Nicholas 2 abdicated from the throne. Abdication of Emperor Nicholas II: from mythology to historical truth or new myths

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.

The abdication of the throne of Nicholas II was a landmark event for Russian history. The overthrow of the monarch could not happen in a vacuum; it was prepared. Many internal and external factors contributed to it.

Revolutions, regime changes, and overthrows of rulers do not happen instantly. This is always a labor-intensive, expensive operation, in which both direct performers and passive, but no less important for the result, card de ballet are involved.
The overthrow of Nicholas II was planned long before the spring of 1917, when the historic abdication of the last Russian emperor from the throne took place. What paths led to the fact that the centuries-old monarchy was defeated, and Russia was drawn into revolution and a fratricidal Civil War?

Public opinion

The revolution occurs primarily in the heads; a change of the ruling regime is impossible without a lot of work on the minds of the ruling elite, as well as the population of the state. Today this technique of influence is called the “path of soft power.” In the pre-war years and during the First World War, foreign countries, especially England, began to show unusual sympathy towards Russia.

British Ambassador to Russia Buchanan, together with British Foreign Secretary Gray, organized two trips of delegations from Russia to Foggy Albion. First, Russian liberal writers and journalists (Nabokov, Egorov, Bashmakov, Tolstoy, etc.) went to warm up to Britain, followed by politicians (Miliukov, Radkevich, Oznobishin, etc.).

Meetings of Russian guests were arranged in England with all the chic: banquets, meetings with the king, visits to the House of Lords, universities. Upon their return, the returning writers began to write excitedly about how good it is in England, how strong its army is, how good parliamentarism is...

But the returning “Duma members” actually stood in the vanguard of the revolution in February 1917 and entered the Provisional Government. Well-established ties between the British establishment and the Russian opposition led to the fact that during the allied conference held in Petrograd in January 1917, the head of the British delegation, Milner, sent a memorandum to Nicholas II, in which he almost demanded that the people needed for Britain be included in the government. The tsar ignored this request, but the “necessary people” were already in the government.

Popular propaganda

How massive the propaganda and “people's mail” were in the run-up to the overthrow of Nicholas II can be judged by one interesting document - the diary of the peasant Zamaraev, which is kept today in the museum of the city of Totma, Vologda region. The peasant kept a diary for 15 years.

After the tsar’s abdication, he made the following entry: “Romanov Nikolai and his family have been deposed, are all under arrest and receive all food on a par with others on ration cards. Indeed, they did not care at all about the welfare of their people, and the people’s patience ran out. They brought their state to hunger and darkness. What was going on in their palace. This is horror and shame! It was not Nicholas II who ruled the state, but the drunkard Rasputin. All the princes were replaced and dismissed from their positions, including the commander-in-chief Nikolai Nikolaevich. Everywhere in all cities there is a new department, the old police are gone.”

Military factor

Nicholas II’s father, Emperor Alexander III, liked to repeat: “In the whole world we have only two faithful allies, our army and navy. “Everyone else, at the first opportunity, will take up arms against us.” The peacemaker king knew what he was talking about. The way the “Russian card” was played in the First World War clearly showed that he was right; the Entente allies turned out to be unreliable “Western partners.”

The very creation of this bloc was beneficial, first of all, to France and England. The role of Russia was assessed by the “allies” in a rather pragmatic manner. The French Ambassador to Russia, Maurice Paleologue, wrote: “In terms of cultural development, the French and Russians are not on the same level. Russia is one of the most backward countries in the world. Compare our army with this ignorant, unconscious mass: all our soldiers are educated; in the forefront are young forces who have proven themselves in art and science, talented and sophisticated people; this is the cream of humanity... From this point of view, our losses will be more sensitive than Russian losses.”

The same Paleologus on August 4, 1914 tearfully asked Nicholas II: “I beg Your Majesty to order your troops to go on an immediate offensive, otherwise the French army risks being crushed...”.

The Tsar ordered the troops who had not completed mobilization to advance. For the Russian army, the haste turned into a disaster, but France was saved. Now it’s surprising to read about this, considering that by the time the war began, the standard of living in Russia (in large cities) was no lower than the standard of living in France. Involving Russia in the Entente is only a move in a game played against Russia. The Russian army seemed to the Anglo-French allies as an inexhaustible reservoir of human resources, and its onslaught was associated with a steam roller, hence one of Russia’s leading places in the Entente, essentially the most important link in the “triumvirate” of France, Russia and Great Britain.

For Nicholas II, the bet on the Entente was a losing one. The significant losses that Russia suffered in the war, desertion, and unpopular decisions that the emperor was forced to make - all this weakened his position and led to inevitable abdication.

Renunciation

The document on the abdication of Nicholas II is considered very controversial today, but the very fact of the abdication is reflected, among other things, in the emperor’s diary: “In the morning Ruzsky came and read his long conversation on the apparatus with Rodzianko. 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 2½ o'clock 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. A draft manifesto was sent from Headquarters. In the evening, Guchkov and Shulgin arrived from Petrograd, with whom I talked and gave them the signed and revised manifesto. At one o'clock in the morning I left Pskov with a heavy feeling of what I had experienced. There is treason, cowardice, and deceit all around!”

What about the church?

To our surprise, the official Church reacted calmly to the abdication of God’s Anointed One. The official synod issued an appeal to the children of the Orthodox Church, recognizing the new government.

Almost immediately, prayerful commemoration of the royal family ceased; words mentioning the Tsar and the Royal House were removed from the prayers. Letters from believers were sent to the Synod asking whether the Church's support of the new government was not a crime of perjury, since Nicholas II did not abdicate voluntarily, but was actually overthrown. But in the revolutionary turmoil, no one received an answer to this question.

To be fair, it should be said that the newly elected Patriarch Tikhon subsequently decided to hold memorial services everywhere commemorating Nicholas II as Emperor.

Shuffle of authorities

After the abdication of Nicholas II, the Provisional Government became the official body of power in Russia. However, in reality it turned out to be a puppet and non-viable structure. Its creation was initiated, its collapse also became natural. The Tsar had already been overthrown, the Entente needed to delegitimize power in Russia in any way so that our country could not participate in the post-war reconstruction of borders.

Doing this through the Civil War and the Bolsheviks coming to power was an elegant and win-win solution. The Provisional Government “surrendered” very consistently: it did not interfere with Leninist propaganda in the army, turned a blind eye to the creation of illegal armed groups represented by the Red Guard, and in every possible way persecuted those generals and officers of the Russian army who warned about the danger of Bolshevism.

Newspapers write

It is indicative how the world's tabloids reacted to the February revolution and the news of the abdication of Nicholas II.
The French press presented a version that the tsarist regime fell in Russia as a result of three days of a hunger riot. French journalists resorted to an analogy: the February Revolution is a reflection of the revolution of 1789. Nicholas II, like Louis XVI, was presented as a “weak monarch” who was “harmfully influenced by his wife,” the “German” Alexandra, comparing this with the influence of the “Austrian” Marie Antoinette on the king of France. The image of the “German Helen” came in very handy in order to once again show the harmful influence of Germany.

The German press gave a different vision: “The end of the Romanov dynasty! Nicholas II signed the abdication of the throne for himself and his minor son,” shouted the Tägliches Cincinnatier Volksblatt.

The news talked about the liberal course of the new cabinet of the Provisional Government and expressed hope for the Russian Empire to exit the war, which was the main task of the German government. The February Revolution expanded Germany's prospects for achieving a separate peace, and they stepped up their offensive on a variety of fronts. “The Russian Revolution put us in a completely new position,” wrote Austria-Hungary Foreign Minister Chernin. “Peace with Russia,” wrote the Austrian Emperor Charles I to Kaiser Wilhelm II, “is the key to the situation. After its conclusion, the war will quickly come to a favorable end for us.”

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 State Archives of the Russian Federation preserved the original of the Tsar’s order, 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 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, however, 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.

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 masses, growing anti-war sentiment and general dissatisfaction 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 Supreme Commander-in-Chief Headquarters 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

I wanted to write this article after another program about Nikolai Romanov, the last Russian emperor, when he was again accused of being soft because of his abdication. Is it really still not clear what kind of action he committed? Only a person with a strong spirit can do this. Yes, now everything has turned upside down, and the actions of rulers and elected representatives of the people look much more natural - to stay in power at any cost, and no moral principles have any force. There are many examples, take today’s Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein, or our State Emergency Committee, or the governments of the USA, France, Great Britain, who at any cost want to implement their plans, without any hesitation, by bombing Yugoslavia and the Middle East. It’s a pity that they didn’t watch our film “White Sun of the Desert,” where Comrade Sukhov said the famous phrase: “The East is a delicate matter.” And they so rudely impose their interests on these countries, living according to the million-year-old principles - “an eye for an eye.” The rulers of these countries will never forgive such interference, even to the point of using nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad promised to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, and the same could happen to Europe. All these heroes are certainly not soft-hearted.

And Nicholas II made this decision precisely to prevent bloodshed and the outbreak of a civil war. There are always people dissatisfied with the authorities and blame them for any problems. There is always an opposition that uses this dissatisfaction to its advantage. And there are always those who are ready to sacrifice their lives for the sovereign. Of course, at one time there was a provocation known as “Bloody Sunday” on January 9, 1905. was a success for the opposition and undermined the power of the sovereign. Later it became clear that priest Gapon, an absolutely immoral person, had long been planning a social action that could shake the foundations and cause unrest in the country.

The Russian people loved their tsar, and therefore the idea of ​​going to him and asking him for “truth and protection” was quite natural, and already in December 1904 it was widely discussed at meetings. At the beginning of January 1905, a strike broke out at the largest enterprise in St. Petersburg, the Putilov plant, caused by the dismissal of several workers. The strike quickly began to spread, and workers from other enterprises began to join it. This event accelerated the course of affairs, and the workers almost unanimously decided to go to the Tsar with a petition. But the workers for the most part were not familiar with the full list of demands; it was compiled by a small “group of commissioners” chaired by Gapon. The workers only knew that they were going to the tsar to ask for “help for the working people.” Meanwhile, along with economic points, the petition contained a number of political demands, some of which affected the fundamentals of government and were openly provocative.

Gapon lied to the authorities, posing as a law-abiding citizen, lied to people, assuring them that their interests and aspirations were closest to him in the world, lied to God, talking about peace and love, but in his soul worshiping terror and violence. He was a master at acting. The military and police authorities showed their helplessness and, instead of isolating a dozen organizers, relied on the “word of Gapon,” who assured them that the procession would not take place. The Emperor knew nothing about the impending action and was at that moment in Tsarskoye Selo, and the idea of ​​​​presenting him with a petition in the Winter Palace was obviously impossible. And he was informed about these events at the last moment. Officials finally realized that Gapon was playing a double game and on January 8 decided to send large contingents of troops into the capital and blockade the city center; in the end, thousands of people finally broke through to the Winter Palace. Shooting was opened in different places of the city, and there were numerous casualties. Two days later, signed by the Minister of Internal Affairs P.N. Durnov and the Minister of Finance V.N. Kokotsov, a government message was published stating that during the events of January 9, 96 people were killed and 333 were injured. The enemies of the throne and the Dynasty overestimated the number of victims many times over and spoke (and still write) about “thousands of those killed.”

Bloody Sunday happened. There were many to blame and many victims. The Tsar, who was in Tsarskoye Selo, learned about what had happened and was bitterly worried. He fired the chief of the St. Petersburg police and the minister of internal affairs. But this satisfied few people. The negative psychological impact of the January 9 event was enormous. Those who dreamed of destruction were the winners. Radicals of all stripes in their merciless political game received such a “trump card” that they could not even dream of.

On the other hand, during the period of abdication, there were many devoted subjects, and the Guards Regiment stood ready, as soon as the command was given. At that time they tried to make him extreme. The Emperor was upset. “What a shame! During the war, when Russia strains all its strength to achieve victory over the damned Teutons, there are people who betray their duty. And what has it come to: soldiers of HIS army are taking part in outrageous anti-government protests, an army preparing for a decisive offensive against the enemy! Of course, it’s difficult for many people right now. This is understandable. But the successful end of the war is the sacred duty of every truly Russian. The blessing of the Lord is on our side, and victory is near! And suddenly these outrageous riots. They please only external and internal enemies!”

There was another option. Lieutenant General Ruzsky urged him to accept the following formula: the sovereign reigns, and the government governs. But Nikolai Alexandrovich objected that this formula was incomprehensible to him, that he had to get a different upbringing and be reborn, that he “does not hold on to power, but only cannot make a decision against his conscience and, having abdicated responsibility for the course of affairs before people, cannot abdicate responsibility before God”.

And yet, in order to avoid bloodshed, he took this step. And most importantly, the emperor was guided with your conscience, which is almost absent among the current ones. And certainly none of the real rulers and officials is guided by it. After all, if a person is guided by his conscience, then he has only one choice, but when people are guided by their carnal mind, any action and even a crime can be justified.

And after his renunciation, he showed the highest restraint, self-sacrifice and humility. “What a difficult time we are going through! How inexpressibly bitter it is to recognize the abnormal situation in which we all find ourselves. He always protected not just autocratic power, but Russia, and where is the confidence that a change of government will give peace and happiness to the people? But God was pleased to send This is a new test, and we must humbly submit to His holy will! In the name of peace and prosperity, we must agree with the demand of the Duma. There are so few faithful, reliable people to rely on, and no one to ask for advice.”

But self-sacrifice is the highest love for humanity. And today, the highest love is manifested by the shameless use of the most advanced technical achievements to destroy all living things.

All situations that people find themselves in are necessary to learn important lessons. And the most important lesson is to learn to make decisions, guided by the voice of your heart, where a particle of God lives, and not by the carnal evil mind, which, alas, is used by all the politicians of our world. After all, a person in whose heart God resides will never allow himself to harm another person.

So who did Nicholas II become when he knew about the death that lay ahead for him and his children? After all, he could have saved his life and fled abroad. Is he dead? No, he did not become a dead man, he became an Ascended Master. “I consciously took upon myself this cross, this crucifixion. The hardest thing was to overcome the resistance of the part of me that tried to save the children at any cost. But I sacrificed my children. Just like Abraham was ready to sacrifice his son. Until the last moment, I hoped that the Lord would take away the hand of fate, if not from me, then from my children. But, no. Something terrible happened.

The holy innocents were martyred. And this moment served as a signal for the most evil forces of darkness to crawl out of the corners and rush to power. All the darkness came out. Everything that used to try to maintain decency and hide in the corners came out. It was an orgy of evil spirits. And this bacchanalia continues to this day. I could resist. I could save my family, and we could all stay alive. But what is the point of my life without Russia? I chose the path of giving up the fight. Non-violence. I chose the path of Christ and allowed myself and my entire family to be crucified. I became an Ascended Master, I achieved my ascension. And if my life were to repeat itself again, I would again choose the crucifixion for myself and for my family. You know that Jesus, by his martyrdom, took upon himself the karma of humanity. He suffered for the sins of people. All saints at all times took upon themselves the sins of humanity, part of the planetary karma, in order to lighten the load, and so that humanity could straighten up and look at Heaven.”

Who are today's “living” people? Those in whose hands all power is concentrated in almost all countries, both financial and political, but who do not have God in their hearts. They died long ago, their Higher Self does not work, the connection with it is interrupted. And after the death of the physical body, there will be nothing left to evolve, they will become larvae. So is it worth relying on these living dead flickering on TV screens, who use the limitations of human consciousness to assert their power through the introduction of laws, rules and religious dogmas that are inconvenient for people?

“Stop looking to the West. Stop taking samples that are not only not useful, but also harmful. Very soon, the peoples of the entire globe will listen with surprise and look closely at the changes that are taking place in Russia. Changes in this country will not come from the authorities, not from politicians and economists, changes in this country will come from the hearts of the people, and these changes will be impossible not to notice.” Mother Maria.

And if you see hope in someone, if you see that they have not yet completely dried up, if you still hope for them, then learn not to have any negative feelings against them. They are dead and do not know love. Send them, the president of the country, your love. Pray that their hearts will open so that they will be able to receive Divine wisdom into their hearts.

When writing the article, materials from the book “Nicholas II” by Alexander Bokhanov from the ZhZL series (1997) were used.

Remember that even if you suffer a visible defeat on the physical plane, you win gigantic victories on the subtle plane. You are immortal. And by sacrificing your physical body, you only affirm Life. You affirm the principles of Good and Light on this planet.