further conduct of the stubborn war. The fate of Russia, the honor of our heroic army, the good of the people, the entire future of our dear Fatherland demand that the war be brought to a victorious end at all costs. The cruel enemy is straining his last strength, and already the hour is near when our valiant army, together with our glorious allies, will be able to finally crush the enemy. In these decisive days in the life of Russia, we considered it a duty of conscience to make it easier for our people close unity and rallying of all people's forces to achieve victory as quickly as possible and in agreement with the State Duma, we recognized it as good to abdicate the throne of the Russian state and relinquish supreme power. Not wanting to part with our beloved son, we pass on our legacy to our brother Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich and bless him to ascend the throne of the Russian state. We command our brother to rule over state affairs in complete and inviolable unity with the representatives of the people in legislative institutions on those principles that will be established by them, taking an inviolable oath to that effect. In the name of our beloved Motherland, we call on all the faithful sons of the Fatherland to fulfill their holy duty to him by obedience to the Tsar in difficult times of national trials and to help him along with representatives of the people lead the Russian state onto the path of victory, prosperity and glory. May the Lord God help Russia. Nikolai.
I can imagine how, not having found his own words for such an insignificant document - the abdication of the Throne - the Emperor selectively, but painstakingly, slightly changing other people's letters, words and expressions, carefully rewrote the text of Alekseev's telegram. Oh yes, I almost forgot. Reprints, of course. Although, perhaps, not himself either. We should have covered our tracks more carefully, gentlemen, conspirators. Such telegrams immediately sting. And telegraph operators are hanged. But who then composed the text of the “renunciation”?
The Autocrat All-Russian Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II never composed a renunciation, did not write it by hand and did not sign it. The document was also not certified by Fredericks. Thus, the Sovereign has nothing to do with his own renunciation.
Facsimile of "renunciations":
Lomonosov's copy. New York, 1919.
Shchegolev's copy. Leningrad, 1927.
http://publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/SCH/SCHEGOLEV_Pavel_Eliseevich/_Schegolev_P._E...html#01">http://www.hist.msu.ru/ER/Etext/nik2.gi fhttp:// publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/SCH/SCHEGOL EV_Pavel_Eliseevich/_Schegolev_P._E...htm l#01 Copy of the Russian Civil Aviation, 2007.
http://www.rusarchives.ru/evants/exhibi tions/1917-myths-kat/34.shtml "
© “Ekaterinburg Initiative”, Academy of Russian History. 2008