The history of the abdication of Nicholas II. The abdication of the Tsar. Reaction to the overthrow of the church king and white leaders

- abdication of the throne of Emperor Nicholas II. Over the 100-year period since February 1917, many memoirs and studies on this topic have been published.

Unfortunately, often deep analysis replaced very categorical assessments based on the emotional perception of those ancient events. In particular, it is widely believed that the act of abdication itself did not comply with the laws of the Russian Empire in force at the time of its signing and was generally made under serious pressure. Obviously, it is necessary to consider the question of the legality or illegality of the abdication of Nicholas II itself.

It cannot be categorically stated that the act of renunciation is a consequence of violence, deception and other forms of coercion in relation to Nicholas II.

“The act of renunciation, as is clear from the circumstances of the signing... was not a free expression of His will, and is therefore null and void,”

Many monarchists argued. But this thesis is refuted not only by eyewitness accounts (many of them can be cited), but also by the emperor’s own entries in his diary (for example, an entry dated March 2, 1917).

“In the morning Ruzsky came and read a very long conversation on the phone with Rodzianka. According to him, the situation in Petrograd is such that now the ministry from the Duma is powerless to do anything, since the Social Democrats are fighting it. the party represented by the working committee. My renunciation is needed. Ruzsky conveyed this conversation to Headquarters, and Alekseev - to all commanders-in-chief. By 2.5 o'clock the answers came from everyone. The point is that in the name of saving Russia and keeping the army at the front calm, you need to decide to take this step. I agreed..."

(Diaries of Emperor Nicholas II. M., 1991. P. 625).

“There is no sacrifice that I would not make in the name of the real good and for the salvation of Russia,”

These words from the sovereign’s diary entries and his telegrams dated March 2, 1917 best explained his attitude towards the decision made.

The fact of the emperor’s conscious and voluntary abdication of the throne was not in doubt among his contemporaries. For example, the Kiev branch of the monarchical “Right Center” noted on May 18, 1917 that “the act of renunciation, written in highest degree godly and patriotic words, publicly establishes a complete and voluntary abdication... To declare that this abdication was personally forced out by force would be extremely insulting, first of all, to the person of the monarch, in addition, it is completely untrue, for the sovereign abdicated under the pressure of circumstances, but thus no less completely voluntary.”

But the most striking document is perhaps farewell speech to the army, written Nicholas II March 8, 1917 and then issued in the form of order No. 371. It, in full awareness of what was accomplished, speaks of the transfer of power from the monarch to Provisional Government.

"IN last time“I appeal to you, my dearly beloved troops,” wrote Emperor Nicholas II. - After I renounced the throne for myself and for my son Russian authorities transferred to the Provisional Government, on initiative State Duma arisen. May God help him lead Russia along the path of glory and prosperity... Whoever now thinks about peace, who desires it, is a traitor to the Fatherland, its traitor... Fulfill your duty, valiantly defend our great Motherland, obey the Provisional Government, obey your superiors, remember that any weakening of the order of service only plays into the hands of the enemy...”

(Korevo N.N. Succession to the throne according to the Basic State Laws. Information on some issues relating to succession to the throne. Paris, 1922. pp. 127-128).

Also noteworthy is the assessment of well-known telegrams from front commanders that influenced the sovereign’s decision in the memoirs of the Quartermaster General of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief’s headquarters Yu. N. Danilova, an eyewitness to the events:

“Both the Provisional Committee of the State Duma members, the Headquarters and the commanders-in-chief of the fronts ... interpreted the question of abdication ... in the name of preserving Russia and bringing the war to the end, not as a violent act or any revolutionary “action”, but from the point of view of completely loyal advice or petition , final decision according to which it had to come from the emperor himself. Thus, one cannot blame these individuals, as some party leaders do, for any treason or betrayal. They only honestly and openly expressed their opinion that the act of voluntary abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne could, in their opinion, ensure the achievement of military success and further development Russian statehood. If they made a mistake, then it’s hardly their fault...”

Of course, following the conspiracy theory against Nicholas II, it can be assumed that coercion could be applied to the sovereign if he did not accept the abdication. But the monarch’s voluntary decision to abdicate the throne excluded the possibility of anyone forcing him to such an action.

It is appropriate in this regard to quote the Empress Dowager's account Maria Feodorovna, mother of Nicholas II, from her “memory book”:

“...March 4/17, 1917 At 12 o’clock we arrived at Headquarters, in Mogilev, in a terrible cold and hurricane. Dear Nicky met me at the station, we went together to his house, where lunch was served with everyone. There were also Fredericks, Sergei Mikhailovich, Sandro, who came with me, Grabbe, Kira, Dolgorukov, Voeikov, N. Leuchtenbergsky and Doctor Fedorov. After lunch, poor Nicky told everyone tragic events that happened in two days. He opened his bleeding heart to me, we both cried. First came a telegram from Rodzianko, saying that he must take the situation with the Duma into his own hands in order to maintain order and stop the revolution; then - in order to save the country - he proposed to form a new government and... abdicate the throne in favor of his son (unbelievable!). But Niki, naturally, could not part with his son and handed over the throne to Misha! All the generals telegraphed to him and advised the same, and he finally gave in and signed the manifesto. Nicky was incredibly calm and dignified in this terribly humiliating position. It’s like I’ve been hit over the head, I can’t understand anything! I returned at 4 o'clock and talked. It would be nice to go to Crimea. Real meanness is only for the sake of seizing power. We said goodbye. He is a real knight"

(GA RF. F. 642. Op. 1. D. 42. L. 32).

Supporters of the version of the illegality of abdication claim that there is no corresponding provision in the system of Russian state legislation. However abdication provided for Article 37 of the Code of Basic Laws of 1906:

“In the operation of the rules ... on the procedure for inheriting the throne, the person who has the right to it is given the freedom to renounce this right in such circumstances when this does not entail any difficulty in the further inheritance of the throne.”

Article 38 confirmed:

“Such a renunciation, when it is made public and turned into law, is then recognized as irrevocable.”

The interpretation of these two articles in pre-revolutionary Russia, unlike the interpretation of the Russian diaspora and some of our contemporaries, there was no doubt. In the know state law famous Russian jurist professor N. M. Korkunova noted:

“Can someone who has already ascended the throne renounce it? Since the reigning sovereign undoubtedly has the right to the throne, and the law grants everyone who has the right to the throne the right to abdicate, then we must answer this in the affirmative..."

A similar assessment was contained in a course on state law written by an equally famous Russian lawyer, professor at Kazan University V. V. Ivanovsky:

“According to the spirit of our legislation... a person who has once occupied the throne can renounce it, as long as this does not cause any difficulties in the further succession to the throne.”

But in emigration in 1924, the former privatdozent Faculty of Law Moscow University M. V. Zyzykin, giving a special, sacred meaning to the articles on succession to the throne, separated “renunciation of the right to the throne,” which, according to his interpretation, is possible only for representatives of the ruling house before the start of the reign, from the right to "abdication", which those already reigning supposedly do not possess. But such a statement is conditional. The reigning emperor was not excluded from the reigning house, he ascended the throne, having everything for it legal rights, which he retained throughout his reign.

Now about the renunciation of the heir - Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich. The sequence of events is important here. Let us recall that the original text of the act corresponded to the version prescribed by the Basic Laws, i.e. the heir was supposed to ascend the throne under the regency of the emperor’s brother - Mikhail Romanov.

Russian history has not yet known the facts of the abdication of some members of the reigning house for others. However, this could be considered unlawful if it was carried out for an adult, legally capable member of the imperial family.

But, Firstly, Nicholas II abdicated for his son Alexei, who reached only 12.5 years in February 1917, and came of age at 16. The minor heir himself, of course, could not take any political and legal acts. According to the assessment of the deputy of the IV State Duma, a member of the Octobrist faction N.V. Savich,

“Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich was still a child, no decisions had legal force, he could not accept. Therefore, there could be no attempt to force him to abdicate or refuse to take the throne."

Secondly, the sovereign accepted this decision after consultations with physician professor S. P. Fedorov who declared the heir’s incurable disease (hemophilia). In this regard, the possible death of the only son before he reaches adulthood would become the very “difficulty in the further inheritance of the throne” that Article 37 of the Basic Laws warned about.

After the abdication of the Tsarevich took place, the act of March 2, 1917 did not create insoluble “difficulties in the further succession to the throne.” Now great Prince Mikhail Alexandrovich would have headed the House of Romanov, and his heirs would have continued the dynasty. According to modern historian A. N. Kamensky,

“The manifesto and telegram became essentially legal documents of those years and a written decree on changing the law on succession to the throne. These documents automatically recognized the marriage of Michael II with Countess Brasova. Thus, automatically Count Georgy Brasov (son of Mikhail Alexandrovich - Georgy Mikhailovich - V. Ts.) became the Grand Duke and heir to the throne of the Russian state.”

Of course, it should be remembered that at the time of drawing up and signing the act of abdication, the sovereign could not have known about his intention younger brother(who was in Petrograd in those days) not to accept the throne until the decision of the Constituent Assembly...

And the last argument in favor of the illegality of renunciation. Could the emperor make this decision in accordance with his status as head of state, since the Russian Empire after 1905 was already a Duma monarchy, and legislative power was shared by the tsar with legislative institutions - the State Council and the State Duma?

The answer is given by Article 10 of the Basic Laws, which established the priority of the sovereign in the executive branch:

“The power of government in its entirety belongs to the sovereign emperor within the entire Russian state. In supreme management, his power acts directly (that is, it does not require coordination with any structures. - V. Ts.); in matters of management of a subordinate a certain degree authority is entrusted from him, according to the law, to the places and persons acting in his name and according to his commands.”

Article 11 was also of particular importance, allowing the publication regulations alone:

“The Sovereign Emperor, in the order of supreme government, issues decrees in accordance with the laws for the organization and implementation of various parts public administration, as well as commands necessary for the execution of laws.”

Of course, these individually adopted acts could not change the essence of the Basic Laws.

N. M. Korkunov noted that decrees and commands issued “in the manner of supreme government” were of a legislative nature and did not violate the norms of state law. The act of abdication did not change the system of power approved by the Basic Laws, preserving the monarchical system.

Interesting psychological assessment this act was given by the famous Russian monarchist V. I. Gurko:

“...The Russian autocratic tsar has no right to limit his power in any way... Nicholas II considered himself to have the right to abdicate the throne, but did not have the right to reduce the limits of his royal powers...”

The formal aspect of the act of renunciation was not violated either. It was sealed with the signature of the “subject minister”, since according to the status of the Minister of the Imperial Court, Adjutant General Count V. B. Fredericks sealed all the acts relating to the “establishment of imperial family", and related to succession to the throne. Neither the sovereign’s pencil signature (later protected by varnish on one of the copies) nor the color of the ink or graphite changed the essence of the document.

As for the formal procedure for final legalization - approval of the act by the Governing Senate - there were no difficulties on this side. On March 5, 1917, the new Minister of Justice A.F. Kerensky handed over to the Chief Prosecutor P. B. Vrassky the act of abdication of Nicholas II and the act of “non-acceptance of the throne” by Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. As the participants of this meeting recalled,

“Having considered the issue proposed for its discussion, the Governing Senate decided to publish both acts in the “Collection of Legislation and Government Orders” and inform about this by decrees to all officials and government places subordinate to the Senate. Both acts were passed by the Senate to be preserved in perpetuity.”

In the context of the ongoing war the most important thing was victory over the enemy. For the good of the Motherland, essentially, for the sake of this victory the sovereign abdicated the throne. For her sake, he called on his subjects, soldiers and officers, to take a new oath.

The formal legal interpretation of the legality or illegality of abdication did not in any way detract from the moral feat of the sovereign. After all, the participants in those distant events are not soulless subjects of law, not “hostages of the monarchical idea,” but living people. What was more important: keeping the vows given when crowning the kingdom, or preserving stability, order, preserving the integrity of the entrusted state, so necessary for victory at the front, as members of the State Duma and front commanders convinced him of? What is more important: the bloody suppression of the “rebellion” or the prevention, albeit for a short time, of the impending “tragedy of fratricide”?

For the passion-bearer sovereign, the impossibility of “stepping over blood” during the war became obvious. He did not want to retain the throne by violence, regardless of the number of victims...

"In the last Orthodox Russian monarch and members of his family, we see people who sought to implement the commandments of the Gospel in their lives. In the suffering endured by the royal family in captivity with meekness, patience and humility, in their martyrdom in Yekaterinburg on the night of July 4/17, 1918, the conquering light of Christ's faith was revealed, just as it shone in the lives and deaths of millions of Orthodox Christians Christians who suffered persecution for Christ in the twentieth century,”

This is how the moral feat of Emperor Nicholas II was assessed in the definition of the Russian Council of Bishops Orthodox Church on the glorification of the Russian new martyrs and confessors of the twentieth century (August 13-16, 2000).

Vasily Tsvetkov,
Doctor of Historical Sciences

Edward's abdication is supposedly the eighth, but judging by his personal signature, then FIRST:

Look at the signature: "Eduard R 1".

The fact that he is “eighth” could have been corrected later. But they were afraid to forge his signature.

Then Grandma Lisa's uncle was Edward (VII) I, and her father was not George VI, but George (V) I.

That is, Edward I and George I.

They are not on the screenshots at all! All this ancient royal dynasty Windsor begins with Grandma Lisa herself

And one more “hello” from the Connaught Cossacks:

At the time of his birth, the prince was ninth in line to the British throne.

Alastair died unexpectedly V next year in Ottawa at the age of 28 for unknown reasons. IN diaries Sir Alan Lascelles Private Secretary to King George VI, published in 2006 , it is said that “the Earl of Athlone and the officers of the regiment in which Alastair served considered him an incompetent and incapable military man; he fell out of the window when I was drunk and died from hypothermia at night ". At the time of his death, Alastair was twelfth in line to the throne. He was not married and had no descendants.

Date of death of Alastair Windsor (Connaught) 1943.

In 1942, he inherited the titles from his grandfather Duke of Connaught and Stracharne, Earl of Sussex.

That is, there was another dynasty, the Windsors of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, who lived in Windsor Castle in the 19th century, while Victoria took her photographs for the gossip department exclusively on the street and under the fence.

This Windsor dynasty of the Connaught Cossacks, the Elston old guard, was interrupted only in 1943. It looks like he was killed and killed as the heir.

You see, there is a failure there between 1918 and 1945. There are NO contemporary Windsors as rulers of Great Britain. Missing!

By the way, here they found another “blunder” in the abdication of Edward (V)I:

For comparison: the abdication of Nicholas (rootless) because there is no surname (family). Last name (family, clan) not specified.

And Nikolai Neizvestny writes, as befits a colonel of the Red (German) army, the German occupier-commandant of the St. Petersburg fortress, in the name of the Chief of Staff. Like any subordinate and any military man serving in the state army. True, he writes not according to the Charter, but the army there was not according to the Charter, not State Army in our understanding, the Cossack party is the Social Democrats, an army-style organized crime group. What an army, such a language, such a Charter. Colonels with Church Slavonic language, which Dahl himself understood only with his dictionary.

Nikolay's date is in numbers, not in words.

For comparison: a sample document written in English. Dates are in numbers.

1. Reasons for the occurrence of falsifications

Falsifications of history are not uncommon. A political order could prompt a historian to pass off rumors and slander about political opponents as facts. Over the years, such “facts” acquire the appearance of authenticity. In the falsifications of the history of the twentieth century, a significant role is played by “eyewitness memories”, which present events in such a way as to justify crimes and create an illusion that allows the authorities to commit lawlessness and keep the people in ignorance and in obedience.

Why do we believe falsifications? The influence of the cultural environment for decades brings into consciousness a certain picture in which various falsifications and stretches of historical explanations are combined into a certain concept. Any revelation in this case seems to be an attack against history in general.

The concept can be built as a series of images, presenting some figures of the past as heroes “without fear or reproach,” others as the embodiment of evil, outdated orders, to which they cling, defending their privileges. Therefore, exposing the falsification seems to be an attack on the established distinction between good and evil. And in reality this is true. Because the 20th century mixed up both, confused all ideas and created a convenient container for falsifications in people’s heads.

History requires a conceptual approach. Otherwise, it turns into a set of facts that are impossible to keep in mind, into the property of eccentrics. And a person strives to understand the meaning of history, because he wants to continue his ancestors or know which past he is renouncing. Without understanding the meaning of the historical process, it is impossible to avoid socio-political catastrophes. And the 20th century presented the Russian people with many such people.

Layers of lies that hide the truth are created by the efforts of historians and social scientists who are trying to tailor life to a prepared answer. Marxist methodology proposed a simple scheme, according to which all peoples and states move along the same historical track, and the sequence of events is predetermined by the immutable law of the contradiction between productive forces and industrial relations. This scheme has never been true and has been refuted many times. But it is still being embedded in the heads of Russian citizens.

Interpreters of Marxism, based on this speculative scheme, predetermined that the Russian Empire had to fall. Liberal thought is even simpler: looking back into the past, it assumes the existence of some unshakable law, but without any theoretical background. For example: all empires collapsed, which means Russia must perish. A rule is being created according to which one can justify indifference to the fate of one’s own country, which is prescribed death. And justification for haters of Russia in the present, in the past, in the future.

2. There was no renunciation

The abdication of Sovereign Nicholas II from the throne seems to be a well-known truth, since this fact was included in textbooks and presented as natural result February Revolution 1917. The revolution is designated as the result of the “incapacity of tsarism,” and this condition was fabricated by concealing real story. The “Russian economic miracle” during the reign of Nicholas II is hidden, the rapid development of social legislation is hidden, and the effectiveness of the imperial model of managing the foreign periphery is hidden. Therefore, Russia turns out to be “backward,” the war is “imperialist” and criminal, the regime is a “prison of nations,” and the Sovereign is “Bloody Nicholas.”

In reality, there was no “revolution” in February 1917. There was a conspiracy that covered a narrow circle of people pursuing different goals and feeding on various illusions. Its result was the formation of a self-proclaimed Provisional Government and complete isolation Supreme Commander-in-Chief- Sovereign Emperor. All his contacts with outside world from the moment of arrest were falsified or blocked.

There was no “renunciation” either. There was falsification. It was so crudely executed that the text of the corresponding document was hidden. Newspaper publications and the supposed absence of any resistance on the part of the Sovereign were presented as an expression of the will of the Sovereign. How the poet A. Blok, close to the conspirators, lied: he renounced “as he surrendered the squadron.” Like most of the participants in the conspiracy, and therefore the murder of the Tsar and his Family, Blok sank into the ensuing turmoil.

Doubts that the abdication took place have been expressed for a long time. But only recently, thanks to the efforts of amateur historian Andrei Razumov, the so-called “renunciation” became publicly available and was subjected to close analysis. Signs of falsification immediately emerged: the document was sent to a strange address (Headquarters. To the Chief of Staff), it is the text of a telegram with the pencil signature of Nicholas II in the corner (the Tsar’s stroke does not correspond to the usual one, repeated in hundreds of documents), a note certifying the document on behalf of the Minister of the Court in three copies of the document are completely identical (which is impossible: a person is not able to reproduce a handwritten recording three times with such accuracy). There is no doubt that this is a crudely fabricated fake.

Andrei Razumov also examined the behavior of persons who allegedly received the text of the Emperor’s abdication. Instead of making it public, they began to hide it and hide themselves. In order for a fake to be accepted as a reliable document, there must first be a campaign in the press. And it was done. After which no one was interested in whether the form of the document was convincing, whether it was adequate legal status. The subsequent collapse of control, the collapse of the rear, and then the front, removed the question of the reliability of the text of the “renunciation” for many years.

3. Reasons for falsifying the act of renunciation

Freeing the truth from the layers of lies, we can see how various “projects” for the destruction of Russia are revealed: German (actions to destroy the enemy from within, which led to the self-destruction of Germany - the November Revolution of 1918), English (an attempt to put a controlled monarch in power in Russia - a minor Tsarevich Alexei or the impressionable and inexperienced in state affairs Mikhail Alexandrovich), French (to establish a republic in Russia, governed by French manner- secret Masonic groups), “cabbalistic” (the destruction of Russia to its foundations, the extermination of its leading classes). Each of these “projects” looked for its own performers in Russia and generously financed them, spreading treason. All of them were interfaced with each other through individuals who sought to elevate their role in history by humiliating Russia.

Betrayal of the Faith, Tsar and Fatherland was not always led by passion for nihilistic political theories or personal hatred of living conditions in Russian Empire(the law is felt by some people as “oppression”). Naivety can lead to treason: the idea that the situation is catastrophic (in conditions when the situation on the fronts was calm and stable, and pogroms affected only Petrograd, where the indecisiveness of the military authorities in the absence of the Sovereign allowed individual riots to develop into mass ones), and that all the matter can be improved only by replacing the “irritating to many” figure of Nicholas II. It turned out that such plans are completely identical to the plans worst enemies Russia. Without the Tsar, Russia began to crumble, instead of fighting internal enemy, the Russian people pointed their weapons at their brothers.

Why did the conspirators need “renunciation” and not the overthrow of the Emperor? Their intention was to preserve the external trappings of autocracy. An overthrow would mean an open violation of the law, which would provoke an immediate attack by forces loyal to the Sovereign. But if “he himself renounced,” then who should he oppose? After all, there is still an external enemy. The best people The Russians were and remained at the front, waiting for the restoration of power according to the law and not understanding that “the secret of lawlessness is in action” - lawlessness has already happened. This is exactly what the conspirators were counting on.

Undoubtedly, an overthrow would lead to big problems in determining the international status of the Provisional Government, to the loss of any status of the self-appointed ministers, as well as the arousal of both the revolutionary element and the reaction based on the law. Abdication created the illusion of legitimacy of Russia's transition to a new state. But at the same time, “Citizen Romanov” turned out to be not a private person, but a political “good”, which can be bargained for fair price transfer to one of the interested parties: the Germans or the British. The removal of the Sovereign and Family to Tobolsk meant moving away from the Bolsheviks’ attempts to intercept the “goods” and transport them to their German customers. The Bolsheviks’ plans to transport the Family to Moscow directly testified to the reality of such a transfer, from which they were expected first to reinforce the capitular position, and then - Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Emperor said: “I would rather agree to give my hand to be cut off!” Then the plan of the satanic sect came into action, which involved deceiving the Bolshevik leadership and ritual murder of the Tsar, his family and servants.

Why was Nicholas II unable to refute his “renunciation”? This question is not as mysterious as it might seem. From the moment of his arrest, the Tsar was blocked, all his correspondence was filtered. Many documents (including diary entries) are likely to be completely or partially falsified. That this is exactly the case is evidenced by numerous facts of falsification on the part of the Bolsheviks and emigrant “evidence”, consistently exposed by historians.

Why did the generals, who could not help but understand the importance of the Tsar for Russia, commit treason and participate in the conspiracy? Their behavior is explained by their tendency to look for something else for themselves - not a merciful, intelligent, honest, competent Sovereign, but a cruel Dictator, whose generals, thirsting not for order, but for arbitrariness, would form a retinue. In mockery of their illusions, instilled through secret societies, a clown, Kerensky, was proposed as dictator. And when the bloody dictator came, his retinue was made up of executioners, stained with the blood of the same generals, corrupt subjects of all stripes, their enemies and the enemies of their enemies. Supreme power went to the antipode of Nicholas II - Stalin, who, together with his comrades-in-arms, tried to make Russia his own antipode. It was not possible to complete this. But Satanists can rejoice: they have shed seas of Russian blood. Moreover, they often spilled it with Russian hands. Or by the hands of our natural allies.

Having deceived and betrayed the Tsar, generals and politicians turned history onto the path of monstrous suffering: instead of victory in the war of 1917, they had to endure defeat and tragedy civil war, and then another war, which would not have happened if Russia had been Tsarist; instead of the “Russian miracle” (stormy economic growth during all the years of the reign of Nicholas II) they received industrialization, collectivization, and famine that broke the people at the knees; instead of educating the people - " cultural revolution”, which has confused people’s heads with propaganda. All this together was reflected in the military catastrophe at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War: industrialization created iron, but not the soldier; The “cultural revolution” taught how to read Bolshevik propaganda, but did not create lasting motives for defending the Fatherland. They remembered how to fight for the country, having lost a million and surrendered half the country. A terrible symbol of the betrayal of the people, retribution for the devilry of the revolution - Piskarevskoye Cemetery.

The worst thing is that falsifications lead us to recognize the signs of death as almost heroism, glorifying the people. And thus they refused to see the guilt that lies with traitors and liars. That is why the falsification of Russian history of the twentieth century continues.

4. Continuation of the historical plot

In relation to Russian statehood, the same policy was and is being pursued: subjugation and enslavement of the people, plunder national treasure. One of the directions of this activity is slandering the Russian Emperors, discrediting the monarchical form of government, creating conditions under which the Russians could not reunite with their history. Just as treason enveloped Nicholas II, it penetrates the highest echelons of power and reaches members of the Russian Imperial House living in exile. The historical plot continues and, judging by many signs, it is close to completion: vitality people are drying up, Russian statehood is withering, Russian history is covered with slander, Russian wealth is seized by the oligarchy, Russian people are humiliated and turned into slaves of the bureaucracy.

The Bolsheviks falsified the history of their own party, invented a “revolutionary process” and “world-historical significance” for nothing significant events. And their followers steadfastly adhered to the illusion that fooled people. It is no coincidence that the case of execution Royal Family in Yekaterinburg it was falsified many times - in the 20s, in the 60s, and in the 90s. Moreover, post-war falsifications are associated with the name of A.N. Yakovlev, a member of the Politburo, who for many years was engaged in activities to undermine the viability of our state. Other falsifications are associated with this name - secret protocols“Pact” of Molotov-Ribbentrop, “Katyn Affair”. We will probably learn many more similar falsifications and their underlying reason - the desire to inflict maximum damage on Russia. (I personally saw him enthusiastic and drunk in the days of August 1991. Not in the White House, but in the Moscow City Council - the headquarters of the Moscow authorities, which became a reliable support for the Yeltsin regime.)

The story of the “Ekaterinburg remains” sufficiently demonstrates that current government largely follows the “cabbalistic” strategy and seeks to “bury” the topic of the atrocity, close the historical problem, hide genetic connection current enemies of Russia with an intra-Bolshevik terrorist group controlled from overseas. We see many signs of falsification in the organization of the examination of the “Ekaterinburg remains”, now housed as a museum exhibit in the Peter and Paul Cathedral, which was never handed over to the Church, where they not only conduct excursions for idle foreigners, but also hold secular music concerts.

The family crypt of the dynasty continues to be desecrated. The streets and squares of Russian cities are desecrated with the names of murderers. In Moscow, for many years, city authorities have refused to remove the name of Pinkhus Lazarevich Voikov (one of the participants and organizers of the Yekaterinburg atrocity and the cover-up of this crime) from the map of the capital’s metro. At the same time, other names in the Metro change easily. I don’t know why Voikov is so endearing to the leadership of Moscow, who has repeatedly refused to satisfy the demands of the public and even deputies of the State Duma.

In Russia, its worst enemies remain glorified - Lenin, Sverdlov and others. But not glorified Russian Sovereigns: there are only individual monuments - the result of local initiatives. The national policy is that Russian history must be falsified, Russia must be corrupted by names and symbols alien to Russian. By this they want to discourage Russians from loving their own country, to convince them that there is no longer a real Russia and there never will be.

We will not believe the falsifiers. Russia is and will be for us. But there was no “renunciation”.

Nicholas II ascended the throne after the death of his father Emperor AlexanderIII October 20 (November 2), 1894