The well-known “Manifesto on the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne” was published in “Izvestia of the Central Executive Committee of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies” and other newspapers on March 4, 1917. However, the “original” or “original” of the renunciation was discovered only in 1929.
It is not enough to mention only its discovery. It is necessary to say under what circumstances and by whom the “original” was discovered. It was discovered during the communist purge of the USSR Academy of Sciences and used to fabricate the so-called academic case.
Based on this suddenly discovered document, the OGPU accused the remarkable historian S.F. Platonov and other academicians in no less than preparation for the overthrow of Soviet power!
The authenticity of the renunciation document was ordered to be verified by a commission headed by P.E. Shchegolev. And the commission declared that the document was genuine and was the original of the renunciation.
But who is Shchegolev? He and A.N. Tolstoy was caught producing and publishing the fabricated “Diary of Vyrubova,” a friend of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. Shchegolev was also caught making a forged “Rasputin’s Diary”.
Moreover, the discovered document is a typewritten text on a simple sheet of paper. Could the most important document not be on imperial letterhead? I couldn't. Could an important document exist without the personal imperial seal? I couldn't. Could such a document be signed not with a pen, but with a pencil? I couldn't.
Strict rules established by law existed and were observed in this regard. It was not difficult to observe them on the royal train on March 2, 1917. Everything was at hand. In addition, according to existing laws, the original of the Tsar's manifesto had to be written by hand.
It should also be added that there is some wear and tear under the sovereign’s pencil signature. And to the left and below this signature is the signature of the Minister of the Imperial Court, Count V.B. Fredericks, who certified the emperor's signature. So this signature was also made in pencil, which is unacceptable and has never happened on important government documents. Moreover, the minister’s signature is also circled with a pen, as if it were not a document, but a children’s coloring book.
When historians compare the signatures of Emperor Nicholas II on the “renunciation” with his signatures on other documents and compare the signature of Minister Fredericks on the “renunciation” with his other signatures, it turns out that the signatures of the emperor and the minister on the “renunciation” coincide several times with their other signatures.
However, forensic science has established that the same person does not have two identical signatures; they are at least slightly different. If two documents have the same signature, then one of them is fake.
The famous monarchist V.V. Shulgin, who participated in the overthrow of the tsar and was present at his abdication, testifies in his memoirs “Days” that the abdication was on two or three telegraph forms. However, what we have is on one sheet of plain paper.
Finally, in all collections of documents, in student and school anthologies, the discovered document is published under the title “Manifesto on the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne.” However, the document itself has a different heading: “To the Chief of Staff.” What is it? Did the Emperor abdicate before the Chief of Staff? This can't happen.
From all this it follows that the document discovered in 1929 and now stored in the State Archives of the Russian Federation is NOT THE ORIGINAL OF THE RENUNCIATION. There is no doubt about it.
Does it follow from what has been said that there was no renunciation? The point of view, popular in the Orthodox community, that there was no renunciation is precisely deduced from the fact that there is no original document.
At the same time, I will at least point to such a relatively recent precedent. The Americans found a copy of the secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in an archive in Berlin. And for decades the USSR denied the existence of a secret protocol on the grounds that there was no original. Only during Gorbachev's glasnost was the original, stored in Moscow, declassified and presented.
I would really like there to be no renunciation. And I wish success to those who are trying to prove it. In any case, the existence, development and clash of several points of view is useful for historical science.
Indeed, there is no original renunciation, but there is quite reliable evidence that it existed!
From March 4 to March 8, 1917, Nicholas II met with his mother, Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, who had arrived in Mogilev. In the surviving diary of the empress there is an entry dated March 4, which with dramatic empathy tells about the abdication for herself and her son, about the transfer of the throne to her younger brother from the words of Nicholas II himself. On the anniversary of his abdication, Empress Alexandra Feodorovna also testifies about him in her diary.
There is also evidence of abdication, transmitted from the words of Alexandra Fedorovna. For example, the testimony of Pierre Gilliard, the faithful teacher of her children. It should also be mentioned that Archpriest Afanasy (Belyaev) spoke with the tsar, confessed him and subsequently recalled that the tsar himself told him about renunciation. There is other reliable evidence that the renunciation did take place.
So why is there no original? After all, the Provisional Government was absolutely interested in preserving the original, since, from a legal point of view, there was no other justification for the legitimacy, legality of the creation and activities of the Provisional Government itself. For the Bolsheviks, the original abdication was also not out of place.
Could such an important state document be lost? Anything can happen, but it is highly unlikely. Therefore, I will make an assumption: the Provisional Government destroyed the original because it contained something that did not suit the government. That is, the Provisional Government committed a forgery by changing the text of the renunciation. There was a document, but not like that.
What could the government not do? I assume that there was some phrase or phrases in which the sovereign sought to direct what was happening in a legal direction. The basic laws of the Russian Empire of 1906 did not provide for the very possibility of abdication. Abdication was not even mentioned; in its spirit and orientation, the Basic Laws did not allow renunciation, which legal practice allows us to consider as a prohibition of renunciation.
According to the same laws, the emperor had great power, allowing him to first issue a Manifesto (Decree) to the Senate, which would spell out the possibility of renunciation for himself and his heir, and then issue the Manifesto of renunciation itself.
If there was such a phrase or phrases, then Nicholas II signed such a renunciation, which might not mean an immediate renunciation. It would take the Senate at least some time to draw up the Manifesto, and then again the final renunciation must be signed, announced and approved in the Senate. That is, the king could sign such a renunciation, which from a strictly legal point of view was more of a declaration of intent.
Obviously, the leaders of the February coup d'etat (equally the leaders of the State Duma, its chairman, the Octobrist M.V. Rodzianko, the Octobrist leader A.I. Guchkov, the leader of the constitutional democrats P.N. Milyukov, the labor socialist A.F. Kerensky), the Provisional Government didn't want to waste time.
It is enough to note that the Chairman of the State Duma misinformed Headquarters, the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief General M.V. Alekseev, informing him that events in the capital are controlled, that to calm it down and successfully continue the war, only the abdication of the tsar is necessary.
In reality, events were out of control or only partially controlled: the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies (dominated by Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries) had no less or more influence than the Duma and the Provisional Government; the propagandized revolutionary masses took over the streets and released all criminals from prison, including murderers, rapists, thieves and terrorists, and it became unsafe for decent people to leave their homes, and bloody massacres of officers and police took place. A few more days - and this would have become known at Headquarters in Mogilev. And how would events have unfolded then? After all, the fate of the revolution depended on the position of the army.
However, the top generals, led by Alekseev, without understanding the situation, hastened to believe the messages coming from the Duma and support the revolution. And the leaders of the latter were aware that things had to be done quickly. In a word, even if the renunciation manifesto is not legal, everything can be attributed to the revolution, because “after a fight they don’t wave their fists,” but time You can't lose anything during a revolution.
The conclusion that the abdication document was falsified is also supported by the fact that the emperor’s last order of March 8, 1917 was falsified. This appeal of the Emperor and Supreme Commander Nicholas II to the troops is known and published according to the text of the order of General Alekseev, who inserted the royal order into his order. Moreover, the original of the Tsar’s order has been preserved in the State Archive of the Russian Federation, and it differs from that in Alekseev’s order. Alekseev arbitrarily inserted into the royal order a call to “obey the Provisional Government.”
In this case, the falsifier is General Alekseev, who sought to give some kind of legitimacy and continuity to the Provisional Government. Perhaps the general thought that he would replace the Tsar as Supreme Commander-in-Chief and himself would victoriously end the war in Berlin.
Why didn’t the emperor clarify things later? Obviously because the deed was done. Headquarters, the highest generals and commanders of the fronts, the State Duma, all parties from the Octobrists to the Bolsheviks and the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church went over to the side of the revolution, and the noble and monarchist public organizations seemed to die out, and not a single elder, even from the Optina Hermitage, brought sense to those who were carried away by the revolutionary reconstruction of Russia. The February Revolution was victorious.
To whom and what will you prove in revolutionary insanity, lies and pogrom? Talk about the nuances of an actually signed document? Who would understand this? We'd laugh.
The Emperor could convey his appeal to the people through the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna. But to risk a woman, to involve her in something that will turn out to be who knows what for her? Moreover, there was still hope that the worst would not come to pass.
On March 8, the Tsar and his family were arrested by decision of the Provisional Government under pressure from the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. However, since March 1, the tsar’s status was de facto limited in Pskov, where he came to the headquarters of the Northern Front to see General N.V. Ruzsky. They already met him not quite as a king, as someone who had power.
What do we want from an arrested person who is being defamed and harassed at all the crossroads of the capital? Could he call a press conference? And surely someone, perhaps even the would-be monarchists Guchkov and Shulgin, who came to renounce, warned the tsar that if something happened they could not vouch for the life of his family in Tsarskoe Selo, next to revolutionary Petrograd.
Empress Alexandra Feodorovna maintained correspondence, including illegal correspondence, with loyal friends, primarily with her girlfriends. The addressees of these letters were not political figures, and the queen was constantly worried about the safety of those who dared not only to maintain decent friendly relations, but also to enter into illegal correspondence.
Only renunciation by law and voluntarily can be considered unconditionally legal. There was no renunciation according to the law. There is nothing to say about voluntariness; the king was forced to sign a renunciation. The latter is a sufficient legal basis to consider renunciation illegal.
In addition, according to the laws that existed at that time, the tsar's manifesto came into force only after its approval by the Senate and publication by the tsar himself - the ruling head of state - in a government newspaper. However, there was nothing of the kind. That is, even the manifesto published then did not come into force.
At the same time, for the sake of objectivity, it should be noted that in history, including in the history of the Romanov dynasty, laws and traditions were not always observed. Let's say Catherine II illegally seized power as a result of a palace coup. Moreover, she was involved in the regicide, at least she covered up this crime, thereby participating in it. And this did not prevent her from going down in history under the name of Catherine the Great. God will be her judge.
However, what happened at the turn of February-March 1917 is not comparable to all precedents in the thousand-year history of Russia. The overthrow of the legitimate Tsar Nicholas II became the starting point, the initial impulse and impetus for subsequent events, including the Civil War and the Red Terror, collectivization and the Holodomor, the Gulag and the Great Terror; including the fact that even now we are at a loose end, surrounded by idols of Voikov, Dzerzhinsky, Lenin and similar revolutionary degenerates.
What happened on March 2, 1917 is a drama on a universal scale. It goes beyond the philistine judgment that anything can happen in history; goes beyond the actual legal or formal-legal, objectivist approach.
Ultimately, everything comes down to conscience, the conscience of a historian or the conscience of a person in any other profession who is interested in history and thinks about the fate of Russia. And conscience quietly prompts - THE UNPLEASING DEED WAS ACCOMPLISHED ON MARCH 2, 1917; it is more than illegal, it is AGAINST RUSSIA, THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE AND ITS FUTURE.
The Emperor himself, by signing some document of abdication, sought to avoid the worst, an internal civil war during an external war with the Kaiser's aggressors. The emperor was not a prophet: he would not have signed, knowing how the matter would turn out; he would have gone to the scaffold back in 1917, but would not have signed; he would ascend with his beloved family...
Moreover, let us pay attention: in the events that befell the tsar, it turned out that the document he signed contained a renunciation for himself and for his son, but not for the empress! But she did not renounce. The communists killed the legitimate, unrenounced empress.
And one more thing about the “original”. You should pay attention to how the signatures of Nicholas II and Fredericks are crowded at the bottom of the sheet. This is how schoolchildren, who did not fit into the given volume, crowd the text. Can this happen in a document of national importance? It is possible that the emperor and the minister prepared blank sheets with their signatures just in case. Such sheets could be discovered, and the text of the “renunciation” could be inserted into such a sheet. That is, it is possible that the signatures are real, but the document is fake!
In the 1990s, a government commission was created to study issues related to the research and reburial of the remains of Russian Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family. The commission was headed by First Deputy Prime Minister B.E. Nemtsov. Prosecutor-criminologist of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation V.N. was invited to participate in the work of the commission. Soloviev, who prepared the most important examinations.
Meeting with Solovyov, I asked him a question: why didn’t the commission carry out a state, official examination of the authenticity of the emperor’s signature under the “renunciation”? After all, this is one of the most important necessary examinations, and such examinations are carried out, and for millions of believers this examination is of particular importance.
To my question, the prosecutor-criminologist answered: we understood that such an examination was necessary, but the archivists did not want to give the document to the experts, and the experts did not want to go to the State Archive of the Russian Federation, where the document is now stored.
This is a kindergarten, not an answer. After all, the commission was headed by the Deputy Prime Minister, he could decide who should go where. And I would have to go. However, this has not been done. Why? Maybe they were afraid of exactly what the examination would testify: the Tsar’s signature was forged?
In addition, the government commission headed by Nemtsov did not examine the “renunciation” font. Did typewriters have this typeface in 1917? Was there such a typewriter, a typewriter of this brand, on the Tsar’s train, at the headquarters of General Ruzsky, at Headquarters, in the Duma, at the Provisional Government? Is the “renunciation” typed on the same typewriter? The last question is suggested by a careful examination of the letters in the document. And if on several machines, then what does that mean? That is, we still had to work and search. Didn’t the mentioned prosecutor-criminologist of the General Prosecutor’s Office understand this?
A comparison of the text of the “renunciation” with undoubtedly authentic documents and memoirs indicates that the “original” is obviously based on a draft of the renunciation prepared on March 2, 1917 in the diplomatic chancellery of Headquarters under the leadership of its director I.A. Basil by order and under the general editorship of General Alekseev.
The so-called “renunciation”, published on March 4, 1917, did not at all declare the liquidation of the monarchy in Russia. Moreover, from what was said above about the legislation that existed at that time, it follows that neither the transfer of the throne by the “abdication” of Emperor Nicholas II, nor the manifesto of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich of March 3, 1917 with the refusal to accept the throne (with the transfer of the final decision to the future Constituent Assembly) are legal. The Grand Duke's manifesto is not legal, it was signed under pressure, but it is not a fake, its author is cadet V.D. Nabokov, father of the famous writer.
Now the time has come to say that it is impossible to renounce royal anointing. It cannot be canceled. De facto, Nicholas II ceased to be a tsar after the February Revolution, but in a mystical and purely legal sense he remained a Russian tsar and died a tsar. He and his family ascended to their Golgotha so worthily that they were canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church.
Nicholas II ascended the throne after the death of his father Emperor AlexanderIII October 20 (November 2), 1894
The reign of Nicholas II took place in an atmosphere of growing revolutionary movement. At the beginning of 1905, an outbreak broke out in Russiarevolution , which forced the emperor to carry out a number of reforms. On October 17 (30), 1905, the tsar signedManifesto “On Improving Public Order” , who granted the people freedom of speech, press, personality, conscience, assembly, and unions.On April 23 (May 6), 1906, the emperor approved the new edition
"Basic State Laws of the Russian Empire" , which on the eve of the conveningState Duma , were a fundamental legislative act regulating the division of powers between the imperial power and the parliament organized according to the Manifesto of October 17, 1905 (the State Council and the State Duma).In 1914, Russia entered the First World War. Failures at the fronts, economic devastation caused by the war, worsening poverty and misfortune of the masses, growing anti-war sentiment and general discontent with the autocracy led to mass protests against the government and the dynasty.
See also in the Presidential Library:
Interior view of the sleeping car of the train in which Nicholas II signed his abdication from the throne [Izomaterial]: [photo]. Pskov, 1917
;Interior view of the train cabin in which Nicholas II signed his abdication from the throne [Izomaterial]: [photo]. Pskov, 1917
;Demonstration on the streets of Moscow on the day of Nicholas II’s abdication of the throne, March 2, 1917: [fragments of newsreel]. St. Petersburg, 2011
;Chamber-Fourier journal dated March 2, 1917 with a record of the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne. [Case]. 1917;
Nappelbaum M. S. Soldiers of the Russian army in the trenches read a message about the abdication of Nicholas II from the throne [Izomaterial]: [photo]. Western Front, 12 March 1917.
Those who happened to be present on that fateful day (March 2, 1917) in the carriage of the Tsar’s train could hardly have guessed that the date of Nicholas 2’s abdication of the throne not only completed the period of the next reign, but also opened the gates to a new world, terrible and merciless. In its bloody whirlpool, which destroyed the dynasty that had ruled for three centuries, all the foundations of life that had developed over the thousand-year history of Russia were destined to perish.
Problems that required immediate solutions
The reasons for the abdication of Nicholas 2 from the throne lie in the deepest political and economic crisis that erupted in Russia by the beginning of 1917. The sovereign, who was in Mogilev in those days, received the first information about the impending catastrophe on February 27. A telegram arriving from Petrograd reported on the riots taking place in the city.
It spoke of the outrages carried out by crowds of soldiers from the reserve battalion, who, together with civilians, robbed stores and destroyed police stations. The situation was aggravated by the fact that all attempts to pacify the street crowds only led to spontaneous bloodshed.
The current situation required the adoption of urgent and decisive measures, but none of those present at Headquarters at that time took upon themselves the courage to take any initiative, and, thus, all responsibility fell on the sovereign. In the debates that flared up between them, the majority was inclined to think about the need to make concessions to the State Duma and transfer to it the authority to create a government. Among the senior command staff who gathered at Headquarters in those days, no one had yet considered the abdication of Nicholas 2 as one of the options for solving the problem.
Date, photo and chronology of events of those days
On February 28, the most optimistic generals still saw hope in the formation of a cabinet of leading public figures. These people did not realize that they were witnessing the beginning of that very senseless and merciless Russian rebellion, which cannot be stopped by any administrative measures.
The date of Nicholas 2's abdication from the throne was inexorably approaching, but in these last days of his reign, the sovereign was still trying to take measures to take control of the situation. The photos in the article show the Emperor in those days full of drama. By his order, the famous military general N.I. Ivanov, who was undergoing treatment in the Crimea, arrived at Headquarters. He was entrusted with a responsible mission: at the head of a battalion of St. George's cavaliers, to go to restore order, first to Tsarskoe Selo, and then to Petrograd.
Failed attempt to get into Petrograd
In addition, on the same day the sovereign sent a telegram to the Chairman of the State Duma M.V. Rodzianko, in which he expressed his consent to the creation of a ministry formed from the deputies they had designated. Early the next morning, the imperial train left the platform and headed for Petrograd, but it was not destined to arrive there on time.
When we arrived at the Malaya Vishera station in the early morning of March 1, and there were no more than two hundred miles left to the rebellious capital, it became known that further advancement was impossible, since the stations along the route were occupied by revolutionary-minded soldiers. This clearly demonstrated the scope of the anti-government protests, and with frightening clarity revealed the full depth of the tragedy, the culmination of which was the abdication of Nicholas 2 from the throne.
Return to Pskov
It was dangerous to linger in Malaya Vishera, and the entourage convinced the tsar to follow to Pskov. There, at the headquarters of the Northern Front, they could rely on the protection of the military units remaining faithful to the oath under the command of General N.V. Rozovsky. Heading there and stopping along the way at the station in Staraya Russa, Nikolai witnessed for the last time how crowds of people gathered on the platform, taking off their hats, and many kneeling, greeted their sovereign.
Revolutionary Petrograd
Such an expression of loyal feelings, which had a centuries-old tradition, may have been observed only in the provinces. Petersburg was boiling in the cauldron of revolution. Here the royal power was no longer recognized by anyone. The streets were full of joyful excitement. Scarlet flags and hastily painted banners were blazing everywhere, calling for the overthrow of the autocracy. Everything foreshadowed the imminent and inevitable abdication of Nicholas 2 from the throne.
Briefly listing the most characteristic events of those days, eyewitnesses noted that the delight of the crowd sometimes took on the character of hysteria. It seemed to many that all the dark things in their lives were behind them, and that joyful and bright days were ahead. At an extraordinary meeting of the State Duma, it was urgently formed which included many enemies of Nicholas II, and among them was an ardent opponent of monarchism, member A.F. Kerensky.
At the main entrance to where the State Duma was meeting, there was an endless rally, at which speakers, taking turns in a continuous line, further fueled the delight of the crowd. The Minister of Justice of the newly formed government, the aforementioned A.F. Kerensky, enjoyed particular success here. His speeches were invariably met with general jubilation. He became a universal idol.
Transfer of military units to the side of the rebels
Violating the previously taken oath, the military units located in St. Petersburg began to swear allegiance to the Provisional Government, which largely made the abdication of Nicholas 2 inevitable from the throne, since the sovereign was deprived of the support of his main stronghold - the armed forces. Even the tsar’s cousin, Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich, together with the Guards crew entrusted to him, sided with the rebels.
In this tense and chaotic situation, the new authorities were naturally interested in the question of where the king was at the moment, and what actions should be taken in relation to him. It was clear to everyone that the days of his reign were numbered, and if the date of Nicholas 2’s abdication from the throne had not yet been set, then it was only a matter of time.
Now the familiar “sovereign-emperor” was replaced by derogatory epithets “despot” and “tyrant.” The rhetoric of those days towards the empress, who was German by birth, was especially merciless. In the mouths of those who only yesterday shone with good intentions, she suddenly became a “traitor” and “a secret agent of the enemies of Russia.”
M.'s role in the events that took place
A complete surprise for the Duma members was the emergence of a parallel body of power right next to them - the Council of Workers' and Peasants' Deputies, which shocked everyone with the extreme leftism of its slogans. At one of its meetings, Rodzianko tried to make a pathetic and pompous speech, calling for unity and continuation of the war to a victorious end, but was booed and hastened to retreat.
In order to restore order in the country, the Chairman of the Duma developed a plan, the main point of which was the abdication of Nicholas 2 from the throne. Briefly, it boiled down to the fact that an unpopular monarch should transfer power to his son. The sight of a young heir who had not yet had time to compromise himself in any way, in his opinion, could calm the hearts of the rebels and lead everyone to mutual agreement. Before he came of age, the tsar's own brother was appointed regent - with whom Rodzianko hoped to find a common language.
After discussing this project with the most authoritative members of the Duma, it was decided to immediately go to Headquarters, where, as they knew, the sovereign was, and not to return back without receiving his consent. In order to avoid unforeseen complications, they decided to act secretly, without making their intentions public. Such an important mission was entrusted to two reliable deputies - V.V. Shulgin and A.I. Guchkov.
At Army Headquarters of the Northern Front
That same evening, March 1, 1917, the royal train approached the platform of the Pskov station. The members of the retinue were unpleasantly surprised by the almost complete absence of those greeting them. Near the royal carriage, only the figures of the governor, several representatives of the local administration, and a dozen officers were visible. The commander of the garrison, General N.V. Ruzsky, brought everyone into final despondency. In response to a request for assistance to the sovereign, he waved his hand and replied that the only thing one could count on now was the mercy of the winner.
The sovereign received the general in his carriage, and their conversation continued until late at night. At that time, Nicholas 2’s manifesto on abdication had already been prepared, but the final decision had not been made. From the memoirs of Ruzsky himself, it is known that Nikolai had an extremely negative attitude towards the prospect of transferring power into the hands of members of the new government - people, in his opinion, superficial and unable to take responsibility for the future of Russia.
That same night, General N.V. Ruzsky contacted N.V. Rodzianko by telephone and discussed what was happening with him in a long conversation. The Chairman of the Duma stated without mincing words that the general mood is inclined towards the need for renunciation, and there is simply no other way out. From the Commander-in-Chief's Headquarters, urgent telegrams were sent to the commanders of all fronts, in which they were informed that, due to the current emergency circumstances, the abdication of Nicholas 2 from the throne, the date of which will be set for the next day, is the only possible measure to establish order in the country. The responses received from them expressed full support for the decision taken.
Meeting with Duma envoys
The last hours of the reign of the seventeenth sovereign from the House of Romanov were expiring. With all inevitability, an event was approaching Russia, which became a turning point in the course of its history - the abdication of Nicholas 2 from the throne. The year 1917 was the last of the twenty-two years of his reign. Still secretly hoping for some unknown but favorable outcome of the matter, everyone was awaiting the arrival of the Duma deputies sent from St. Petersburg, as if their arrival could influence the course of history.
Shulgin and Guchkov arrived by the end of the day. From the recollections of the participants in the events of that evening, it is known that the appearance of the envoys of the rebellious capital fully revealed the depression caused by the mission entrusted to them: shaking hands, confusion in their gaze and heavy intermittent breathing. They did not know that today the resolved issue was the abdication of Nicholas 2, unthinkable just yesterday, from the throne. The date, manifesto and other issues accompanying this act had already been thought out, prepared and resolved.
In the tense silence, A.I. Guchkov spoke. In a quiet, somewhat strangled voice, he began to talk about what was generally known before him. Having outlined the hopelessness of the situation in St. Petersburg and announced the creation of the Provisional Committee of the State Duma, he moved on to the main issue for which he arrived at Headquarters on this cold March day - the need for the sovereign to abdicate in favor of his son.
The signature that turned the course of history
Nikolai listened to him in silence, without interrupting. When Guchkov fell silent, the sovereign replied in an even and, as it seemed to everyone, calm voice that, having considered all possible options for action, he had also come to the conclusion that it was necessary to leave the throne. He is ready to renounce him, but he will name his successor not his son, suffering from an incurable blood disease, but his own brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich.
This was a complete surprise not only for the Duma envoys, but also for everyone present. After a short confusion caused by such an unexpected turn of events, they began to exchange opinions, after which Guchkov announced that, due to the lack of choice, they were ready to accept this option. The Emperor retired to his office and a minute later appeared with a draft manifesto in his hands. After some amendments were made to it, the sovereign signed it. History has preserved for us the chronology of this moment: Nicholas 2 signed the abdication of the throne at 23:40 on March 2, 1917.
Colonel Romanov
Everything that happened deeply shocked the dethroned monarch. Those who had the opportunity to communicate with him in the first days of March said that he was in a fog, but, thanks to his army bearing and upbringing, he behaved impeccably. Only as the date of Nicholas 2’s abdication from the throne receded into the past did life return to him.
Even in the first, most difficult days for him, he considered it his duty to head to Mogilev to say goodbye to the loyal troops who remained to him. Here he received news of his brother’s refusal to become his successor on the Russian throne. In Mogilev, Nicholas’s last meeting took place with his mother, the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, who came specially to see her son. Having said goodbye to her, the former sovereign, and now simply Colonel Romanov, left for Tsarskoye Selo, where his wife and children remained all this time.
In those days, hardly anyone could fully understand what a tragedy the abdication of Nicholas 2 from the throne was for Russia. The date, briefly mentioned today in all history textbooks, became the line between two eras, in which a country with a thousand-year history found itself in the hands of those demons about which F. M. Dostoevsky warned it in his brilliant novel.
- a joint project of the magazine “Foma” and radio “Vera”, dedicated to the centenary of revolutionary events.
During this year we will talk about events that took place in Russia a hundred years ago back - in 1917. Let's try to understand people's motivations and understand the chain of events that led, as they previously wrote in textbooks, from February to October.
Listen:
Read:
– On March 2, according to the old style, 1917, Emperor Nicholas signed an act of abdication for himself and his son Tsarevich Alexy in favor of his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. This event was followed by the renunciation of the throne of the Grand Duke. So Russia was left without a monarchy.
This was preceded by the February Revolution, which in those days had not yet approached the stage of the Russian “senseless and merciless” rebellion, but which would very soon turn into it.
What significance did the abdication of the emperor and the refusal of the throne of the Grand Duke have in this context? Why did they take this step?
Let's talk about this with Doctor of Historical Sciences Vasily Tsvetkov, professor at Moscow Pedagogical State University and a regular contributor to the Living History magazine.
– Good evening, Vasily Zhanovich.
- Hello.
– When we talk about the abdication of Emperor Nicholas, a lot of aspects immediately arise in our heads. Firstly, how much of this decision was emotional and how much was it rational? Secondly, was there any alternative in this situation? Do you think it was possible to avoid those tragic events that occurred in Russia throughout 1917?
– You asked a very relevant question, because indeed now, when there is a lot of talk about the reasons for February 17, it is said that this tragedy could have been avoided. But, on the other hand, we should in no case forget that renunciation was the result, and not the cause, of those events. After all, the revolutionary events began earlier, and we must remember this when we talk about February-March 17th. These are grain riots and riots in Petrograd, which began on February 14-15 and continued on February 23, and the initiative to create a temporary committee of the State Duma - the Provisional Government, and at the same time a council of workers' and soldiers' deputies, that is, virtually all power in the capital passes to these two structures.
In no case should we forget that by the time of Nicholas II’s decision, the revolution began to spread throughout the country. Revolutionary events swept Moscow and Kronstadt - these were centers where garrisons and armed forces were located. And the question was not whether it was possible to avoid revolutionary upheavals, but about a form of suppression or some kind of, as they said then, canalization of these revolutionary sentiments, directing them into some relatively calm channel. And there were already options.
The forceful alternative - the suppression of these revolutionary centers with the help of troops loyal to the sovereign, could certainly be successful, but only if two very important factors were taken into account. The first is the war factor. If you suppress unrest in the rear, then you need to remove troops from the front, but there is a war going on. Second, you had to be confident in the troops. Not even in the generals and officers who declared that they were loyal to the tsar and the oath, but in the soldiers. And here there was no longer any confidence, because we see how the Petrograd garrison, in a silent manner, allowing the murder of officers, refuses to help the police and the authorities. Therefore, the forceful alternative probably could no longer be so obvious.
The second alternative, which Rodzianko and, accordingly, the ministry insisted on from the very beginning, is to find some kind of compromise not even with the revolutionary, but with the liberal public. Often these concepts are identified, but I think that liberal and revolutionary circles still need to be separated; historically this is more correct. The alternative was to create a version of government in which the government would be responsible to the Duma. But a very important point is that the monarchical system will certainly be preserved. The question will only stand this way.
Then a third alternative began to emerge - maintaining the monarchy while sacrificing the monarch. This was precisely voiced in the telegraph correspondence between Rodzianko and Ruzsky, Pskov, where the sovereign was located - this is the well-known correspondence on the night of March 2, 1917.
The first option was probably preferable, but it is very important to keep in mind the war. It was necessary to decide what was more important - to continue the war or to suppress the revolution. I think that this alternative was very well understood by the sovereign and influenced his decision.
Material on the topic
On 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.
– After all, at that moment he was on the train, which first went to Bologoye, then he was sent to Pskov and so on. In general, if you look at the trajectory of this train, it is somewhat strange. Why is this so? Why couldn’t the emperor be allowed, for example, into St. Petersburg, so that he could promptly take part in resolving the crisis that was taking place in Petrograd at that moment?
– There is a very simple answer here. These are the actions that were carried out on the railways by these unauthorized organizations, as they were called then. Actually, they were then controlled by little-known figures, whose names will not tell anyone anything now: Lieutenant Grekov or Bublikov from the Provisional Government, Professor Lomonosov - on the one hand. On the other hand, the initiative came from the railway workers themselves. Why was it not possible for either General Ivanov with the punitive detachment or the Tsar’s train to reach Petrograd? Because the paths were blocked. In front of Ivanov’s detachment, the arrows and crosspieces were removed and the path was dismantled. Of course, it would be possible to go in marching order, but this is a greater risk. But traffic was simply closed in front of the royal train, and the route had to be changed.
On the other hand, there is the following point of view, which, I think, has a right to exist. For the success of the operation it was necessary to remain at Headquarters. Despite all the versions that a conspiracy was brewing in it, that Alekseev specially called the sovereign from Petrograd, throughout the entire 17th year there were no revolutionary or republican sentiments at Headquarters. As the Bolsheviks later dubbed it, it was a “hornet’s nest of counter-revolution.” And in this case, one could count on the Headquarters.
But there is another option, even more serious - even after leaving Headquarters, the sovereign went essentially without security. There was a convoy, but very few. And it was precisely the battalion of St. George’s Knights and other units, the same guard from the front that could have been led, that concentrated scatteredly - the result was splayed fingers, and not a concentrated fist, which, in fact, would have been necessary.
There are a lot of factors here; I think it’s impossible to explain everything by one single circumstance.
– When you read the diaries, it is mentioned that there was something festive in the air, the atmosphere was reminiscent of Easter. People walked around Petrograd with red armbands, and there was a premonition of something big, festive, great, and so on.
– Rather, there was a mood of expectation of some joyful changes for the better. It was assumed that if such changes happened now, then everything would be wonderful: the war would end, and the supply of Petrograd would immediately improve, and all sorts of government crises would immediately disappear.
This is probably the specificity of mass psychology. After all, mass psychology suppresses the individual, it forces him to submit to certain moods. In this case, these are moods of euphoria, which probably cannot be understood, because what is Easter from the point of view of Orthodox values? The Lenten weeks were just underway and we had to somehow humble ourselves and endure. But we see the opposite situation.
When Easter arrived, the Easter color red was associated with the color of the banners. Strange as it may seem now, but it was so.
– After all, on these days, March 2 and 3, after the abdication of the sovereign-emperor, the abdication of Grand Duke Mikhail followed. Do you think a mistake was made in this case, or was it some kind of pattern based on the current situation?
– Probably, now, after a hundred years, we should recognize this as a mistake, although still, understanding the situation of that time, the feelings and moods of those people, it is probably possible to explain it.
Firstly, Mikhail was completely unprepared for this kind of responsibility, this kind of cross, which was suddenly placed on him by his brother. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that the transfer of the throne took place without any prior consultations with Michael. This was the decision of the sovereign. When Mikhail was later given a telegram that Nikolai wrote to him after the abdication and after Mikhail himself had signed the act of rejection of the throne, he doubted his own actions in many ways, considering that perhaps he should have accepted the throne.
Another point is that most members of the Provisional Government, with the exception of Miliukov and Guchkov, convinced Mikhail that his accession to the throne would be much more legitimate if he was supported by some kind of national veche, assembly. And the idea of the Constituent Assembly was carried out as a kind of analogy to the Zemsky Sobor. If Michael receives power from the hands of this Constituent Council, then everything will be fine: he will be able to say that he is a legitimate monarch, not only because his brother decided so, but because the people supported him. It was a tempting idea, I think Mikhail couldn’t just ignore it.
Another point related to the character of Mikhail Alexandrovich Romanov is that he did not want to ascend the throne through violence and blood. But this would have to be done in any case, because having become monarch on March 3 or 4, he would have to somehow indicate his position in relation to, for example, the same Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. It is unlikely that he would have recognized it, because it is an unauthorized organization, as they said then. But at that time she certainly enjoyed the support of the population. And to suppress these actions, trying to drive this terrible beast with machine guns, as Shulgin later wrote in his memoirs, was probably impossible for Mikhail, again due to his character.
On the other hand, there was some hope that over time the power of the Provisional Government would strengthen and it would be possible to transfer the throne to Mikhail. Moreover, Kerensky categorically convinced him of this: “You must wait for the moment when the people elect you.” This temptation, I think, played a fatal role in Mikhail’s decision.
– History has shown that this was no longer possible. Thank you very much for your comment.
The abdication of the throne of Nicholas 2 happened on March 2, 1917, and was preceded by the following events. The beginning of 1917 was marked by growing discontent among the masses. Russians are tired of the war, of constant casualties, high inflation, and exorbitant prices. Russia experienced all the economic horrors of the war. Against this background, on October 18, 1917, workers of the Putilov plant went on strike. The authorities decided to severely punish the strikers. A decree was issued to close the Putilov plant. Thousands of people were left without work and means of subsistence. But this only made the situation worse. The dismissed workers of the Putilov plant were joined by other dissatisfied people. On February 25, a mass demonstration was organized in St. Petersburg, in which about 300 thousand people took part. People chanted anti-government slogans and demanded the abdication of Nicholas II.
The emperor himself was at Headquarters at that time, leading the troops. A telegram was hastily sent to him, which described in detail the events in St. Petersburg. In his response, Nicholas 2 demanded that the protesters be punished. On February 26, fire was opened on the crowd, more than 100 people were arrested, and the State Duma was dissolved. These measures did not bring success to the tsarist government. The fourth company of the Peter and Paul Regiment rebelled, opening fire on the mounted police. The situation was escalating. Every day more and more people supported the rebels. By March 1, 1917, the entire Petrograd garrison had rebelled and joined the protesters. The rebels seized weapons, warehouses, train stations, and prisons. The situation in the country was critical. On February 27, the Peter and Paul Fortress and the Winter Palace were captured.
On March 1, 1917, the rebels announced the creation of a Provisional Government, which was to take control of the country. Nicholas 2 was at the front. Telegrams from Russia were getting worse and worse. It was impossible to postpone, and the emperor returned to Russia. On February 28, Nicholas 2 went to Tsarskoe Selo. But since the railway was blocked by the rebels, the emperor headed to Pskov.
The people demanded only one thing: the abdication of Nicholas II. On March 1, the Chairman of the Provisional Government sent a telegram to the front commander to convince Nicholas to abdicate power in favor of his son Alexander. As a result, abdication became a matter of time, since the entire top military leadership of the country expressed the opinion of the emperor that he should leave power.
On March 2, 1917, Nicholas II abdicated the throne. Contrary to the demands of the people, Nicholas appointed his brother Mikhail as his successor, not his thirteen-year-old son Alexander. Mikhail, under pressure from the political forces of the country, refused the imperial title. He stated that the fate of the country should be decided at the Constituent Assembly.
On March 2, 1917, after the abdication of Nicholas II, the reign of the Romanov dynasty in Russia was interrupted. The Russian Empire ceased to exist, as did the Russian monarchy.
