Dedicated to the centenary of revolutionary events.

Not a single Russian tsar has had as many myths created as about the last one, Nicholas II. What really happened? Was the sovereign a sluggish and weak-willed person? Was he cruel? Could he have won the First World War? And how much truth is there in the black fabrications about this ruler?..

The story is told by Gleb Eliseev, candidate of historical sciences.

The Black Legend of Nicholas II

Rally in Petrograd, 1917

17 years have already passed since the canonization of the last emperor and his family, but you are still faced with an amazing paradox - many, even quite Orthodox, people dispute the fairness of canonizing Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich.

No one raises any protests or doubts about the legitimacy of the canonization of the son and daughters of the last Russian emperor. I have not heard any objections to the canonization of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. Even at the Council of Bishops in 2000, when it came to the canonization of the Royal Martyrs, a special opinion was expressed only regarding the sovereign himself. One of the bishops said that the emperor did not deserve to be glorified, because “he is a state traitor... he, one might say, sanctioned the collapse of the country.”

And it is clear that in such a situation the spears are not broken at all over the martyrdom or Christian life of Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich. Neither one nor the other raises doubts even among the most rabid monarchy denier. His feat as a passion-bearer is beyond doubt.

The point is different - a latent, subconscious resentment: “Why did the sovereign allow a revolution to happen? Why didn’t you save Russia?” Or, as A. I. Solzhenitsyn so neatly put it in his article “Reflections on the February Revolution”: “Weak tsar, he betrayed us. All of us - for everything that follows."

The myth of the weak king, who supposedly voluntarily surrendered his kingdom, obscures his martyrdom and obscures the demonic cruelty of his tormentors. But what could the sovereign do in the current circumstances, when Russian society, like a herd of Gadarene pigs, was rushing into the abyss for decades?

Studying the history of Nicholas's reign, one is struck not by the weakness of the sovereign, not by his mistakes, but by how much he managed to do in an atmosphere of whipped-up hatred, malice and slander.

We must not forget that the sovereign received autocratic power over Russia completely unexpectedly, after the sudden, unforeseen and unanticipated death of Alexander III. Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich recalled the state of the heir to the throne immediately after his father’s death: “He could not gather his thoughts. He was aware that he had become the Emperor, and this terrible burden of power crushed him. “Sandro, what am I going to do! - he exclaimed pathetically. - What will happen to Russia now? I am not yet prepared to be a King! I can't rule the Empire. I don’t even know how to talk to ministers.”

However, after a brief period of confusion, the new emperor firmly took the helm of government and held it for twenty-two years, until he fell victim to a conspiracy at the top. Until “treason, cowardice, and deception” swirled around him in a dense cloud, as he himself noted in his diary on March 2, 1917.

The black mythology directed against the last sovereign was actively dispelled by both emigrant historians and modern Russian ones. And yet, in the minds of many, including fully churchgoers, of our fellow citizens, evil tales, gossip and anecdotes, which were presented as truth in Soviet history textbooks, stubbornly linger.

The myth of the guilt of Nicholas II in the Khodynka tragedy

It is tacitly customary to start any list of accusations with Khodynka - a terrible stampede that occurred during the coronation celebrations in Moscow on May 18, 1896. You might think that the sovereign ordered this stampede to be organized! And if anyone is to be blamed for what happened, then it would be the emperor’s uncle, Moscow Governor-General Sergei Alexandrovich, who did not foresee the very possibility of such an influx of public. It should be noted that they did not hide what happened, all the newspapers wrote about Khodynka, all of Russia knew about her. The next day, the Russian emperor and empress visited all the wounded in hospitals and held a memorial service for the dead. Nicholas II ordered the payment of pensions to the victims. And they received it until 1917, until politicians, who had been speculating on the Khodynka tragedy for years, made it so that any pensions in Russia ceased to be paid at all.

And the slander that has been repeated for years sounds absolutely vile, that the tsar, despite the Khodynka tragedy, went to the ball and had fun there. The sovereign was indeed forced to go to an official reception at the French embassy, ​​which he could not help but attend for diplomatic reasons (an insult to the allies!), paid his respects to the ambassador and left, having spent only 15 (!) minutes there.

And from this they created a myth about a heartless despot, having fun while his subjects die. This is where the absurd nickname “Bloody”, created by radicals and picked up by the educated public, came from.

The myth of the monarch's guilt in starting the Russo-Japanese War

The Emperor bids farewell to the soldiers of the Russo-Japanese War. 1904

They say that the sovereign pushed Russia into the Russo-Japanese War because the autocracy needed a “small victorious war.”

Unlike the “educated” Russian society, which was confident in the inevitable victory and contemptuously called the Japanese “macaques,” the emperor knew very well all the difficulties of the situation in the Far East and tried with all his might to prevent war. And we must not forget - it was Japan that attacked Russia in 1904. Treacherously, without declaring war, the Japanese attacked our ships in Port Arthur.

For the defeats of the Russian army and navy in the Far East, one can blame Kuropatkin, Rozhdestvensky, Stessel, Linevich, Nebogatov, and any of the generals and admirals, but not the sovereign, who was located thousands of miles from the theater of military operations and nevertheless did everything for victories.

For example, the fact that by the end of the war there were 20, and not 4, military trains per day along the unfinished Trans-Siberian Railway (as at the beginning) is the merit of Nicholas II himself.

And our revolutionary society “fought” on the Japanese side, which needed not victory, but defeat, which its representatives themselves honestly admitted. For example, representatives of the Socialist Revolutionary Party clearly wrote in their appeal to Russian officers: “Every victory of yours threatens Russia with the disaster of strengthening order, every defeat brings the hour of deliverance closer. Is it any surprise if the Russians rejoice at the success of your enemy?” Revolutionaries and liberals diligently stirred up trouble in the rear of the warring country, doing this, among other things, with Japanese money. This is now well known.

The Myth of Bloody Sunday

For decades, the standard accusation against the Tsar remained “Bloody Sunday” - the shooting of a supposedly peaceful demonstration on January 9, 1905. Why, they say, didn’t he leave the Winter Palace and fraternize with the people loyal to him?

Let's start with the simplest fact - the sovereign was not in Winter, he was at his country residence, in Tsarskoe Selo. He did not intend to come to the city, since both the mayor I. A. Fullon and the police authorities assured the emperor that they “had everything under control.” By the way, they didn’t deceive Nicholas II too much. In a normal situation, troops deployed to the streets would be enough to prevent unrest.

No one foresaw the scale of the January 9 demonstration, as well as the activities of the provocateurs. When Socialist Revolutionary militants began shooting at soldiers from the crowd of supposedly “peaceful demonstrators,” it was not difficult to foresee retaliatory actions. From the very beginning, the organizers of the demonstration planned a clash with the authorities, and not a peaceful march. They did not need political reforms, they needed “great upheavals.”

But what does the sovereign himself have to do with it? During the entire revolution of 1905–1907, he sought to find contact with Russian society and made specific and sometimes even overly bold reforms (like the provisions according to which the first State Dumas were elected). And what did he receive in response? Spitting and hatred, calls “Down with autocracy!” and encouraging bloody riots.

However, the revolution was not “crushed.” The rebellious society was pacified by the sovereign, who skillfully combined the use of force and new, more thoughtful reforms (the electoral law of June 3, 1907, according to which Russia finally received a normally functioning parliament).

The myth of how the Tsar “surrendered” Stolypin

They reproach the sovereign for allegedly insufficient support for “Stolypin’s reforms.” But who made Pyotr Arkadyevich prime minister, if not Nicholas II himself? Contrary, by the way, to the opinion of the court and immediate circle. And if there were moments of misunderstanding between the sovereign and the head of the cabinet, then they are inevitable in any intense and complex work. Stolypin's supposedly planned resignation did not mean a rejection of his reforms.

The myth of Rasputin's omnipotence

Tales about the last sovereign are not complete without constant stories about the “dirty man” Rasputin, who enslaved the “weak-willed tsar.” Now, after many objective investigations of the “Rasputin legend”, among which “The Truth about Grigory Rasputin” by A. N. Bokhanov stands out as fundamental, it is clear that the influence of the Siberian elder on the emperor was negligible. And the fact that the sovereign “did not remove Rasputin from the throne”? Where could he remove it from? From the bedside of his sick son, whom Rasputin saved when all the doctors had already given up on Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich? Let everyone think for themselves: is he ready to sacrifice the life of a child for the sake of stopping public gossip and hysterical newspaper chatter?

The myth of the sovereign’s guilt in the “misconduct” of the First World War

Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II. Photo by R. Golike and A. Vilborg. 1913

Emperor Nicholas II is also reproached for not preparing Russia for the First World War. The public figure I. L. Solonevich wrote most clearly about the efforts of the sovereign to prepare the Russian army for a possible war and about the sabotage of his efforts on the part of the “educated society”: “The “Duma of People’s Wrath”, as well as its subsequent reincarnation, rejects military loans: We are democrats and we don’t want militarism. Nicholas II arms the army by violating the spirit of the Basic Laws: in accordance with Article 86. This article provides for the right of the government, in exceptional cases and during parliamentary recess, to pass temporary laws without parliament - so that they are retroactively introduced at the very first parliamentary session. The Duma was dissolving (holidays), loans for machine guns went through even without the Duma. And when the session began, nothing could be done.”

And again, unlike ministers or military leaders (like Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich), the sovereign did not want war, he tried to delay it with all his might, knowing about the insufficient preparedness of the Russian army. For example, he directly spoke about this to the Russian ambassador to Bulgaria Neklyudov: “Now, Neklyudov, listen to me carefully. Do not forget for one minute the fact that we cannot fight. I don't want war. I have made it my immutable rule to do everything to preserve for my people all the advantages of a peaceful life. At this moment in history, it is necessary to avoid anything that could lead to war. There is no doubt that we cannot get involved in a war - at least for the next five or six years - until 1917. Although, if the vital interests and honor of Russia are at stake, we will be able, if absolutely necessary, to accept the challenge, but not before 1915. But remember - not one minute earlier, whatever the circumstances or reasons and whatever position we are in.”

Of course, many things in the First World War did not go as the participants planned. But why should these troubles and surprises be blamed on the sovereign, who at the beginning was not even the commander-in-chief? Could he have personally prevented the “Samson catastrophe”? Or the breakthrough of the German cruisers Goeben and Breslau into the Black Sea, after which plans to coordinate the actions of the Allies in the Entente went up in smoke?

When the will of the emperor could correct the situation, the sovereign did not hesitate, despite the objections of ministers and advisers. In 1915, the threat of such complete defeat loomed over the Russian army that its Commander-in-Chief, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, literally sobbed in despair. It was then that Nicholas II took the most decisive step - he not only stood at the head of the Russian army, but also stopped the retreat, which threatened to turn into a stampede.

The Emperor did not consider himself a great commander; he knew how to listen to the opinions of military advisers and choose successful solutions for the Russian troops. According to his instructions, the work of the rear was established; according to his instructions, new and even cutting-edge equipment was adopted (like Sikorsky bombers or Fedorov assault rifles). And if in 1914 the Russian military industry produced 104,900 shells, then in 1916 - 30,974,678! So much military equipment was prepared that it was enough for five years of the Civil War, and for arming the Red Army in the first half of the twenties.

In 1917, Russia, under the military leadership of its emperor, was ready for victory. Many people wrote about this, even W. Churchill, who was always skeptical and cautious about Russia: “Fate has never been as cruel to any country as to Russia. Her ship sank while the harbor was in sight. She had already weathered the storm when everything collapsed. All the sacrifices have already been made, all the work has been completed. Despair and betrayal took over the government when the task was already completed. The long retreats are over; shell hunger is defeated; weapons flowed in a wide stream; a stronger, more numerous, better equipped army guarded a huge front; the rear assembly points were crowded with people... In the management of states, when great events happen, the leader of the nation, whoever he is, is condemned for failures and glorified for successes. The point is not who did the work, who drew up the plan of struggle; blame or praise for the outcome falls on the one who has the authority of supreme responsibility. Why deny Nicholas II this ordeal?.. His efforts are downplayed; His actions are condemned; His memory is being defamed... Stop and say: who else turned out to be suitable? There was no shortage of talented and courageous people, ambitious and proud in spirit, courageous and powerful people. But no one was able to answer those few simple questions on which the life and glory of Russia depended. Holding victory already in her hands, she fell to the ground alive, like Herod of old, devoured by worms.”

At the beginning of 1917, the sovereign really failed to cope with the joint conspiracy of the top military and the leaders of opposition political forces.

And who could? It was beyond human strength.

The myth of voluntary renunciation

And yet, the main thing that even many monarchists accuse Nicholas II of is precisely renunciation, “moral desertion,” “flight from office.” The fact that he, according to the poet A. A. Blok, “renounced, as if he had surrendered the squadron.”

Now, again, after the scrupulous work of modern researchers, it becomes clear that there is no voluntary there was no abdication. Instead, a real coup took place. Or, as the historian and publicist M.V. Nazarov aptly noted, it was not “renunciation,” but “renunciation” that took place.

Even in the darkest Soviet times, they did not deny that the events of February 23 - March 2, 1917 at the Tsarist Headquarters and in the headquarters of the commander of the Northern Front were a coup at the top, “fortunately”, coinciding with the beginning of the “February bourgeois revolution”, launched (of course Well!) by the forces of the St. Petersburg proletariat.

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.

With the riots in St. Petersburg fueled by the Bolshevik underground, everything is now clear. The conspirators only took advantage of this circumstance, exorbitantly exaggerating its significance, in order to lure the sovereign out of Headquarters, depriving him of contact with any loyal units and the government. And when the royal train, with great difficulty, reached Pskov, where the headquarters of General N.V. Ruzsky, commander of the Northern Front and one of the active conspirators, was located, the emperor was completely blocked and deprived of communication with the outside world.

In fact, General Ruzsky arrested the royal train and the emperor himself. And cruel psychological pressure began on the sovereign. Nicholas II was begged to give up power, which he never aspired to. Moreover, this was done not only by Duma deputies Guchkov and Shulgin, but also by the commanders of all (!) fronts and almost all fleets (with the exception of Admiral A.V. Kolchak). The Emperor was told that his decisive step would be able to prevent unrest and bloodshed, that this would immediately put an end to the St. Petersburg unrest...

Now we know very well that the sovereign was basely deceived. What could he have thought then? At the forgotten Dno station or on the sidings in Pskov, cut off from the rest of Russia? Didn’t you consider that it was better for a Christian to humbly cede royal power rather than shed the blood of his subjects?

But even under pressure from the conspirators, the emperor did not dare to go against the law and conscience. The manifesto he compiled clearly did not suit the envoys of the State Duma. The document, which was eventually published as a text of renunciation, raises doubts among a number of historians. Its original has not been preserved; only a copy is available in the Russian State Archive. There are reasonable assumptions that the sovereign's signature was copied from the order on the assumption of supreme command by Nicholas II in 1915. The signature of the Minister of the Court, Count V.B. Fredericks, who allegedly certified the abdication, was also forged. Which, by the way, the count himself clearly spoke about later, on June 2, 1917, during interrogation: “But for me to write such a thing, I can swear that I would not do it.”

And already in St. Petersburg, the deceived and confused Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich did something that, in principle, he had no right to do - he transferred power to the Provisional Government. As A.I. Solzhenitsyn noted: “The end of the monarchy was the abdication of Mikhail. He is worse than abdicating: he blocked the path to all other possible heirs to the throne, he transferred power to an amorphous oligarchy. His abdication turned the change of monarch into a revolution.”

Usually, after statements about the illegal overthrow of the sovereign from the throne, both in scientific discussions and on the Internet, cries immediately begin: “Why didn’t Tsar Nicholas protest later? Why didn’t he expose the conspirators? Why didn’t you raise loyal troops and lead them against the rebels?”

That is, why didn’t he start a civil war?

Yes, because the sovereign did not want her. Because he hoped that by leaving he would calm down the new unrest, believing that the whole point was the possible hostility of society towards him personally. After all, he, too, could not help but succumb to the hypnosis of the anti-state, anti-monarchist hatred to which Russia had been subjected for years. As A. I. Solzhenitsyn correctly wrote about the “liberal-radical Field” that engulfed the empire: “For many years (decades) this Field flowed unhindered, its lines of force thickened - and penetrated and subjugated all the brains in the country, at least in some way touched enlightenment, at least the beginnings of it. It almost completely controlled the intelligentsia. More rare, but permeated by its power lines were state and official circles, the military, and even the priesthood, the episcopate (the entire Church as a whole is already... powerless against this Field), and even those who fought most against the Field: the most right-wing circles and the throne itself."

And did these troops loyal to the emperor exist in reality? After all, even Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich on March 1, 1917 (that is, before the formal abdication of the sovereign) transferred the Guards crew subordinate to him to the jurisdiction of the Duma conspirators and appealed to other military units to “join the new government”!

The attempt of Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich to prevent bloodshed by renouncing power, through voluntary self-sacrifice, ran into the evil will of tens of thousands of those who wanted not the pacification and victory of Russia, but blood, madness and the creation of “heaven on earth” for a “new man”, free from faith and conscience.

And even the defeated Christian sovereign was like a sharp knife in the throat of such “guardians of humanity.” He was intolerable, impossible.

They couldn't help but kill him.

The myth that the execution of the royal family was the arbitrariness of the Ural Regional Council

Emperor Nicholas II and Tsarevich Alexei
in the link. Tobolsk, 1917-1918

The more or less vegetarian, toothless early Provisional Government limited itself to the arrest of the emperor and his family, the socialist clique of Kerensky achieved the exile of the sovereign, his wife and children to. And for whole months, right up to the Bolshevik revolution, one can see how the dignified, purely Christian behavior of the emperor in exile contrasts with the evil vanity of the politicians of the “new Russia”, who sought “to begin with” to bring the sovereign into “political oblivion.”

And then an openly atheistic Bolshevik gang came to power, which decided to transform this non-existence from “political” into “physical”. After all, back in April 1917, Lenin declared: “We consider Wilhelm II to be the same crowned robber, worthy of execution, as Nicholas II.”

Only one thing is unclear - why did they hesitate? Why didn’t they try to destroy Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich immediately after the October Revolution?

Probably because they were afraid of popular indignation, afraid of public reaction with their still fragile power. Apparently, the unpredictable behavior of “abroad” was also frightening. In any case, the British Ambassador D. Buchanan warned the Provisional Government: “Any insult inflicted on the Emperor and His Family will destroy the sympathy aroused by March and the course of the revolution, and will humiliate the new government in the eyes of the world.” True, in the end it turned out that these were just “words, words, nothing but words.”

And yet there remains a feeling that, in addition to rational motives, there was some inexplicable, almost mystical fear of what the fanatics were planning to do.

After all, for some reason, years after the Yekaterinburg murder, rumors spread that only one sovereign was shot. Then they declared (even at a completely official level) that the Tsar’s killers were severely condemned for abuse of power. And later, for almost the entire Soviet period, the version about the “arbitrariness of the Yekaterinburg Council”, allegedly frightened by the white units approaching the city, was officially accepted. They say that so that the sovereign would not be released and become the “banner of the counter-revolution,” he had to be destroyed. The fog of fornication hid the secret, and the essence of the secret was a planned and clearly conceived savage murder.

Its exact details and background have not yet been clarified, the testimony of eyewitnesses is surprisingly confused, and even the discovered remains of the Royal Martyrs still raise doubts about their authenticity.

Now only a few unambiguous facts are clear.

On April 30, 1918, Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich, his wife Empress Alexandra Feodorovna and their daughter Maria were escorted from Tobolsk, where they had been in exile since August 1917, to Yekaterinburg. They were placed in custody in the former house of engineer N.N. Ipatiev, located on the corner of Voznesensky Prospekt. The remaining children of the Emperor and Empress - daughters Olga, Tatiana, Anastasia and son Alexei - were reunited with their parents only on May 23.

Was this an initiative of the Yekaterinburg Council, not coordinated with the Central Committee? Hardly. Judging by indirect evidence, at the beginning of July 1918, the top leadership of the Bolshevik party (primarily Lenin and Sverdlov) decided to “liquidate the royal family.”

Trotsky, for example, wrote about this in his memoirs:

“My next visit to Moscow came after the fall of Yekaterinburg. In a conversation with Sverdlov, I asked in passing:

Yes, where is the king?

“It’s over,” he answered, “he was shot.”

Where is the family?

And his family is with him.

All? - I asked, apparently with a tinge of surprise.

That’s it,” Sverdlov answered, “but what?”

He was waiting for my reaction. I didn't answer.

-Who decided? - I asked.

We decided here. Ilyich believed that we should not leave them a living banner, especially in the current difficult conditions.”

(L.D. Trotsky. Diaries and letters. M.: “Hermitage”, 1994. P.120. (Record dated April 9, 1935); Leon Trotsky. Diaries and letters. Edited by Yuri Felshtinsky. USA, 1986 , p.101.)

At midnight on July 17, 1918, the emperor, his wife, children and servants were awakened, taken to the basement and brutally killed. It is in the fact that they killed brutally and cruelly that all the eyewitness accounts, so different in other respects, amazingly coincide.

The bodies were secretly taken outside of Yekaterinburg and somehow tried to be destroyed. Everything that remained after the desecration of the bodies was buried just as secretly.

The Yekaterinburg victims had a presentiment of their fate, and it was not for nothing that Grand Duchess Tatyana Nikolaevna, during her imprisonment in Yekaterinburg, wrote out the lines in one of her books: “Those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ went to death as if on a holiday, facing inevitable death, they retained the same wonderful peace of mind , which did not leave them for a minute. They walked calmly towards death because they hoped to enter into a different, spiritual life, which opens up for a person beyond the grave.”

P.S. Sometimes they notice that “Tsar Nicholas II atoned for all his sins before Russia with his death.” In my opinion, this statement reveals some kind of blasphemous, immoral quirk of public consciousness. All the victims of the Yekaterinburg Golgotha ​​were “guilty” only of persistent confession of the faith of Christ until their death and died a martyr’s death.

And the first of them is the passion-bearer sovereign Nikolai Alexandrovich.

On the screensaver there is a fragment of a photo: Nicholas II on the imperial train. 1917

Nicholas II Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov
Coronation:
Predecessor:	Alexander III
Successor:	Mikhail Alexandrovich (did not accept the throne)
Heir:
Religion:	Orthodoxy
Birth:
Buried:	Secretly buried, presumably in the forest near the village of Koptyaki, Sverdlovsk region; in 1998, the alleged remains were reburied in the Peter and Paul Cathedral
Dynasty:	Romanovs
	Alexander III
	Maria Fedorovna
	Alice of Hesse (Alexandra Fedorovna)
	Daughters: Olga, Tatyana, Maria and Anastasia Son: Alexey
Autograph:
Monogram:

Names, titles, nicknames

First steps and coronation

Economic policy

Revolution of 1905-1907

Nicholas II and the Duma

Land reform

Military command reform

World War I

Probing the world

Fall of the Monarchy

Lifestyle, habits, hobbies

Russian

Foreign

After death

Assessment in Russian emigration

Official assessment in the USSR

Church veneration

Filmography

Film incarnations

Nicholas II Alexandrovich(May 6 (18), 1868, Tsarskoe Selo - July 17, 1918, Yekaterinburg) - the last Emperor of All Russia, Tsar of Poland and Grand Duke of Finland (October 20 (November 1), 1894 - March 2 (March 15), 1917). From the Romanov dynasty. Colonel (1892); in addition, from the British monarchs he had the ranks of: admiral of the fleet (May 28, 1908) and field marshal of the British army (December 18, 1915).

The reign of Nicholas II was marked by the economic development of Russia and at the same time by the growth of socio-political contradictions in it, the revolutionary movement, which resulted in the revolution of 1905-1907 and the revolution of 1917; in foreign policy - expansion in the Far East, the war with Japan, as well as Russia's participation in the military blocs of European powers and the First World War.

Nicholas II abdicated the throne during the February Revolution of 1917 and was under house arrest with his family in the Tsarskoye Selo palace. In the summer of 1917, by decision of the Provisional Government, he and his family were sent into exile in Tobolsk, and in the spring of 1918 he was moved by the Bolsheviks to Yekaterinburg, where he was shot along with his family and associates in July 1918.

Canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church as a passion-bearer in 2000.

Names, titles, nicknames

Titled from birth His Imperial Highness (Sovereign) Grand Duke Nikolai Alexandrovich. After the death of his grandfather, Emperor Alexander II, on March 1, 1881, he received the title of Heir to Tsesarevich.

The full title of Nicholas II as Emperor: “By the advancing grace of God, Nicholas II, Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod; Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Tsar of Poland, Tsar of Siberia, Tsar of Chersonese Tauride, Tsar of Georgia; Sovereign of Pskov and Grand Duke of Smolensk, Lithuania, Volyn, Podolsk and Finland; Prince of Estland, Livonia, Courland and Semigal, Samogit, Bialystok, Korel, Tver, Yugorsk, Perm, Vyatka, Bulgarian and others; Sovereign and Grand Duke of Novagorod of the Nizovsky lands?, Chernigov, Ryazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Belozersky, Udorsky, Obdorsky, Kondiysky, Vitebsk, Mstislavsky and all northern countries? Lord; and Sovereign of Iversk, Kartalinsky and Kabardian lands? and the region of Armenia; Cherkasy and Mountain Princes and other Hereditary Sovereign and Possessor, Sovereign of Turkestan; Heir of Norway, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Stormarn, Ditmarsen and Oldenburg, and so on, and so on, and so on.”

After the February Revolution, it began to be called Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov(previously, the surname “Romanov” was not indicated by members of the imperial house; membership in the family was indicated by the titles: Grand Duke, Emperor, Empress, Tsarevich, etc.).

In connection with the events on Khodynka and January 9, 1905, he was nicknamed “Nicholas the Bloody” by the radical opposition; appeared with this nickname in Soviet popular historiography. His wife privately called him “Niki” (communication between them was mainly in English).

The Caucasian highlanders who served in the Caucasian native cavalry division of the imperial army called Sovereign Nicholas II the “White Padishah,” thereby showing their respect and devotion to the Russian emperor.

Childhood, education and upbringing

Nicholas II is the eldest son of Emperor Alexander III and Empress Maria Feodorovna. Immediately after birth, on May 6, 1868, he was named Nikolai. The baby's baptism was performed by the confessor of the imperial family, Protopresbyter Vasily Bazhanov, in the Resurrection Church of the Great Tsarskoye Selo Palace on May 20 of the same year; the successors were: Alexander II, Queen Louise of Denmark, Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark, Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna.

In early childhood, the teacher of Nikolai and his brothers was the Englishman Karl Osipovich Heath, who lived in Russia ( Charles Heath, 1826-1900); General G. G. Danilovich was appointed his official tutor as his heir in 1877. Nikolai was educated at home as part of a large gymnasium course; in 1885-1890 - according to a specially written program that combined the course of the state and economic departments of the university's law faculty with the course of the Academy of the General Staff. The studies were conducted for 13 years: the first eight years were devoted to subjects of an extended gymnasium course, where special attention was paid to the study of political history, Russian literature, English, German and French (Nikolai Alexandrovich spoke English as a native); the next five years were devoted to the study of military affairs, legal and economic sciences necessary for a statesman. Lectures were given by world-famous scientists: N. N. Beketov, N. N. Obruchev, Ts. A. Cui, M. I. Dragomirov, N. H. Bunge, K. P. Pobedonostsev and others. Protopresbyter John Yanyshev taught the Tsarevich canon law in connection with the history of the church, the most important departments of theology and the history of religion.

On May 6, 1884, upon reaching adulthood (for the Heir), he took the oath in the Great Church of the Winter Palace, as announced by the Highest Manifesto. The first act published on his behalf was a rescript addressed to Moscow Governor-General V.A. Dolgorukov: 15 thousand rubles for distribution, at the discretion of that “among the residents of Moscow who most need help”

For the first two years, Nikolai served as a junior officer in the ranks of the Preobrazhensky Regiment. For two summer seasons he served in the ranks of a cavalry hussar regiment as a squadron commander, and then did a camp training in the ranks of the artillery. On August 6, 1892 he was promoted to colonel. At the same time, his father introduces him to the affairs of governing the country, inviting him to participate in meetings of the State Council and the Cabinet of Ministers. At the suggestion of the Minister of Railways S. Yu. Witte, Nikolai in 1892, in order to gain experience in government affairs, was appointed chairman of the committee for the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway. By the age of 23, the Heir was a man who had received extensive information in various fields of knowledge.

The educational program included travel to various provinces of Russia, which he made together with his father. To complete his education, his father gave him a cruiser to travel to the Far East. In nine months, he and his retinue visited Austria-Hungary, Greece, Egypt, India, China, Japan, and later returned to the capital of Russia by land through all of Siberia. In Japan, an attempt was made on Nicholas's life (see Otsu Incident). A shirt with blood stains is kept in the Hermitage.

Opposition politician, member of the State Duma of the first convocation V.P. Obninsky, in his anti-monarchist essay “The Last Autocrat,” argued that Nicholas “at one time stubbornly refused the throne,” but was forced to yield to the demands of Alexander III and “sign a manifesto on his accession during his father’s lifetime.” to the throne."

Accession to the throne and beginning of reign

First steps and coronation

A few days after the death of Alexander III (October 20, 1894) and his accession to the throne (the Highest Manifesto was published on October 21; on the same day the oath was taken by dignitaries, officials, courtiers and troops), on November 14, 1894 in the Great Church of the Winter Palace married to Alexandra Fedorovna; the honeymoon took place in an atmosphere of funeral services and mourning visits.

One of the first personnel decisions of Emperor Nicholas II was the dismissal of the conflict-ridden I.V. in December 1894. Gurko from the post of Governor-General of the Kingdom of Poland and the appointment in February 1895 of A.B. to the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs. Lobanov-Rostovsky - after the death of N.K. Girsa.

As a result of the exchange of notes dated February 27 (March 11), 1895, “the delimitation of the spheres of influence of Russia and Great Britain in the Pamir region, east of Lake Zor-Kul (Victoria)” was established along the Pyanj River; The Pamir volost became part of the Osh district of the Fergana region; The Vakhan ridge on Russian maps received the designation Ridge of Emperor Nicholas II. The first major international act of the emperor was the Triple Intervention - a simultaneous (April 11 (23) 1895), on the initiative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, presentation (together with Germany and France) of demands for Japan to reconsider the terms of the Shimonoseki Peace Treaty with China, renouncing claims to the Liaodong Peninsula .

The first public appearance of the Emperor in St. Petersburg was his speech, delivered on January 17, 1895 in the Nicholas Hall of the Winter Palace before deputations of the nobility, zemstvos and cities who arrived “to express loyal feelings to Their Majesties and bring congratulations on the Marriage”; The delivered text of the speech (the speech was written in advance, but the emperor pronounced it only from time to time looking at the paper) read: “I know that recently in some zemstvo meetings the voices of people have been heard who were carried away by meaningless dreams about the participation of zemstvo representatives in the affairs of internal government. Let everyone know that I, devoting all My strength to the good of the people, will protect the beginning of autocracy as firmly and unswervingly as My unforgettable, late Parent guarded it.” In connection with the Tsar’s speech, Chief Prosecutor K.P. Pobedonostsev wrote to Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich on February 2 of the same year: “After the Tsar’s speech, excitement continues with chatter of all kinds. I don’t hear her, but they tell me that everywhere among the youth and intelligentsia there is talk of some kind of irritation against the young Sovereign. Yesterday Maria Al came to see me. Meshcherskaya (ur. Panina), who came here for a short time from the village. She is indignant at all the speeches she hears about this in living rooms. But the Tsar’s word made a beneficial impression on ordinary people and villages. Many deputies, coming here, were expecting God knows what, and when they heard, they breathed freely. But how sad it is that in the upper circles there is absurd irritation. I am sure, unfortunately, that the majority of members of the government. The Council is critical of the Sovereign's action and, alas, so are some ministers! God knows what? was in people's heads before this day, and what expectations had grown... It is true that they gave a reason for this... Many straightforward Russian people were positively confused by the awards announced on January 1st. It turned out that the new Sovereign, from the first step, distinguished those very people whom the deceased considered dangerous. All this inspires fear for the future. “In the early 1910s, a representative of the left wing of the Cadets, V.P. Obninsky, wrote about the tsar’s speech in his anti-monarchist essay: “They assured that the word “unrealizable” was in the text. But be that as it may, it served as the beginning not only of a general cooling towards Nicholas, but also laid the foundation for the future liberation movement, uniting zemstvo leaders and instilling in them a more decisive course of action. The speech on January 17, 95 can be considered Nicholas’s first step down an inclined plane, along which he continues to roll to this day, descending ever lower in the opinion of both his subjects and the entire civilized world. “Historian S.S. Oldenburg wrote about the speech of January 17: “Russian educated society, for the most part, accepted this speech as a challenge to itself. The speech of January 17 dispelled the hopes of the intelligentsia for the possibility of constitutional reforms from above. In this regard, it served as the starting point for a new growth of revolutionary agitation, for which funds again began to be found.”

The coronation of the emperor and his wife took place on May 14 (26), 1896 ( about the victims of coronation celebrations in Moscow, see the article by Khodynka). In the same year, the All-Russian Industrial and Art Exhibition was held in Nizhny Novgorod, which he attended.

In April 1896, the Russian government formally recognized the Bulgarian government of Prince Ferdinand. In 1896, Nicholas II also made a big trip to Europe, meeting with Franz Joseph, Wilhelm II, Queen Victoria (Alexandra Feodorovna's grandmother); The end of the trip was his arrival in the capital of the allied France, Paris. By the time of his arrival in Britain in September 1896, there had been a sharp deterioration in relations between London and the Porte, formally associated with the massacre of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, and a simultaneous rapprochement between St. Petersburg and Constantinople; guest? at Queen Victoria's in Balmoral, Nicholas, having agreed to jointly develop a project of reforms in the Ottoman Empire, rejected the proposals made to him by the English government to remove Sultan Abdul Hamid, retain Egypt for England, and in return receive some concessions on the issue of the Straits. Arriving in Paris in early October of the same year, Nicholas approved joint instructions to the ambassadors of Russia and France in Constantinople (which the Russian government had categorically refused until that time), approved French proposals on the Egyptian issue (which included “guarantees of neutralization of the Suez Canal” - a goal which was previously outlined for Russian diplomacy by Foreign Minister Lobanov-Rostovsky, who died on August 30, 1896). The Paris agreements of the tsar, who was accompanied on the trip by N.P. Shishkin, aroused sharp objections from Sergei Witte, Lamzdorf, Ambassador Nelidov and others; however, by the end of the same year, Russian diplomacy returned to its previous course: strengthening the alliance with France, pragmatic cooperation with Germany on certain issues, freezing the Eastern Question (that is, supporting the Sultan and opposition to England’s plans in Egypt). It was ultimately decided to abandon the plan for landing Russian troops on the Bosphorus (under a certain scenario) approved at a meeting of ministers on December 5, 1896, chaired by the Tsar. During 1897, 3 heads of state arrived in St. Petersburg to pay a visit to the Russian Emperor: Franz Joseph, Wilhelm II, French President Felix Faure; During the visit of Franz Josef, an agreement was concluded between Russia and Austria for 10 years.

The Manifesto of February 3 (15), 1899 on the order of legislation in the Grand Duchy of Finland was perceived by the population of the Grand Duchy as an encroachment on its rights of autonomy and caused mass discontent and protests

The manifesto of June 28, 1899 (published on June 30) announced the death of the same June 28 “Heir to the Tsarevich and Grand Duke George Alexandrovich” (the oath to the latter, as the heir to the throne, was previously taken along with the oath to Nicholas) and read further: “From now on, until The Lord is not yet pleased to bless Us with the birth of a Son; the immediate right of succession to the All-Russian Throne, on the exact basis of the main State Law on Succession to the Throne, belongs to Our Most Dear Brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich.” The absence in the Manifesto of the words “Heir Tsarevich” in the title of Mikhail Alexandrovich aroused bewilderment in court circles, which prompted the emperor to issue a Personal Highest Decree on July 7 of the same year, which ordered the latter to be called “Sovereign Heir and Grand Duke.”

Economic policy

According to the first general census conducted in January 1897, the population of the Russian Empire was 125 million people; Of these, 84 million had Russian as their native language; 21% of the Russian population were literate, and 34% of people aged 10-19 years.

In January of the same year, a monetary reform was carried out, establishing the gold standard of the ruble. The transition to the gold ruble, among other things, was a devaluation of the national currency: on imperials of the previous weight and fineness it was now written “15 rubles” - instead of 10; However, the stabilization of the ruble at the “two-thirds” rate, contrary to forecasts, was successful and without shocks.

Much attention was paid to the work issue. In factories with more than 100 workers, free medical care was introduced, covering 70 percent of the total number of factory workers (1898). In June 1903, the Rules on Remuneration for Victims of Industrial Accidents were approved by the Highest, obliging the entrepreneur to pay benefits and pensions to the victim or his family in the amount of 50-66 percent of the victim’s maintenance. In 1906, workers' trade unions were created in the country. The law of June 23, 1912 introduced compulsory insurance of workers against illnesses and accidents in Russia. On June 2, 1897, a law was issued to limit working hours, which established a maximum limit of the working day of no more than 11.5 hours on ordinary days, and 10 hours on Saturdays and holidays, or if at least part of the working day fell at night.

A special tax on landowners of Polish origin in the Western Region, introduced as punishment for the Polish uprising of 1863, was abolished. By decree of June 12, 1900, exile to Siberia as a punishment was abolished.

The reign of Nicholas II was a period of relatively high rates of economic growth: in 1885-1913, the growth rate of agricultural production averaged 2%, and the growth rate of industrial production was 4.5-5% per year. Coal production in the Donbass increased from 4.8 million tons in 1894 to 24 million tons in 1913. Coal mining began in the Kuznetsk coal basin. Oil production developed in the vicinity of Baku, Grozny and Emba.

The construction of railways continued, the total length of which, amounting to 44 thousand kilometers in 1898, by 1913 exceeded 70 thousand kilometers. In terms of the total length of railways, Russia surpassed any other European country and was second only to the United States. In terms of output of the main types of industrial products per capita, Russia in 1913 was a neighbor of Spain.

Foreign policy and the Russo-Japanese War

The historian Oldenburg, while in exile, argued in his apologetic work that back in 1895 the emperor foresaw the possibility of a clash with Japan for dominance in the Far East, and therefore was preparing for this struggle - both diplomatically and militarily. From the tsar's resolution on April 2, 1895, at the report of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, his desire for further Russian expansion in the Southeast (Korea) was clear.

On June 3, 1896, a Russian-Chinese agreement on a military alliance against Japan was concluded in Moscow; China agreed to the construction of a railway through Northern Manchuria to Vladivostok, the construction and operation of which was provided to the Russian-Chinese Bank. On September 8, 1896, a concession agreement was signed between the Chinese government and the Russian-Chinese Bank for the construction of the Chinese Eastern Railway (CER). On March 15 (27), 1898, Russia and China signed the Russian-Chinese Convention of 1898 in Beijing, according to which Russia was granted lease use for 25 years of the ports of Port Arthur (Lushun) and Dalniy (Dalian) with adjacent territories and waters; In addition, the Chinese government agreed to extend the concession it granted to the CER Society for the construction of a railway line (South Manchurian Railway) from one of the points of the CER to Dalniy and Port Arthur.

In 1898, Nicholas II turned to the governments of Europe with proposals to sign agreements on maintaining world peace and establishing limits to the constant growth of armaments. The Hague Peace Conferences took place in 1899 and 1907, some of whose decisions are still in effect today (in particular, the Permanent Court of Arbitration was created in The Hague).

In 1900, Nicholas II sent Russian troops to suppress the Yihetuan uprising together with the troops of other European powers, Japan and the United States.

Russia's lease of the Liaodong Peninsula, the construction of the Chinese Eastern Railway and the establishment of a naval base in Port Arthur, and Russia's growing influence in Manchuria clashed with the aspirations of Japan, which also laid claim to Manchuria.

On January 24, 1904, the Japanese ambassador presented the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs V.N. Lamzdorf with a note, which announced the termination of negotiations, which Japan considered “useless,” and the severance of diplomatic relations with Russia; Japan recalled its diplomatic mission from St. Petersburg and reserved the right to resort to “independent actions” as it deemed necessary to protect its interests. On the evening of January 26, the Japanese fleet attacked the Port Arthur squadron without declaring war. The highest manifesto, given by Nicholas II on January 27, 1904, declared war on Japan.

The border battle on the Yalu River was followed by battles at Liaoyang, the Shahe River and Sandepu. After a major battle in February - March 1905, the Russian army abandoned Mukden.

The outcome of the war was decided by the naval battle of Tsushima in May 1905, which ended in the complete defeat of the Russian fleet. On May 23, 1905, the Emperor received, through the US Ambassador in St. Petersburg, a proposal from President T. Roosevelt for mediation to conclude peace. The difficult situation of the Russian government after the Russo-Japanese War prompted German diplomacy to make another attempt in July 1905 to tear Russia away from France and conclude a Russian-German alliance: Wilhelm II invited Nicholas II to meet in July 1905 in the Finnish skerries, near the island of Bjorke. Nikolai agreed and signed the agreement at the meeting; Having returned to St. Petersburg, he abandoned it, since on August 23 (September 5), 1905, a peace treaty was signed in Portsmouth by Russian representatives S. Yu. Witte and R. R. Rosen. Under the terms of the latter, Russia recognized Korea as Japan's sphere of influence, ceded to Japan Southern Sakhalin and the rights to the Liaodong Peninsula with the cities of Port Arthur and Dalniy.

American researcher of the era T. Dennett stated in 1925: “Few people now believe that Japan was deprived of the fruits of its upcoming victories. The opposite opinion prevails. Many believe that Japan was already exhausted by the end of May, and that only the conclusion of peace saved her from collapse or complete defeat in a clash with Russia.”

Defeat in the Russo-Japanese War (the first in half a century) and the subsequent suppression of the Troubles of 1905-1907. (later aggravated by the appearance of Rasputin at court) led to a decline in the authority of the emperor in ruling and intellectual circles.

The German journalist G. Ganz, who lived in St. Petersburg during the war, noted the defeatist position of a significant part of the nobility and intelligentsia in relation to the war: “The common secret prayer of not only liberals, but also many moderate conservatives at that time was: “God, help us to be defeated.” "

Revolution of 1905-1907

With the beginning of the Russo-Japanese War, Nicholas II made some concessions to liberal circles: after the murder of the Minister of Internal Affairs V.K. Plehve by a Socialist Revolutionary militant, he appointed P.D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky, who was considered a liberal, to his post; On December 12, 1904, the Supreme Decree was given to the Senate “On plans for improving the State order,” which promised the expansion of the rights of zemstvos, insurance of workers, emancipation of foreigners and people of other faiths, and the elimination of censorship. When discussing the text of the Decree of December 12, 1904, he, however, privately told Count Witte (according to the latter’s memoirs): “I will never, under any circumstances, agree to a representative form of government, because I consider it harmful for the people entrusted to me by God. »

On January 6, 1905 (the feast of Epiphany), during the blessing of water in Jordan (on the ice of the Neva), in front of the Winter Palace, in the presence of the emperor and members of his family, at the very beginning of the singing of the troparion, a shot was heard from a gun, which accidentally (according to the official version ) there was a charge of buckshot left after the exercise on January 4th. Most of the bullets hit the ice next to the royal pavilion and the facade of the palace, in 4 of whose windows the glass was broken. In connection with the incident, the editor of the synodal publication wrote that “one cannot help but see something special” in the fact that only one policeman named “Romanov” was mortally wounded and the pole of the banner of “the nursery of our ill-fated fleet” - the banner of the naval corps - was shot through .

On January 9 (Old Art.), 1905, in St. Petersburg, on the initiative of priest Georgy Gapon, a procession of workers took place to the Winter Palace. The workers went to the tsar with a petition containing socio-economic, as well as some political, demands. The procession was dispersed by troops, and there were casualties. The events of that day in St. Petersburg entered Russian historiography as “Bloody Sunday”, the victims of which, according to V. Nevsky’s research, were no more than 100-200 people (according to updated government data as of January 10, 1905, 96 were killed and injured in the riots 333 people, which includes a number of law enforcement officers). On February 4, in the Moscow Kremlin, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, who professed extreme right-wing political views and had a certain influence on his nephew, was killed by a terrorist bomb.

On April 17, 1905, a decree “On strengthening the principles of religious tolerance” was issued, which abolished a number of religious restrictions, in particular in relation to “schismatics” (Old Believers).

Strikes continued throughout the country; Unrest began on the outskirts of the empire: in Courland, the Forest Brothers began to massacre local German landowners, and the Armenian-Tatar massacre began in the Caucasus. Revolutionaries and separatists received support with money and weapons from England and Japan. Thus, in the summer of 1905, the English steamer John Grafton, which ran aground, was detained in the Baltic Sea, carrying several thousand rifles for Finnish separatists and revolutionary militants. There were several uprisings in the navy and in various cities. The largest was the December uprising in Moscow. At the same time, Socialist Revolutionary and anarchist individual terror gained great momentum. In just a couple of years, revolutionaries killed thousands of officials, officers and police officers - in 1906 alone, 768 were killed and 820 representatives and agents of the government were wounded. The second half of 1905 was marked by numerous unrest in universities and theological seminaries: due to the unrest, almost 50 secondary theological educational institutions were closed. The adoption of a temporary law on university autonomy on August 27 caused a general strike of students and stirred up teachers at universities and theological academies. Opposition parties took advantage of the expansion of freedoms to intensify attacks on the autocracy in the press.

On August 6, 1905, a manifesto was signed on the establishment of the State Duma (“as a legislative advisory institution, which is provided with the preliminary development and discussion of legislative proposals and consideration of the list of state revenues and expenses” - the Bulygin Duma), the law on the State Duma and the regulations on elections to the Duma. But the revolution, which was gaining strength, overstepped the acts of August 6: in October, an all-Russian political strike began, over 2 million people went on strike. On the evening of October 17, Nikolai, after psychologically difficult hesitations, decided to sign a manifesto, which commanded, among other things: “1. To grant the population the unshakable foundations of civil freedom on the basis of actual personal inviolability, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and association. 3. Establish as an unshakable rule that no law can take effect without the approval of the State Duma and that those elected by the people are provided with the opportunity to truly participate in monitoring the regularity of the actions of the authorities appointed by US.” On April 23, 1906, the Basic State Laws of the Russian Empire were approved, which provided for a new role for the Duma in the legislative process. From the point of view of the liberal public, the Manifesto marked the end of the Russian autocracy as the unlimited power of the monarch.

Three weeks after the manifesto, political prisoners were amnestied, except for those convicted of terrorism; The decree of November 24, 1905 abolished preliminary general and spiritual censorship for time-based (periodical) publications published in the cities of the empire (on April 26, 1906, all censorship was abolished).

After the publication of the manifestos, the strikes subsided; the armed forces (except for the navy, where unrest took place) remained faithful to the oath; An extreme right monarchist public organization, the Union of the Russian People, arose and was secretly supported by Nicholas.

During the revolution, in 1906, Konstantin Balmont wrote the poem “Our Tsar”, dedicated to Nicholas II, which turned out to be prophetic:

Our King is Mukden, our King is Tsushima,
Our King is a bloody stain,
The stench of gunpowder and smoke,
In which the mind is dark. Our Tsar is a blind misery,
Prison and whip, trial, execution,
The hanged king is twice as low,
What he promised, but didn’t dare give. He is a coward, he feels with hesitation,
But it will happen, the hour of reckoning awaits.
Who began to reign - Khodynka,
He will end up standing on the scaffold.

The decade between two revolutions

Milestones of domestic and foreign policy

On August 18 (31), 1907, an agreement was signed with Great Britain to delimit spheres of influence in China, Afghanistan and Persia, which generally completed the process of forming an alliance of 3 powers - the Triple Entente, known as the Entente ( Triple Entente); however, mutual military obligations at that time existed only between Russia and France - under the agreement of 1891 and the military convention of 1892. On May 27 - 28, 1908 (Old Art.), a meeting of the British King Edward VIII with the Tsar took place - on the roadstead in the harbor of Revel; the tsar accepted from the king the uniform of an admiral of the British fleet. The Revel meeting of the monarchs was interpreted in Berlin as a step towards the formation of an anti-German coalition - despite the fact that Nicholas was a staunch opponent of rapprochement with England against Germany. The agreement concluded between Russia and Germany on August 6 (19), 1911 (Potsdam Agreement) did not change the general vector of the involvement of Russia and Germany in opposing military-political alliances.

On June 17, 1910, the law on the procedure for issuing laws relating to the Principality of Finland, known as the law on the procedure for general imperial legislation, was approved by the State Council and the State Duma (see Russification of Finland).

The Russian contingent, which had been stationed there in Persia since 1909 due to the unstable political situation, was reinforced in 1911.

In 1912, Mongolia became a de facto protectorate of Russia, gaining independence from China as a result of the revolution that took place there. After this revolution in 1912-1913, Tuvan noyons (ambyn-noyon Kombu-Dorzhu, Chamzy Khamby Lama, noyon Daa-khoshun Buyan-Badyrgy and others) several times appealed to the tsarist government with a request to accept Tuva under the protectorate of the Russian Empire. On April 4 (17), 1914, a resolution on the report of the Minister of Foreign Affairs established a Russian protectorate over the Uriankhai region: the region was included in the Yenisei province with the transfer of political and diplomatic affairs in Tuva to the Irkutsk Governor-General.

The beginning of military operations of the Balkan Union against Turkey in the fall of 1912 marked the collapse of the diplomatic efforts undertaken after the Bosnian crisis by the Minister of Foreign Affairs S. D. Sazonov towards an alliance with the Porte and at the same time keeping the Balkan states under his control: contrary to the expectations of the Russian government, the troops of the latter successfully pushed back Turks and in November 1912 the Bulgarian army was 45 km from the Ottoman capital of Constantinople (see Battle of Chataldzhin). After the actual transfer of the Turkish army under German command (German General Liman von Sanders at the end of 1913 took over the post of chief inspector of the Turkish army), the question of the inevitability of war with Germany was raised in Sazonov’s note to the emperor dated December 23, 1913; Sazonov's note was also discussed at a meeting of the Council of Ministers.

In 1913, a wide celebration of the 300th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty took place: the imperial family traveled to Moscow, from there to Vladimir, Nizhny Novgorod, and then along the Volga to Kostroma, where in the Ipatiev Monastery on March 14, 1613, the first Romanov tsar was called to the throne - Mikhail Fedorovich; In January 1914, the solemn consecration of the Fedorov Cathedral, erected to commemorate the anniversary of the dynasty, took place in St. Petersburg.

Nicholas II and the Duma

The first two State Dumas were unable to conduct regular legislative work: the contradictions between the deputies, on the one hand, and the emperor, on the other, were insurmountable. So, immediately after the opening, in a response to Nicholas II’s speech from the throne, the left Duma members demanded the liquidation of the State Council (the upper house of parliament) and the transfer of monastery and state-owned lands to the peasants. On May 19, 1906, 104 deputies of the Labor Group put forward a land reform project (Project 104), the content of which was the confiscation of landowners' lands and the nationalization of all land.

The Duma of the first convocation was dissolved by the emperor by a personal decree to the Senate of July 8 (21), 1906 (published on Sunday, July 9), which set the time for convening the newly elected Duma on February 20, 1907; the subsequent Highest Manifesto of July 9 explained the reasons, among which were: “Those elected from the population, instead of working on legislative construction, deviated into an area that did not belong to them and turned to investigating the actions of local authorities appointed by Us, to pointing out to Us the imperfections of the Fundamental Laws, the changes of which could to be undertaken only by Our Monarch’s will, and to actions that are clearly illegal, such as an appeal on behalf of the Duma to the population.” By decree of July 10 of the same year, the sessions of the State Council were suspended.

Simultaneously with the dissolution of the Duma, P. A. Stolypin was appointed instead of I. L. Goremykin to the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers. Stolypin's agricultural policy, successful suppression of the unrest, and bright speeches in the Second Duma made him the idol of some right-wingers.

The second Duma turned out to be even more left-wing than the first, since the Social Democrats and Socialist Revolutionaries, who boycotted the first Duma, took part in the elections. The government was ripening the idea of ​​dissolving the Duma and changing the electoral law; Stolypin did not intend to destroy the Duma, but to change the composition of the Duma. The reason for the dissolution was the actions of the Social Democrats: on May 5, at the apartment of a Duma member from the RSDLP Ozol, the police discovered a meeting of 35 Social Democrats and about 30 soldiers of the St. Petersburg garrison; In addition, the police discovered various propaganda materials calling for the violent overthrow of the state system, various orders from soldiers of military units and fake passports. On June 1, Stolypin and the chairman of the St. Petersburg Judicial Chamber demanded that the Duma remove the entire Social Democratic faction from Duma meetings and lift immunity from 16 members of the RSDLP. The Duma did not agree to the government's demand; The result of the confrontation was the manifesto of Nicholas II on the dissolution of the Second Duma, published on June 3, 1907, together with the Regulations on elections to the Duma, that is, the new electoral law. The manifesto also indicated the date for the opening of the new Duma - November 1 of the same year. The act of June 3, 1907 in Soviet historiography was called a “coup d’etat,” since it contradicted the manifesto of October 17, 1905, according to which no new law could be adopted without the approval of the State Duma.

According to General A. A. Mosolov, Nicholas II looked at the members of the Duma not as representatives of the people, but as “simply intellectuals” and added that his attitude towards peasant delegations was completely different: “The Tsar met with them willingly and spoke for a long time , without fatigue, joyfully and affably.”

Land reform

From 1902 to 1905, both statesmen and scientists of Russia were involved in the development of new agrarian legislation at the state level: Vl. I. Gurko, S. Yu. Witte, I. L. Goremykin, A. V. Krivoshein, P. A. Stolypin, P. P. Migulin, N. N. Kutler and A. A. Kaufman. The question of abolishing the community was posed by life itself. At the height of the revolution, N. N. Kutler even proposed a project for the alienation of part of the landowners' lands. On January 1, 1907, the law on the free exit of peasants from the community (Stolypin agrarian reform) began to be practically applied. Granting peasants the right to freely dispose of their land and the abolition of communities was of great national importance, but the reform was not completed and could not be completed, the peasant did not become the owner of land throughout the country, peasants left the community en masse and returned back. And Stolypin sought to allocate land to some peasants at the expense of others and, above all, to preserve landownership, which closed the way to free farming. This was only a partial solution to the problem.

In 1913, Russia (excluding the Vistlensky provinces) was in first place in the world in the production of rye, barley and oats, in third (after Canada and the USA) in wheat production, in fourth (after France, Germany and Austria-Hungary) in production potatoes. Russia has become the main exporter of agricultural products, accounting for 2/5 of all world agricultural exports. Grain yield was 3 times lower than in England or Germany, potato yield was 2 times lower.

Military command reform

The military reforms of 1905-1912 were carried out after the defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, which revealed serious shortcomings in the central administration, organization, recruitment system, combat training and technical equipment of the army.

In the first period of military reforms (1905-1908), the highest military administration was decentralized (the Main Directorate of the General Staff, independent of the War Ministry, was established, the State Defense Council was created, inspector generals were subordinate directly to the emperor), the terms of active service were reduced (in the infantry and field artillery from 5 to 3 years, in other branches of the military from 5 to 4 years, in the navy from 7 to 5 years), the officer corps was rejuvenated; The life of soldiers and sailors (food and clothing allowances) and the financial situation of officers and long-term servicemen were improved.

During the second period of Military reforms (1909-1912), the centralization of senior management was carried out (the Main Directorate of the General Staff was included in the Ministry of War, the Council of State Defense was abolished, inspector generals were subordinate to the Minister of War); Due to the combatively weak reserve and fortress troops, the field troops were strengthened (the number of army corps increased from 31 to 37), a reserve was created in the field units, which during mobilization was allocated for the deployment of secondary ones (including field artillery, engineering and railway troops, communications units) , machine gun teams were created in regiments and corps air detachments, cadet schools were transformed into military schools that received new programs, new regulations and instructions were introduced. In 1910, the Imperial Air Force was created.

World War I

On July 19 (August 1), 1914, Germany declared war on Russia: Russia entered the world war, which for it ended in the collapse of the empire and dynasty.

On July 20, 1914, the Emperor gave and by the evening of the same day published the Manifesto on the War, as well as the Personal Highest Decree, in which he, “not recognizing the possibility, for reasons of a national nature, to now become the head of Our land and naval forces intended for military actions,” ordered Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich to be Supreme Commander-in-Chief.

By decrees of July 24, 1914, the sessions of the State Council and the Duma were interrupted from July 26. On July 26, a manifesto on war with Austria was released. On the same day, the Supreme Reception of members of the State Council and the Duma took place: the emperor arrived at the Winter Palace on a yacht together with Nikolai Nikolaevich and, entering the Nicholas Hall, addressed those gathered with the following words: “Germany and then Austria declared war on Russia. That huge upsurge of patriotic feelings of love for the Motherland and devotion to the Throne, which swept like a hurricane across our entire land, serves in My eyes and, I think, in yours, as a guarantee that Our great Mother Russia will bring the war sent by the Lord God to the desired end. I am confident that each and every one of you in your place will help Me endure the test sent down to Me and that everyone, starting with Me, will fulfill their duty to the end. Great is the God of the Russian Land!” At the end of his response speech, the Chairman of the Duma, Chamberlain M.V. Rodzianko, said: “Without differences of opinions, views and convictions, the State Duma on behalf of the Russian Land calmly and firmly says to its Tsar: “Be of good cheer, Sovereign, the Russian people are with you and, firmly trusting by the mercy of God, will not stop at any sacrifices until the enemy is broken and the dignity of the Motherland is protected.“”

With a manifesto dated October 20 (November 2), 1914, Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire: “In a hitherto unsuccessful struggle with Russia, trying by all means to increase their forces, Germany and Austria-Hungary resorted to the help of the Ottoman government and brought Turkey, blinded by them, into the war with us . The Turkish fleet, led by the Germans, dared to treacherously attack our Black Sea coast. Immediately after this, We commanded the Russian ambassador in Constantinople, with all ambassadorial and consular ranks, to leave the borders of Turkey. Together with all the Russian people, we adamantly believe that Turkey’s current reckless intervention in military operations will only accelerate the fatal course of events for it and will open the way for Russia to resolve the historical tasks bequeathed to it by its ancestors on the shores of the Black Sea.” The government press organ reported that on October 21, “the day of the Accession to the Throne of the Sovereign Emperor took on the character of a national holiday in Tiflis, in connection with the war with Turkey”; on the same day, the Viceroy received a deputation of 100 prominent Armenians led by a bishop: the deputation “asked the Count to bring to the feet of the Monarch of Great Russia the feelings of boundless devotion and ardent love of the loyal Armenian people”; then a deputation of Sunni and Shia Muslims presented themselves.

During the period of Nikolai Nikolayevich's command, the tsar traveled to Headquarters several times for meetings with the command (September 21 - 23, October 22 - 24, November 18 - 20); in November 1914 he also traveled to the south of Russia and the Caucasian front.

At the beginning of June 1915, the situation on the fronts deteriorated sharply: Przemysl, a fortress city captured with huge losses in March, was surrendered. At the end of June Lvov was abandoned. All military acquisitions were lost, and the Russian Empire began losing its own territory. In July, Warsaw, all of Poland and part of Lithuania were surrendered; the enemy continued to advance. The public started talking about the government's inability to cope with the situation.

Both from public organizations, the State Duma, and from other groups, even many grand dukes, they started talking about creating a “Ministry of Public Trust.”

At the beginning of 1915, troops at the front began to experience a great need for weapons and ammunition. The need for a complete restructuring of the economy in accordance with the demands of the war became clear. On August 17, Nicholas II approved documents on the formation of four special meetings: on defense, fuel, food and transportation. These meetings, consisting of representatives of the government, private industrialists, the State Duma and the State Council and headed by the relevant ministers, were supposed to unite the efforts of the government, private industry and the public in mobilizing industry for military needs. The most important of these was the Special Conference on Defense.

Along with the creation of special meetings, in 1915 Military-Industrial Committees began to emerge - public organizations of the bourgeoisie that were semi-oppositional in nature.

On August 23, 1915, motivating his decision by the need to establish agreement between Headquarters and the government, to end the separation of the power at the head of the army from the power governing the country, Nicholas II assumed the title of Supreme Commander-in-Chief, dismissing the Grand Duke, popular in the army, from this post Nikolai Nikolaevich. According to State Council member (a monarchist by conviction) Vladimir Gurko, the emperor’s decision was made at the instigation of Rasputin’s “gang” and caused disapproval from the overwhelming majority of members of the Council of Ministers, the generals and the public.

Due to the constant movements of Nicholas II from Headquarters to Petrograd, as well as insufficient attention to issues of troop leadership, the actual command of the Russian army was concentrated in the hands of his chief of staff, General M.V. Alekseev, and General Vasily Gurko, who replaced him at the end of 1916 - beginning of 1917. The autumn conscription of 1916 put 13 million people under arms, and losses in the war exceeded 2 million.

During 1916, Nicholas II replaced four chairmen of the Council of Ministers (I. L. Goremykin, B. V. Sturmer, A. F. Trepov and Prince N. D. Golitsyn), four ministers of internal affairs (A. N. Khvostova, B. V. Sturmer, A. A. Khvostov and A. D. Protopopov), three foreign ministers (S. D. Sazonov, B. V. Sturmer and N. N. Pokrovsky), two military ministers (A. A. Polivanov, D.S. Shuvaev) and three ministers of justice (A.A. Khvostov, A.A. Makarov and N.A. Dobrovolsky).

On January 19 (February 1), 1917, a meeting of high-ranking representatives of the Allied powers opened in Petrograd, which went down in history as the Petrograd Conference ( q.v.): from Russia's allies it was attended by delegates from Great Britain, France and Italy, who also visited Moscow and the front, had meetings with politicians of different political orientations, with leaders of Duma factions; the latter unanimously told the head of the British delegation about an imminent revolution - either from below or from above (in the form of a palace coup).

Nicholas II assumed the Supreme Command of the Russian Army

Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich’s overestimation of his abilities ultimately led to a number of major military mistakes, and attempts to deflect the corresponding accusations from himself led to the fanning of Germanophobia and spy mania. One of these most significant episodes was the case of Lieutenant Colonel Myasoedov, which ended with the execution of an innocent man, where Nikolai Nikolaevich played the first violin along with A.I. Guchkov. The front commander, due to the disagreement of the judges, did not approve the sentence, but Myasoedov’s fate was decided by the resolution of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich: “Hang him anyway!” This case, in which the Grand Duke played the first role, led to an increase in clearly oriented suspicion of society and played a role, among other things, in the May 1915 German pogrom in Moscow. Military historian A. A. Kersnovsky states that by the summer of 1915, “a military catastrophe was approaching Russia,” and it was this threat that became the main reason for the Supreme decision to remove the Grand Duke from the post of Commander-in-Chief.

General M.V. Alekseev, who came to Headquarters in September 1914, was also “struck by the disorder, confusion and despondency reigning there. Both Nikolai Nikolaevich and Yanushkevich were confused by the failures of the North-Western Front and did not know what to do.”

Failures at the front continued: on July 22, Warsaw and Kovno were surrendered, the fortifications of Brest were blown up, the Germans were approaching the Western Dvina, and the evacuation of Riga began. In such conditions, Nicholas II decided to remove the Grand Duke, who could not cope, and himself stand at the head of the Russian army. According to the military historian A. A. Kersnovsky, such a decision by the emperor was the only way out:

On August 23, 1915, Nicholas II assumed the title of Supreme Commander-in-Chief, replacing Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, who was appointed commander of the Caucasian Front. M.V. Alekseev was appointed chief of staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. Soon, General Alekseev’s condition changed dramatically: the general perked up, his anxiety and complete confusion disappeared. The general on duty at Headquarters P.K. Kondzerovsky even thought that good news had come from the front, forcing the chief of staff to cheer up, but the reason was different: the new Supreme Commander-in-Chief received Alekseev’s report on the situation at the front and gave him certain instructions; A telegram was sent to the front saying “not a step back now.” The Vilna-Molodechno breakthrough was ordered to be liquidated by the troops of General Evert. Alekseev was busy carrying out the order of the Sovereign:

Meanwhile, Nikolai’s decision caused a mixed reaction, given that all the ministers opposed this step and only his wife unconditionally spoke in favor of it. Minister A.V. Krivoshein said:

The soldiers of the Russian army greeted Nicholas's decision to take up the post of Supreme Commander-in-Chief without enthusiasm. At the same time, the German command was satisfied with the resignation of Prince Nikolai Nikolaevich from the post of Supreme Commander-in-Chief - they considered him a tough and skillful opponent. A number of his strategic ideas were assessed by Erich Ludendorff as extremely bold and brilliant.

The result of this decision of Nicholas II was colossal. During the Sventsyansky breakthrough on September 8 - October 2, German troops were defeated and their offensive was stopped. The parties switched to positional warfare: the brilliant Russian counterattacks that followed in the Vilna-Molodechno region and the events that followed made it possible, after the successful September operation, to prepare for a new stage of the war, no longer fearing an enemy offensive. Work began to begin throughout Russia on the formation and training of new troops. Industry was rapidly producing ammunition and military equipment. Such work became possible due to the emerging confidence that the enemy’s advance had been stopped. By the spring of 1917, new armies were created, provided with equipment and ammunition better than ever before during the entire war.

The autumn conscription of 1916 put 13 million people under arms, and losses in the war exceeded 2 million.

During 1916, Nicholas II replaced four chairmen of the Council of Ministers (I. L. Goremykin, B. V. Sturmer, A. F. Trepov and Prince N. D. Golitsyn), four ministers of internal affairs (A. N. Khvostov, B. V. Sturmer, A. A. Khvostov and A. D. Protopopov), three foreign ministers (S. D. Sazonov, B. V. Sturmer and N. N. Pokrovsky), two military ministers (A. A. Polivanov, D.S. Shuvaev) and three ministers of justice (A.A. Khvostov, A.A. Makarov and N.A. Dobrovolsky).

By January 1, 1917, changes had also occurred in the State Council. Nicholas expelled 17 members and appointed new ones.

On January 19 (February 1), 1917, a meeting of high-ranking representatives of the Allied powers opened in Petrograd, which went down in history as the Petrograd Conference (q.v.): from the allies of Russia it was attended by delegates from Great Britain, France and Italy, who also visited Moscow and the front, had meetings with politicians of different political orientations, with leaders of Duma factions; the latter unanimously told the head of the British delegation about an imminent revolution - either from below or from above (in the form of a palace coup).

Probing the world

Nicholas II, hoping for an improvement in the situation in the country if the spring offensive of 1917 was successful (as agreed upon at the Petrograd Conference), did not intend to conclude a separate peace with the enemy - he saw the victorious end of the war as the most important means of strengthening the throne. Hints that Russia might begin negotiations for a separate peace were a diplomatic game that forced the Entente to accept the need to establish Russian control over the Straits.

Fall of the Monarchy

Growing revolutionary sentiments

The war, during which there was a widespread mobilization of the working-age male population, horses and massive requisition of livestock and agricultural products, had a detrimental effect on the economy, especially in the countryside. Among the politicized Petrograd society, the authorities were discredited by scandals (in particular, related to the influence of G. E. Rasputin and his henchmen - “dark forces”) and suspicions of treason; Nicholas’s declarative commitment to the idea of ​​“autocratic” power came into sharp conflict with the liberal and leftist aspirations of a significant part of the Duma members and society.

General A.I. Denikin testified about the mood in the army after the revolution: “As for the attitude towards the throne, as a general phenomenon, in the officer corps there was a desire to distinguish the person of the sovereign from the court dirt that surrounded him, from the political mistakes and crimes of the tsar government, which clearly and steadily led to the destruction of the country and the defeat of the army. They forgave the sovereign, they tried to justify him. As we will see below, by 1917, this attitude among a certain part of the officers was shaken, causing the phenomenon that Prince Volkonsky called a “revolution on the right,” but on purely political grounds.”

Since December 1916, a “coup” in one form or another was expected in the court and political environment, the possible abdication of the emperor in favor of Tsarevich Alexei under the regency of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich.

On February 23, 1917, a strike began in Petrograd; after 3 days it became universal. On the morning of February 27, 1917, the soldiers of the Petrograd garrison revolted and joined the strikers; Only the police provided resistance to riots and riots. A similar uprising took place in Moscow. Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, not realizing the seriousness of what was happening, wrote to her husband on February 25: “This is a “hooligan” movement, boys and girls run around shouting that they have no bread just to incite, and the workers do not allow others to work. If it were very cold, they would probably stay at home. But all this will pass and calm down, if only the Duma behaves decently.”

On February 25, 1917, by decree of Nicholas II, meetings of the State Duma were stopped from February 26 to April of the same year, which further inflamed the situation. Chairman of the State Duma M.V. Rodzianko sent a number of telegrams to the emperor about the events in Petrograd. Telegram received at Headquarters on February 26, 1917 at 22:40: “I most humbly inform Your Majesty that the popular unrest that began in Petrograd is becoming spontaneous and of threatening proportions. Their foundations are the lack of baked bread and the weak supply of flour, inspiring panic, but mainly complete distrust in the authorities, which are unable to lead the country out of a difficult situation.” In a telegram on February 27, 1917 he reported: “The civil war has begun and is flaring up. Order the legislative chambers to be reconvened in order to repeal your Highest decree. If the movement spills over into the army, the collapse of Russia, and with it the dynasty, is inevitable.”

The Duma, which then had high authority in a revolutionary-minded environment, did not obey the decree of February 25 and continued to work in the so-called private meetings of members of the State Duma, convened on the evening of February 27 by the Temporary Committee of the State Duma. The latter assumed the role of the supreme authority immediately upon its formation.

Renunciation

On the evening of February 25, 1917, Nicholas ordered General S.S. Khabalov by telegram to put an end to the unrest by military force. Having sent General N.I. Ivanov to Petrograd on February 27 to suppress the uprising, Nicholas II on the evening of February 28 left for Tsarskoe Selo, but was unable to travel and, having lost contact with Headquarters, on March 1 arrived in Pskov, where the headquarters of the armies of the Northern Front of General N was located. V. Ruzsky. At about 3 p.m. on March 2, he decided to abdicate in favor of his son during the regency of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, and in the evening of the same day he announced to the arriving A.I. Guchkov and V.V. Shulgin about the decision to abdicate for his son.

On March 2 (15) at 23 hours 40 minutes (in the document the time of signing was indicated as 15 hours) Nikolai handed over to Guchkov and Shulgin the Manifesto of Abdication, which, in particular, read: “We command OUR Brother to rule the affairs of the state in complete and inviolable unity with representatives of the people in legislative institutions, on those principles that will be established by them, having taken an inviolable oath. "

Some researchers have questioned the authenticity of the manifesto (renunciation).

Guchkov and Shulgin also demanded that Nicholas II sign two decrees: on the appointment of Prince G. E. Lvov as head of government and Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich as supreme commander-in-chief; the former emperor signed decrees, indicating in them the time of 14 hours.

General A.I. Denikin stated in his memoirs that on March 3 in Mogilev, Nikolai told General Alekseev:

A moderately right-wing Moscow newspaper on March 4 reported the emperor’s words to Tuchkov and Shulgin as follows: “I thought about all this,” he said, “and decided to renounce. But I do not abdicate in favor of my son, since I must leave Russia, since I am leaving the Supreme Power. In no case do I consider it possible to leave my son, whom I love very much, in Russia, to leave him in complete obscurity. That’s why I decided to transfer the throne to my brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich.”

Exile and execution

From March 9 to August 14, 1917, Nikolai Romanov and his family lived under arrest in the Alexander Palace of Tsarskoye Selo.

At the end of March, the Minister of the Provisional Government P. N. Milyukov tried to send Nicholas and his family to England, in the care of George V, for which the preliminary consent of the British side was obtained; but in April, due to the unstable internal political situation in England itself, the King chose to abandon such a plan - according to some evidence, against the advice of Prime Minister Lloyd George. However, in 2006, some documents became known indicating that until May 1918, the MI 1 unit of the British Military Intelligence Agency was preparing for an operation to rescue the Romanovs, which was never brought to the stage of practical implementation.

In view of the strengthening of the revolutionary movement and anarchy in Petrograd, the Provisional Government, fearing for the lives of the prisoners, decided to transfer them deep into Russia, to Tobolsk; they were allowed to take the necessary furniture and personal belongings from the palace, and also offer service personnel, if they wish, to voluntarily accompany them to the place of new accommodation and further service. On the eve of departure, the head of the Provisional Government, A.F. Kerensky, arrived and brought with him the brother of the former emperor, Mikhail Alexandrovich (Mikhail Alexandrovich was exiled to Perm, where on the night of June 13, 1918 he was killed by local Bolshevik authorities).

On August 14, 1917, at 6:10 a.m., a train with members of the imperial family and servants under the sign “Japanese Red Cross Mission” set off from Tsarskoe Selo. On August 17, the train arrived in Tyumen, then the arrested were transported along the river to Tobolsk. The Romanov family settled in the governor's house, which was specially renovated for their arrival. The family was allowed to walk across the street and boulevard to services at the Church of the Annunciation. The security regime here was much lighter than in Tsarskoe Selo. The family led a calm, measured life.

At the beginning of April 1918, the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK) authorized the transfer of the Romanovs to Moscow for the purpose of their trial. At the end of April 1918, the prisoners were transported to Yekaterinburg, where a house belonging to mining engineer N.N. was requisitioned to house the Romanovs. Ipatiev. Five service personnel lived with them here: doctor Botkin, footman Trupp, room girl Demidova, cook Kharitonov and cook Sednev.

At the beginning of July 1918, the Ural military commissar F.I. Goloshchekin went to Moscow to receive instructions on the future fate of the royal family, which was decided at the highest level of the Bolshevik leadership (except for V.I. Lenin, Ya. M. Sverdlov took an active part in resolving the issue of the fate of the former tsar).

On July 12, 1918, the Ural Council of Workers', Peasants' and Soldiers' Deputies, in the face of the retreat of the Bolsheviks under the pressure of white troops and members of the Constituent Assembly of the Czechoslovak Corps loyal to the Committee, adopted a resolution to execute the entire family. Nikolai Romanov, Alexandra Fedorovna, their children, Doctor Botkin and three servants (except for the cook Sednev) were shot in the “House of Special Purpose” - Ipatiev’s mansion in Yekaterinburg on the night of July 16-17, 1918. Senior investigator for particularly important cases of the General Russian prosecutor's office Vladimir Solovyov, who led the investigation of the criminal case into the death of the royal family, came to the conclusion that Lenin and Sverdlov were against the execution of the royal family, and the execution itself was organized by the Urals Council, where the left Socialist Revolutionaries had enormous influence, in order to disrupt the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk between Soviet Russia and Kaiser's Germany. After the February Revolution, the Germans, despite the war with Russia, were worried about the fate of the Russian imperial family, because the wife of Nicholas II, Alexandra Feodorovna, was German, and their daughters were both Russian princesses and German princesses.

Religiosity and view of one's power. Church politics

Protopresbyter Georgy Shavelsky, who was a member of the Holy Synod in the pre-revolutionary years (closely communicated with the emperor at Headquarters during the World War), while in exile, testified to the “humble, simple and direct” religiosity of the tsar, to his strict attendance at Sunday and holiday services, to “ generous outpouring of many benefits for the Church.” The opposition politician of the early 20th century, V.P. Obninsky, also wrote about his “sincere piety demonstrated during every divine service.” General A. A. Mosolov noted: “The Tsar was thoughtful about his rank as God’s anointed. You should have seen with what attention he considered requests for pardon from those sentenced to death. He received from his father, whom he revered and whom he tried to imitate even in everyday trifles, an unshakable belief in the fate of his power. His calling came from God. He was responsible for his actions only before his conscience and the Almighty. The king answered to his conscience and was guided by intuition, instinct, that incomprehensible thing that is now called the subconscious. He bowed only to the elemental, irrational, and sometimes contrary to reason, to the weightless, to his ever-increasing mysticism.”

Vladimir Gurko, a former comrade of the Minister of Internal Affairs, in his émigré essay (1927) emphasized: “Nicholas II’s idea of ​​​​the limits of the power of the Russian autocrat was at all times wrong. Seeing himself, first of all, as God’s anointed, he considered every decision he made to be legal and essentially correct. “This is my will,” was the phrase that repeatedly flew from his lips and should, in his opinion, stop all objections to the assumption he had expressed. Regis voluntas suprema lex esto - this is the formula with which he was imbued through and through. It was not a belief, it was a religion. Ignoring the law, non-recognition of either existing rules or ingrained customs was one of the distinctive features of the last Russian autocrat.” This view of the character and nature of his power, according to Gurko, determined the degree of favor of the emperor towards his closest employees: “He disagreed with the ministers not on the basis of disagreements in understanding the procedure for managing this or that branch of the state system, but only because the head any department showed excessive benevolence towards the public, and especially if he did not want and could not recognize the royal power in all cases as unlimited. In most cases, the differences of opinion between the Tsar and his ministers boiled down to the fact that the ministers defended the rule of law, and the Tsar insisted on his omnipotence. As a result, only such ministers as N.A. Maklakov or Stürmer, who agreed to violate any laws in order to maintain ministerial portfolios, retained the favor of the Sovereign.”

The beginning of the 20th century in the life of the Russian Church, the secular head of which he was according to the laws of the Russian Empire, was marked by a movement for reforms in church administration; a significant part of the episcopate and some laity advocated the convening of an All-Russian local council and the possible restoration of the patriarchate in Russia; in 1905 there were attempts to restore the autocephaly of the Georgian Church (then the Georgian Exarchate of the Russian Holy Synod).

Nicholas, in principle, agreed with the idea of ​​a Council; but considered it untimely and in January 1906 established the Pre-Conciliar Presence, and by the Highest Command of February 28, 1912 - “a permanent pre-conciliar meeting under the Holy Synod, until the convening of the Council.”

On March 1, 1916, he ordered “that in the future, reports of the Chief Prosecutor to His Imperial Majesty on matters relating to the internal structure of church life and the essence of church government should be made in the presence of the leading member of the Holy Synod, for the purpose of comprehensive canonical coverage of them,” which was welcomed in the conservative press as “a great act of royal trust”

During his reign, an unprecedented (for the synodal period) large number of canonizations of new saints took place, and he insisted on the canonization of the most famous - Seraphim of Sarov (1903) - despite the reluctance of the chief prosecutor of the Synod, Pobedonostsev; also glorified: Theodosius of Chernigov (1896), Isidor Yuryevsky (1898), Anna Kashinskaya (1909), Euphrosyne of Polotsk (1910), Efrosin of Sinozersky (1911), Iosaf of Belgorod (1911), Patriarch Hermogenes (1913), Pitirim of Tambov (1914 ), John of Tobolsk (1916).

As the interference of Grigory Rasputin (acting through the empress and hierarchs loyal to him) in synodal affairs increased in the 1910s, dissatisfaction with the entire synodal system grew among a significant part of the clergy, who, for the most part, reacted positively to the fall of the monarchy in March 1917.

Lifestyle, habits, hobbies

Most of the time, Nicholas II lived with his family in the Alexander Palace (Tsarskoe Selo) or Peterhof. In the summer I vacationed in Crimea at the Livadia Palace. For recreation, he also annually made two-week trips around the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea on the yacht “Standart”. I read both light entertainment literature and serious scientific works, often on historical topics; Russian and foreign newspapers and magazines. I smoked cigarettes.

He was interested in photography and also loved watching movies; All his children also took photographs. In the 1900s, he became interested in the then new type of transport - cars (“the tsar had one of the most extensive car parks in Europe”).

The official government press in 1913, in an essay about the everyday and family side of the emperor’s life, wrote, in particular: “The Emperor does not like so-called secular pleasures. His favorite pastime is the hereditary passion of the Russian Tsars - hunting. It is organized both in permanent places of the Tsar’s stay, and in special places adapted for this purpose - in Spala, near Skierniewice, in Belovezhzhye.”

At the age of 9 he began keeping a diary. The archive contains 50 voluminous notebooks - the original diary for the years 1882-1918; some of them were published.

Family. Spouse's political influence

"> " title=" Letter from V.K. Nikolai Mikhailovich to the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna on December 16, 1916: All of Russia knows that the late Rasputin and A.F. are one and the same. The first was killed, now he must disappear and other" align="right" class="img"> !}

The first conscious meeting of Tsarevich Nicholas with his future wife took place in January 1889 (Princess Alice’s second visit to Russia), when mutual attraction arose. That same year, Nikolai asked his father for permission to marry her, but was refused. In August 1890, during Alice's 3rd visit, Nikolai's parents did not allow him to meet her; A letter in the same year to Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna from Queen Victoria of England, in which the grandmother of the potential bride probed the prospects of a marriage union, also had a negative result. However, due to the deteriorating health of Alexander III and the persistence of the Tsarevich, on April 8 (old style) 1894 in Coburg at the wedding of the Duke of Hesse Ernst-Ludwig (Alice's brother) and Princess Victoria-Melita of Edinburgh (daughter of Duke Alfred and Maria Alexandrovna) Their engagement took place, announced in Russia with a simple newspaper notice.

On November 14, 1894, Nicholas II was married to the German princess Alice of Hesse, who after anointing (performed on October 21, 1894 in Livadia) took the name Alexandra Feodorovna. In subsequent years, they had four daughters - Olga (November 3, 1895), Tatyana (May 29, 1897), Maria (June 14, 1899) and Anastasia (June 5, 1901). On July 30 (August 12), 1904, the fifth child and only son, Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich, appeared in Peterhof.

All correspondence between Alexandra Feodorovna and Nicholas II has been preserved (in English); only one letter from Alexandra Feodorovna was lost, all her letters were numbered by the empress herself; published in Berlin in 1922.

Senator Vl. I. Gurko attributed the origins of Alexandra’s intervention in the affairs of government to the beginning of 1905, when the tsar was in a particularly difficult political situation - when he began to transmit the state acts he issued for her review; Gurko believed: “If the Sovereign, due to his lack of the necessary internal power, did not possess the authority required for a ruler, then the Empress, on the contrary, was entirely woven from authority, which was also based on her inherent arrogance.”

General A. I. Denikin wrote in his memoirs about the role of the empress in the development of the revolutionary situation in Russia in the last years of the monarchy:

“All possible options regarding Rasputin’s influence penetrated the front, and the censorship collected enormous material on this topic, even in letters from soldiers in the army. But the most amazing impression was made by the fatal word: It referred to the empress. In the army, loudly, not embarrassed by either place or time, there was talk about the empress’s insistent demand for a separate peace, about her betrayal of Field Marshal Kitchener, about whose trip she allegedly informed the Germans, etc. Reliving the past in memory, taking into account that The impression that the rumor about the treason of the empress made in the army, I believe that this circumstance played a huge role in the mood of the army, in its attitude towards both the dynasty and the revolution. General Alekseev, to whom I asked this painful question in the spring of 1917, answered me somehow vaguely and reluctantly: When sorting through the empress's papers, she found a map with a detailed designation of the troops of the entire front, which was produced only in two copies - for me and for the sovereign. This made a depressing impression on me. You never know who could use it... Say no more. Changed the conversation... History will undoubtedly reveal the extremely negative influence that Empress Alexandra Feodorovna had on the management of the Russian state in the period preceding the revolution. As for the issue of “treason,” this unfortunate rumor was not confirmed by a single fact, and was subsequently refuted by an investigation by the Muravyov Commission specially appointed by the Provisional Government, with the participation of representatives from the Council of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. »

Personal assessments of his contemporaries who knew him

Different opinions about the willpower of Nicholas II and his accessibility to environmental influences

The former Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Count S. Yu. Witte, in connection with the critical situation on the eve of the publication of the Manifesto on October 17, 1905, when the possibility of introducing a military dictatorship in the country was discussed, wrote in his memoirs:

General A.F. Roediger (as Minister of War in 1905-1909, had a personal report to the sovereign twice a week) wrote about him in his memoirs (1917-1918): “Before the start of the report, the sovereign always talked about something extraneous; if there was no other topic, then about the weather, about his walk, about the trial portion that was served to him every day before reports, either from the Convoy or from the Consolidated Regiment. He loved these cookings very much and once told me that he had just tried pearl barley soup, which he could not get at home: Kyuba (his cook) says that such a gain can only be achieved by cooking for a hundred people. The sovereign considered it his duty to appoint senior commanders know. He had an amazing memory. He knew a lot of people who served in the Guard or were seen by him for some reason, remembered the military exploits of individuals and military units, knew the units that rebelled and remained faithful during the unrest, knew the number and name of each regiment, the composition of each division and corps, the location many parts... He told me that in rare cases of insomnia, he begins to list the shelves in his memory in numerical order and usually falls asleep when he reaches the reserve parts, which he does not know so well. To know life in the regiments, he read the orders for the Preobrazhensky Regiment every day and explained to me that he reads them every day, since if you only miss a few days, you will become spoiled and stop reading them. He liked to dress lightly and told me that he sweated differently, especially when he was nervous. At first, he willingly wore a white jacket of a naval style at home, and then, when the riflemen of the imperial family were returned to their old uniform with crimson silk shirts, he almost always wore it at home, moreover, in the summer heat - right on his naked body. Despite the difficult days that befell him, he never lost his composure and always remained calm and affable, an equally diligent worker. He told me that he was an optimist, and indeed, even in difficult moments he retained faith in the future, in the power and greatness of Russia. Always friendly and affectionate, he made a charming impression. His inability to refuse someone’s request, especially if it came from an honored person and was somewhat feasible, sometimes interfered with the matter and put the minister, who had to be strict and update the command staff of the army, in a difficult position, but at the same time increased his charm his personality. His reign was unsuccessful and, moreover, through his own fault. His shortcomings are visible to everyone, they are also visible from my real memories. His merits are easily forgotten, since they were visible only to those who saw him up close, and I consider it my duty to note them, especially since I still remember him with the warmest feeling and sincere regret.”

Protopresbyter of the military and naval clergy Georgy Shavelsky, who communicated closely with the tsar in the last months before the revolution, wrote about him in his study written in exile in the 1930s: “It is generally not easy for tsars to recognize the true, unvarnished life, for they are fenced off by a high wall from people and life. And Emperor Nicholas II raised this wall even higher with an artificial superstructure. This was the most characteristic feature of his mental make-up and his royal actions. This happened against his will, thanks to his manner of treating his subjects. Once he told the Minister of Foreign Affairs S.D. Sazonov: “I try not to think seriously about anything, otherwise I would have been in a grave long ago.” He put his interlocutor within strictly defined limits. The conversation began exclusively apolitical. The sovereign showed great attention and interest in the personality of his interlocutor: in the stages of his service, in his exploits and merits. But as soon as the interlocutor stepped out of this framework - touched upon any ailments of his current life, the sovereign immediately changed or outright stopped the conversation.”

Senator Vladimir Gurko wrote in exile: “The social environment that was close to the heart of Nicholas II, where he, by his own admission, rested his soul, was the environment of guards officers, as a result of which he so willingly accepted invitations to officer meetings of the guards officers who were most familiar to him from their personal composition.” regiments and sometimes sat on them until the morning. He was attracted to officer meetings by the ease that reigned there and the absence of burdensome court etiquette. In many ways, the Tsar retained his childish tastes and inclinations until his old age.”

Awards

Russian

• Order of St. Andrew the First-Called (05.20.1868)
• Order of St. Alexander Nevsky (05.20.1868)
• Order of the White Eagle (05/20/1868)
• Order of St. Anne 1st class. (05/20/1868)
• Order of St. Stanislaus 1st class. (05/20/1868)
• Order of St. Vladimir 4th class. (08/30/1890)
• Order of St. George 4th class. (25.10.1915)

Foreign

Highest degrees:

• Order of the Wendish Crown (Mecklenburg-Schwerin) (01/09/1879)
• Order of the Netherlands Lion (03/15/1881)
• Order of Merit of Duke Peter-Friedrich-Ludwig (Oldenburg) (04/15/1881)
• Order of the Rising Sun (Japan) (09/04/1882)
• Order of Loyalty (Baden) (15.05.1883)
• Order of the Golden Fleece (Spain) (05/15/1883)
• Order of Christ (Portugal) (05/15/1883)
• Order of the White Falcon (Saxe-Weimar) (05/15/1883)
• Order of the Seraphim (Sweden) (05/15/1883)
• Order of Ludwig (Hesse-Darmstadt) (05/02/1884)
• Order of St. Stephen (Austria-Hungary) (05/06/1884)
• Order of St. Hubert (Bavaria) (05/06/1884)
• Order of Leopold (Belgium) (05/06/1884)
• Order of St. Alexander (Bulgaria) (05/06/1884)
• Order of the Württemberg Crown (05/06/1884)
• Order of the Savior (Greece) (05/06/1884)
• Order of the Elephant (Denmark) (05/06/1884)
• Order of the Holy Sepulcher (Jerusalem Patriarchate) (05/06/1884)
• Order of the Annunciation (Italy) (05/06/1884)
• Order of Saint Mauritius and Lazarus (Italy) (05/06/1884)
• Order of the Italian Crown (Italy) (05/06/1884)
• Order of the Black Eagle (German Empire) (05/06/1884)
• Order of the Romanian Star (05/06/1884)
• Order of the Legion of Honor (05/06/1884)
• Order of Osmaniye (Ottoman Empire) (07/28/1884)
• Portrait of the Persian Shah (07/28/1884)
• Order of the Southern Cross (Brazil) (09/19/1884)
• Order of Noble Bukhara (11/02/1885), with diamond insignia (02/27/1889)
• Family Order of the Chakri Dynasty (Siam) (03/08/1891)
• Order of the Crown of the State of Bukhara with diamond insignia (11/21/1893)
• Order of the Seal of Solomon 1st class. (Ethiopia) (06/30/1895)
• Order of the Double Dragon, studded with diamonds (04/22/1896)
• Order of the Sun of Alexander (Bukhara Emirate) (05/18/1898)
• Order of the Bath (Britain)
• Order of the Garter (Britain)
• Royal Victorian Order (British) (1904)
• Order of Charles I (Romania) (06/15/1906)

After death

Assessment in Russian emigration

In the preface to his memoirs, General A. A. Mosolov, who was for a number of years in the emperor’s close circle, wrote in the early 1930s: “Sovereign Nicholas II, His family and His entourage were almost the only object of accusation for many circles , representing Russian public opinion of the pre-revolutionary era. After the catastrophic collapse of our fatherland, accusations focused almost exclusively on the Sovereign.” General Mosolov assigned a special role in turning society away from the imperial family and from the throne in general to Empress Alexandra Feodorovna: “the discord between society and the court became so aggravated that society, instead of supporting the throne according to its deep-rooted monarchical views, turned away from it and looked at his downfall with real gloating.”

From the beginning of the 1920s, monarchist-minded circles of the Russian emigration published works about the last tsar, which had an apologetic (later also hagiographic) character and a propaganda orientation; The most famous among these was the study of Professor S. S. Oldenburg, published in 2 volumes in Belgrade (1939) and Munich (1949), respectively. One of Oldenburg’s final conclusions was: “The most difficult and most forgotten feat of Emperor Nicholas II was that He, under incredibly difficult conditions, brought Russia to the threshold of victory: His opponents did not allow her to cross this threshold.”

Official assessment in the USSR

An article about him in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1st edition; 1939): “Nicholas II was as limited and ignorant as his father. The inherent traits of Nicholas II of a stupid, narrow-minded, suspicious and proud despot during his stay on the throne received especially vivid expression. The mental squalor and moral decay of court circles reached extreme limits. The regime was rotting at the root Until the last minute, Nicholas II remained what he was - a stupid autocrat, unable to understand either the surrounding situation or even his own benefit. He was preparing to march on Petrograd in order to drown the revolutionary movement in blood and, together with the generals close to him, discussed a plan of treason. »

The later (post-war) Soviet historiographical publications, intended for a wide circle, in describing the history of Russia during the reign of Nicholas II, sought, as far as possible, to avoid mentioning him as a person and personality: for example, “A Manual on the History of the USSR for Preparatory Departments of Universities” ( 1979) on 82 pages of text (without illustrations), outlining the socio-economic and political development of the Russian Empire in a given period, mentions the name of the emperor who stood at the head of the state at the time described, only once - when describing the events of his abdication in favor of his brother (nothing is said about his accession; the name of V.I. Lenin is mentioned 121 times on the same pages).

Church veneration

Since the 1920s, in the Russian diaspora, on the initiative of the Union of Devotees of the Memory of Emperor Nicholas II, regular funeral commemorations of Emperor Nicholas II were carried out three times a year (on his birthday, namesake day and on the anniversary of his assassination), but his veneration as a saint began to spread after the end of Second World War.

On October 19 (November 1), 1981, Emperor Nicholas and his family were glorified by the Russian Church Abroad (ROCOR), which then had no church communion with the Moscow Patriarchate in the USSR.

Decision of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church of August 20, 2000: “To glorify the Royal Family as passion-bearers in the host of new martyrs and confessors of Russia: Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia.” Memorial Day: July 4 (17).

The act of canonization was received ambiguously by Russian society: opponents of canonization claim that the proclamation of Nicholas II as a saint was of a political nature.

In 2003, in Yekaterinburg, on the site of the demolished house of engineer N.N. Ipatiev, where Nicholas II and his family were shot, the Church on the Blood was built? in the name of All Saints who shone in the Russian land, in front of which there is a monument to the family of Nicholas II.

Rehabilitation. Identification of remains

In December 2005, a representative of the head of the “Russian Imperial House” Maria Vladimirovna Romanova sent to the Russian Prosecutor’s Office an application for the rehabilitation of the executed former Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family as victims of political repression. According to the application, after a number of refusals to satisfy, on October 1, 2008, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation made a decision (despite the opinion of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, who stated in court that the requirements for rehabilitation do not comply with the provisions of the law due to the fact that these persons were not arrested for political reasons , and no judicial decision was made to execute) on the rehabilitation of the last Russian Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family.

On October 30 of the same 2008, it was reported that the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation decided to rehabilitate 52 people from the entourage of Emperor Nicholas II and his family.

In December 2008, at a scientific and practical conference held on the initiative of the Investigative Committee under the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, with the participation of geneticists from Russia and the United States, it was stated that the remains found in 1991 near Yekaterinburg and interred on June 17, 1998 in the Catherine's chapel of the Peter and Paul Cathedral (St. Petersburg), belong to Nicholas II. In January 2009, the Investigative Committee completed a criminal investigation into the circumstances of the death and burial of the family of Nicholas II; the investigation was terminated “due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution and the death of persons who committed premeditated murder”

A representative of M.V. Romanova, who calls herself the head of the Russian Imperial House, stated in 2009 that “Maria Vladimirovna fully shares on this issue the position of the Russian Orthodox Church, which has not found sufficient grounds for recognizing the “Ekaterinburg remains” as belonging to members of the Royal Family.” Other representatives of the Romanovs, led by N. R. Romanov, took a different position: the latter, in particular, took part in the burial of the remains in July 1998, saying: “We came to close the era.”

Monuments to Emperor Nicholas II

Even during the life of the last Emperor, no less than twelve monuments were erected in his honor, related to his visits to various cities and military camps. Basically, these monuments were columns or obelisks with an imperial monogram and a corresponding inscription. The only monument, which was a bronze bust of the Emperor on a high granite pedestal, was erected in Helsingfors for the 300th anniversary of the House of Romanov. To this day, none of these monuments have survived. (Sokol K. G. Monumental monuments of the Russian Empire. Catalog. M., 2006, pp. 162-165)

Ironically, the first monument to the Russian Tsar-Martyr was erected in 1924 in Germany by the Germans who fought with Russia - officers of one of the Prussian regiments, whose Chief was Emperor Nicholas II, “erected a worthy monument to Him in an extremely honorable place.”

Currently, monumental monuments to Emperor Nicholas II, from small busts to full-length bronze statues, are installed in the following cities and towns:

• village Vyritsa, Gatchina district, Leningrad region. On the territory of the mansion of S.V. Vasiliev. Bronze statue of the Emperor on a high pedestal. Opened in 2007
• ur. Ganina Yama, near Yekaterinburg. In the complex of the Monastery of the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers. Bronze bust on a pedestal. Opened in the 2000s.
• Yekaterinburg city. Next to the Church of All Saints who shone forth in the Russian Land (Church on the Blood). The bronze composition includes figures of the Emperor and members of His Family. Opened on July 16, 2003, sculptors K.V. Grunberg and A.G. Mazaev.
• With. Klementyevo (near Sergiev Posad) Moscow region. Behind the altar of the Assumption Church. Plaster bust on a pedestal. Opened in 2007
• Kursk. Next to the Church of Saints Faith, Hope, Love and their mother Sophia (Druzhby Ave.). Bronze bust on a pedestal. Opened on September 24, 2003, sculptor V. M. Klykov.
• Moscow city. At the Vagankovskoye cemetery, next to the Church of the Resurrection of the Word. A memorial monument consisting of a marble worship cross and four granite slabs with carved inscriptions. Opened on May 19, 1991, sculptor N. Pavlov. On July 19, 1997, the memorial was seriously damaged by an explosion; it was subsequently restored, but was damaged again in November 2003.
• Podolsk, Moscow region. On the territory of the estate of V.P. Melikhov, next to the Church of the Holy Royal Passion-Bearers. The first plaster monument by sculptor V. M. Klykov, which was a full-length statue of the Emperor, was opened on July 28, 1998, but was blown up on November 1, 1998. A new, this time bronze, monument based on the same model was reopened on January 16, 1999.
• Pushkin. Near the Feodorovsky Sovereign Cathedral. Bronze bust on a pedestal. Opened on July 17, 1993, sculptor V.V. Zaiko.
• Saint Petersburg. Behind the altar of the Church of the Exaltation of the Cross (Ligovsky Ave., 128). Bronze bust on a pedestal. Opened on May 19, 2002, sculptor S. Yu. Alipov.
• Sochi. On the territory of St. Michael the Archangel Cathedral. Bronze bust on a pedestal. Opened on November 21, 2008, sculptor V. Zelenko.
• village Syrostan (near the city of Miass) Chelyabinsk region. Near the Church of the Exaltation of the Cross. Bronze bust on a pedestal. Opened in July 1996, sculptor P. E. Lyovochkin.
• With. Taininskoye (near the city of Mytishchi) Moscow region. A full-length statue of the Emperor on a high pedestal. Opened on May 26, 1996, sculptor V. M. Klykov. On April 1, 1997, the monument was blown up, but three years later it was restored using the same model and reopened on August 20, 2000.
• village Shushenskoye, Krasnoyarsk Territory. Next to the factory entrance of Shushenskaya Marka LLC (Pionerskaya St., 10). Bronze bust on a pedestal. Opened on December 24, 2010, sculptor K. M. Zinich.

• In 2007, at the Russian Academy of Arts, sculptor Z. K. Tsereteli presented a monumental bronze composition consisting of figures of the Emperor and members of His Family standing before the executioners in the basement of the Ipatiev House, and depicting the last minutes of their lives. To date, not a single city has yet expressed a desire to install this monument.

Memorial temples - monuments to the Emperor include:

• Temple - a monument to the Tsar - Martyr Nicholas II in Brussels. It was founded on February 2, 1936, built according to the design of the architect N.I. Istselenov, and solemnly consecrated on October 1, 1950 by Metropolitan Anastasy (Gribanovsky). The temple-monument is under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church (z).
• Church of All Saints who shone forth in the Russian Land (Church - on - Blood) in Yekaterinburg. (about him, see a separate article on Wikipedia)

Filmography

Several feature films have been made about Nicholas II and his family, among which are “Agony” (1981), the English-American film “Nicholas and Alexandra” ( Nicholas and Alexandra, 1971) and two Russian films “The Regicide” (1991) and “The Romanovs. The Crowned Family" (2000). Hollywood made several films about the supposedly saved daughter of the Tsar Anastasia “Anastasia” ( Anastasia, 1956) and “Anastasia, or the secret of Anna” ( , USA, 1986), as well as the cartoon “Anastasia” ( Anastasia, USA, 1997).

Film incarnations

• Alexander Galibin (The Life of Klim Samgin 1987, “The Romanovs. The Crowned Family” (2000)
• Anatoly Romashin (Agony 1974/1981)
• Oleg Yankovsky (The Kingslayer)
• Andrey Rostotsky (Split 1993, Dreams 1993, His Cross)
• Andrey Kharitonov (Sins of the Fathers 2004)
• Borislav Brondukov (Kotsyubinsky Family)
• Gennady Glagolev (Pale Horse)
• Nikolay Burlyaev (Admiral)
• Michael Jayston ("Nicholas and Alexandra" Nicholas and Alexandra, 1971)
• Omar Sharif (“Anastasia, or the Secret of Anna” Anastasia: The Mystery of Anna, USA, 1986)
• Ian McKellen (Rasputin, USA, 1996)
• Alexander Galibin (“The Life of Klim Samgin” 1987, “The Romanovs. The Crowned Family”, 2000)
• Oleg Yankovsky (“The Kingslayer”, 1991)
• Andrey Rostotsky (“Raskol”, 1993, “Dreams”, 1993, “Your Cross”)
• Vladimir Baranov (Russian Ark, 2002)
• Gennady Glagolev (“White Horse”, 2003)
• Andrei Kharitonov (“Sins of the Fathers”, 2004)
• Andrey Nevraev (“Death of an Empire”, 2005)
• Evgeny Stychkin (You are my happiness, 2005)
• Mikhail Eliseev (Stolypin...Unlearned Lessons, 2006)
• Yaroslav Ivanov (“Conspiracy”, 2007)
• Nikolay Burlyaev (“Admiral”, 2008)

Nicholas II (Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov), eldest son of Emperor Alexander III and Empress Maria Feodorovna, was born May 18 (May 6, old style) 1868 in Tsarskoe Selo (now the city of Pushkin, Pushkin district of St. Petersburg).

Immediately after his birth, Nikolai was included in the lists of several guards regiments and appointed chief of the 65th Moscow Infantry Regiment. The future tsar spent his childhood within the walls of the Gatchina Palace. Nikolai began regular homework at the age of eight.

In December 1875 He received his first military rank - ensign, in 1880 he was promoted to second lieutenant, and four years later he became a lieutenant. In 1884 Nikolai entered active military service, in July 1887 year began regular military service in the Preobrazhensky Regiment and was promoted to staff captain; in 1891 Nikolai received the rank of captain, and a year later - colonel.

To get acquainted with government affairs since May 1889 he began to attend meetings of the State Council and the Committee of Ministers. IN October 1890 year went on a trip to the Far East. In nine months, Nikolai visited Greece, Egypt, India, China, and Japan.

IN April 1894 The engagement of the future emperor to Princess Alice of Darmstadt-Hesse, daughter of the Grand Duke of Hesse, granddaughter of Queen Victoria of England, took place. After converting to Orthodoxy, she took the name Alexandra Feodorovna.

November 2 (October 21, old style) 1894 Alexander III died. A few hours before his death, the dying emperor obliged his son to sign the Manifesto on his accession to the throne.

The coronation of Nicholas II took place May 26 (14 old style) 1896. On the thirtieth (18 old style) May 1896, during the celebration of the coronation of Nicholas II in Moscow, a stampede occurred on Khodynka Field in which more than a thousand people died.

The reign of Nicholas II took place in an atmosphere of growing revolutionary movement and complicating foreign policy situation (Russian-Japanese War of 1904-1905; Bloody Sunday; revolution of 1905-1907; World War I; February Revolution of 1917).

Influenced by a strong social movement in favor of political change, October 30 (17 old style) 1905 Nicholas II signed the famous manifesto “On the Improvement of State Order”: the people were granted freedom of speech, press, personality, conscience, meetings, and unions; The State Duma was created as a legislative body.

The turning point in the fate of Nicholas II was 1914- Beginning of the First World War. August 1 (July 19, old style) 1914 Germany declared war on Russia. IN August 1915 year, Nicholas II assumed military command (previously, this position was held by Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich). Afterwards, the tsar spent most of his time at the headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief in Mogilev.

At the end of February 1917 Unrest began in Petrograd, which grew into mass protests against the government and the dynasty. The February Revolution found Nicholas II at headquarters in Mogilev. Having received news of the uprising in Petrograd, he decided not to make concessions and to restore order in the city by force, but when the scale of the unrest became clear, he abandoned this idea, fearing great bloodshed.

At midnight March 15 (2 old style) 1917 In the salon carriage of the imperial train, which stood on the tracks at the Pskov railway station, Nicholas II signed an act of abdication, transferring power to his brother Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, who did not accept the crown.

March 20 (7 old style) 1917 The Provisional Government issued an order for the arrest of the Tsar. On the twenty-second (9th old style) March 1917, Nicholas II and his family were arrested. For the first five months they were under guard in Tsarskoye Selo, in August 1917 they were transported to Tobolsk, where the Romanovs spent eight months.

At first 1918 The Bolsheviks forced Nicholas to remove his colonel's shoulder straps (his last military rank), which he perceived as a grave insult. In May of this year, the royal family was transported to Yekaterinburg, where they were placed in the house of mining engineer Nikolai Ipatiev.

On the night of July 17 (4 old) 1918 and Nicholas II, Tsarina, their five children: daughters - Olga (1895), Tatiana (1897), Maria (1899) and Anastasia (1901), son - Tsarevich, heir to the throne Alexei (1904) and several close associates (11 people in total) , . The shooting took place in a small room on the ground floor of the house; the victims were taken there under the pretext of evacuation. The Tsar himself was shot at point-blank range by the commandant of the Ipatiev House, Yankel Yurovsky. The bodies of the dead were taken outside the city, doused with kerosene, they tried to burn them, and then buried them.

At the beginning of 1991 The first application was submitted to the city prosecutor's office about the discovery of bodies near Yekaterinburg that showed signs of violent death. After many years of research into the remains discovered near Yekaterinburg, a special commission came to the conclusion that they are indeed the remains of nine Nicholas II and his family. In 1997 They were solemnly buried in the Peter and Paul Cathedral in St. Petersburg.

In 2000 Nicholas II and members of his family were canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church.

On October 1, 2008, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recognized the last Russian Tsar Nicholas II and members of his family as victims of illegal political repression and rehabilitated them.

Nature did not give Nicholas the properties important for the sovereign that his late father possessed. Most importantly, Nikolai did not have the “mind of the heart” - political instinct, foresight and that inner strength that those around him feel and obey. However, Nikolai himself felt his weakness, helplessness before fate. He even foresaw his bitter destiny: “I will undergo severe trials, but will not see reward on earth.” Nikolai considered himself an eternal loser: “I succeed in nothing in my endeavors. I have no luck”... Moreover, he not only turned out to be unprepared for ruling, but also did not like state affairs, which were torment for him, a heavy burden: “A day of rest for me - no reports, no receptions... I read a lot - again they sent heaps of papers…” (from the diary). He didn’t have his father’s passion or dedication to his work. He said: “I... try not to think about anything and find that this is the only way to rule Russia.” At the same time, dealing with him was extremely difficult. Nikolai was secretive and vindictive. Witte called him a “Byzantine” who knew how to attract a person with his trust and then deceive him. One wit wrote about the king: “He doesn’t lie, but he doesn’t tell the truth either.”

KHODYNKA

And three days later [after the coronation of Nicholas on May 14, 1896 in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin] on the suburban Khodynskoye field, where public festivities were supposed to take place, a terrible tragedy occurred. Thousands of people, already in the evening, on the eve of the day of festivities, began to gather there, hoping in the morning to be among the first to receive at the “buffet” (of which a hundred were prepared) the royal gift - one of 400 thousand gifts wrapped in a colored scarf, consisting of a “food set” ( half a pound of sausage, sausage, sweets, nuts, gingerbread), and most importantly - an outlandish, “eternal” enameled mug with a royal monogram and gilding. The Khodynskoe field was a training ground and was all pitted with ditches, trenches and holes. The night turned out to be moonless, dark, crowds of “guests” arrived and arrived, heading to the “buffets”. People, not seeing the road in front of them, fell into holes and ditches, and from behind they were pressed and pressed by those who were approaching from Moscow. […]

In total, by morning, about half a million Muscovites had gathered on Khodynka, compacted into huge crowds. As V. A. Gilyarovsky recalled,

“steam began to rise above the million-strong crowd, similar to swamp fog... The crush was terrible. Many became ill, some lost consciousness, unable to get out or even fall: deprived of feelings, with their eyes closed, compressed as if in a vice, they swayed along with the mass.”

The crush intensified when the bartenders, fearing the onslaught of the crowd, began handing out gifts without waiting for the announced deadline...

According to official data, 1,389 people died, although in reality there were much more victims. The blood ran cold even among seasoned military men and firefighters: scalped heads, crushed chests, premature babies lying in the dust... The king learned about this disaster in the morning, but did not cancel any of the planned festivities and in the evening he opened a ball with the charming wife of the French ambassador Montebello... And although the tsar later visited hospitals and donated money to the families of the victims, it was too late. The indifference shown by the sovereign to his people in the first hours of the disaster cost him dearly. He received the nickname "Nicholas the Bloody".

NICHOLAS II AND THE ARMY

When he was heir to the throne, the young Sovereign received thorough combat training, not only in the guard, but also in the army infantry. At the request of his sovereign father, he served as a junior officer in the 65th Moscow Infantry Regiment (the first time a member of the Royal House was assigned to the army infantry). The observant and sensitive Tsarevich became familiar with the life of the troops in every detail and, having become Emperor of All Russia, turned all his attention to improving this life. His first orders streamlined production in the chief officer ranks, increased salaries and pensions, and improved soldiers' allowances. He canceled the passage with a ceremonial march and run, knowing from experience how difficult it was for the troops.

Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich retained this love and affection for his troops until his martyrdom. Characteristic of Emperor Nicholas II’s love for the troops is his avoidance of the official term “lower rank.” The Emperor considered him too dry, official and always used the words: “Cossack”, “hussar”, “shooter”, etc. It is impossible to read the lines of the Tobolsk diary of the dark days of the cursed year without deep emotion:

December 6. My name day... At 12 o'clock a prayer service was served. The riflemen of the 4th regiment, who were in the garden, who were on guard, all congratulated me, and I congratulated them on the regimental holiday.”

FROM THE DIARY OF NICHOLAS II FOR 1905

June 15th. Wednesday. Hot quiet day. Alix and I took a very long time at the Farm and were a full hour late for breakfast. Uncle Alexei was waiting for him with the children in the garden. Took a long trip in a kayak. Aunt Olga arrived for tea. Swimmed in the sea. After lunch we went for a drive.

I received stunning news from Odessa that the crew of the battleship Prince Potemkin-Tavrichesky that arrived there had mutinied, killed the officers and taken possession of the ship, threatening unrest in the city. I just can't believe it!

Today the war with Turkey began. Early in the morning, the Turkish squadron approached Sevastopol in the fog and opened fire on the batteries, and left half an hour later. At the same time, “Breslau” bombarded Feodosia, and “Goeben” appeared in front of Novorossiysk.

The scoundrel Germans continue to retreat hastily in western Poland.

MANIFESTO ON THE DISSOLUTION OF THE 1st STATE DUMA JULY 9, 1906

By Our will, people chosen from the population were called to legislative construction […] Firmly trusting in the mercy of God, believing in the bright and great future of Our people, We expected from their labors the good and benefit for the country. […] We have planned major transformations in all sectors of the people’s life, and Our main concern has always been to dispel the people’s darkness with the light of enlightenment and the people’s hardships by easing land labor. A severe test has been sent down to Our expectations. Those elected from the population, instead of working on legislative construction, deviated into an area that did not belong to them and turned to investigating the actions of local authorities appointed by Us, to pointing out to Us the imperfections of the Fundamental Laws, changes to which can only be undertaken by Our Monarch’s will, and to actions that are clearly illegal, such as an appeal on behalf of the Duma to the population. […]

Confused by such disorders, the peasantry, not expecting a legal improvement in their situation, moved in a number of provinces to open robbery, theft of other people's property, disobedience to the law and legitimate authorities. […]

But let our subjects remember that only with complete order and tranquility is a lasting improvement in the people’s life possible. Let it be known that We will not allow any self-will or lawlessness and with all the might of the state we will bring those who disobey the law to submission to our Royal will. We call on all right-thinking Russian people to unite to maintain legitimate power and restore peace in our dear Fatherland.

May peace be restored in the Russian land, and may the Almighty help us to carry out the most important of our royal labors - raising the well-being of the peasantry. an honest way to expand your land holdings. Persons of other classes will, at Our call, make every effort to carry out this great task, the final decision of which in the legislative order will belong to the future composition of the Duma.

We, dissolving the current composition of the State Duma, at the same time confirm Our unchangeable intention to keep in force the very law on the establishment of this institution and, in accordance with this Decree of Ours to the Governing Senate on July 8th, set the time for its new convening on February 20, 1907 of the year.

MANIFESTO ON THE DISSOLUTION OF THE II STATE DUMA JUNE 3, 1907

To our regret, a significant part of the composition of the second State Duma did not live up to our expectations. Many of the people sent from the population began to work not with a pure heart, not with a desire to strengthen Russia and improve its system, but with a clear desire to increase unrest and contribute to the disintegration of the state. The activities of these individuals in the State Duma served as an insurmountable obstacle to fruitful work. A spirit of hostility was introduced into the environment of the Duma itself, which prevented a sufficient number of its members who wanted to work for the benefit of their native land from uniting.

For this reason, the State Duma either did not consider the extensive measures developed by our government at all, or delayed discussion or rejected it, not even stopping at rejecting laws that punished the open praise of crimes and especially punished the sowers of trouble in the troops. Avoiding condemnation of murders and violence. The State Duma did not provide moral assistance to the government in establishing order, and Russia continues to experience the shame of criminal hard times. The slow consideration by the State Duma of the state painting caused difficulties in the timely satisfaction of many urgent needs of the people.

A significant part of the Duma turned the right to interrogate the government into a way of fighting the government and inciting distrust of it among broad sections of the population. Finally, an act unheard of in the annals of history took place. The judiciary uncovered a conspiracy by an entire part of the State Duma against the state and tsarist power. When our government demanded the temporary, until the end of the trial, removal of the fifty-five members of the Duma accused of this crime and the detention of the most incriminated of them, the State Duma did not fulfill the immediate legal demand of the authorities, which did not allow any delay. […]

Created to strengthen the Russian state, the State Duma must be Russian in spirit. Other nationalities that were part of our state should have representatives of their needs in the State Duma, but they should not and will not appear in a number that gives them the opportunity to be arbiters of purely Russian issues. In those outskirts of the state where the population has not achieved sufficient development of citizenship, elections to the State Duma should be temporarily suspended.

Holy Fools and Rasputin

The king, and especially the queen, were susceptible to mysticism. The closest maid of honor to Alexandra Fedorovna and Nicholas II, Anna Alexandrovna Vyrubova (Taneeva), wrote in her memoirs: “The Emperor, like his ancestor Alexander I, was always mystically inclined; The empress was equally mystically inclined... Their Majesties said that they believe that there are people, as in the time of the Apostles... who possess the grace of God and whose prayer the Lord hears.”

Because of this, in the Winter Palace one could often see various holy fools, “blessed” people, fortune tellers, people supposedly capable of influencing people’s destinies. This is Pasha the perspicacious, and Matryona the barefoot, and Mitya Kozelsky, and Anastasia Nikolaevna Leuchtenbergskaya (Stana) - the wife of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich Jr. The doors of the royal palace were wide open for all sorts of rogues and adventurers, such as, for example, the Frenchman Philip (real name Nizier Vashol), who presented the empress with an icon with a bell, which was supposed to ring when people “with bad intentions” approached Alexandra Feodorovna. .

But the crown of royal mysticism was Grigory Efimovich Rasputin, who managed to completely subjugate the queen, and through her, the king. “Now it is not the tsar who rules, but the rogue Rasputin,” Bogdanovich noted in February 1912. “All respect for the tsar has disappeared.” The same idea was expressed on August 3, 1916 by former Minister of Foreign Affairs S.D. Sazonov in a conversation with M. Paleologus: “The Emperor reigns, but the Empress, inspired by Rasputin, rules.”

Rasputin […] quickly recognized all the weaknesses of the royal couple and skillfully took advantage of it. Alexandra Fedorovna wrote to her husband in September 1916: “I fully believe in the wisdom of our Friend, sent to Him by God, to advise what you and our country need.” “Listen to Him,” she instructed Nicholas II, “...God sent Him to you as an assistant and leader.” […]

It got to the point that individual governors-general, chief prosecutors of the Holy Synod and ministers were appointed and removed by the tsar on the recommendation of Rasputin, transmitted through the tsarina. On January 20, 1916, on his advice, V.V. was appointed chairman of the Council of Ministers. Sturmer is “an absolutely unprincipled person and a complete nonentity,” as Shulgin described him.

Radzig E.S. Nicholas II in the memoirs of those close to him. New and recent history. No. 2, 1999

REFORM AND COUNTER-REFORMS

The most promising path of development for the country through consistent democratic reforms turned out to be impossible. Although it was marked, as if by a dotted line, even under Alexander I, later it was either subject to distortion or even interrupted. Under that autocratic form of government, which throughout the 19th century. remained unshakable in Russia, the final word on any issue about the fate of the country belonged to the monarchs. They, by the whim of history, alternated: reformer Alexander I - reactionary Nicholas I, reformer Alexander II - counter-reformer Alexander III (Nicholas II, who ascended the throne in 1894, also had to undergo reforms after his father’s counter-reforms at the beginning of the next century) .

DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIA DURING THE REIGN OF NICHOLAS II

The main executor of all transformations in the first decade of the reign of Nicholas II (1894-1904) was S.Yu. Witte. A talented financier and statesman, S. Witte, having headed the Ministry of Finance in 1892, promised Alexander III, without carrying out political reforms, to make Russia one of the leading industrialized countries in 20 years.

The industrialization policy developed by Witte required significant capital investments from the budget. One of the sources of capital was the introduction of a state monopoly on wine and vodka products in 1894, which became the main revenue item of the budget.

In 1897, a monetary reform was carried out. Measures to increase taxes, increased gold production, and the conclusion of external loans made it possible to introduce gold coins into circulation instead of paper bills, which helped attract foreign capital to Russia and strengthen the country's monetary system, thanks to which state income doubled. The reform of commercial and industrial taxation carried out in 1898 introduced a trade tax.

The real result of Witte's economic policy was the accelerated development of industrial and railway construction. In the period from 1895 to 1899, an average of 3 thousand kilometers of tracks were built in the country per year.

By 1900, Russia took first place in the world in oil production.

By the end of 1903, there were 23 thousand factory enterprises operating in Russia with approximately 2,200 thousand workers. Politics S.Yu. Witte gave impetus to the development of Russian industry, commercial and industrial entrepreneurship, and the economy.

According to the project of P.A. Stolypin, agrarian reform began: peasants were allowed to freely dispose of their land, leave the community and run farmsteads. The attempt to abolish the rural community was of great importance for the development of capitalist relations in the countryside.

Chapter 19. The reign of Nicholas II (1894-1917). Russian history

BEGINNING OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR

On the same day, July 29, at the insistence of the Chief of the General Staff Yanushkevich, Nicholas II signed a decree on general mobilization. In the evening, the head of the mobilization department of the General Staff, General Dobrorolsky, arrived at the building of the St. Petersburg main telegraph and personally brought there the text of the decree on mobilization for communication to all parts of the empire. There were literally a few minutes left before the devices were supposed to start transmitting the telegram. And suddenly Dobrorolsky was given the tsar’s order to suspend the transfer of the decree. It turned out that the tsar received a new telegram from Wilhelm. In his telegram, the Kaiser again assured that he would try to reach an agreement between Russia and Austria, and asked the Tsar not to complicate this with military preparations. After reading the telegram, Nikolai informed Sukhomlinov that he was canceling the decree on general mobilization. The Tsar decided to limit himself to partial mobilization directed only against Austria.

Sazonov, Yanushkevich and Sukhomlinov were extremely concerned that Nikolai had succumbed to the influence of Wilhelm. They were afraid that Germany would get ahead of Russia in the concentration and deployment of the army. They met on the morning of July 30 and decided to try to convince the king. Yanushkevich and Sukhomlinov tried to do this over the phone. However, Nikolai dryly announced to Yanushkevich that he was ending the conversation. The general nevertheless managed to inform the tsar that Sazonov was present in the room, who would also like to say a few words to him. After a short silence, the king agreed to listen to the minister. Sazonov asked for an audience for an urgent report. Nikolai was silent again, and then offered to come to him at 3 o’clock. Sazonov agreed with his interlocutors that if he convinced the Tsar, he would immediately call Yanushkevich from the Peterhof Palace, and he would give an order to the main telegraph to the officer on duty to communicate the decree to all military districts. “After this,” Yanushkevich said, “I will leave home, break the phone, and generally make it so that I can no longer be found for a new cancellation of the general mobilization.”

For almost an entire hour, Sazonov proved to Nikolai that war was inevitable anyway, since Germany was striving for it, and that under these conditions, delaying general mobilization was extremely dangerous. In the end, Nikolai agreed. […] From the lobby, Sazonov called Yanushkevich and reported the tsar’s sanction. “Now you can break your phone,” he added. At 5 pm on July 30, all the machines of the main St. Petersburg telegraph started knocking. They sent out the tsar's decree on general mobilization to all military districts. On July 31, in the morning, it became public.

The beginning of the First World War. History of Diplomacy. Volume 2. Edited by V. P. Potemkin. Moscow-Leningrad, 1945

THE REIGN OF NICHOLAS II IN THE ASSESSMENTS OF HISTORIANS

In emigration, there was a split among researchers in assessing the personality of the last king. The debates often became harsh, and the participants in the discussions took opposing positions, from praise on the conservative right flank to criticism from liberals and denigration on the left, socialist flank.

The monarchists who worked in exile included S. Oldenburg, N. Markov, I. Solonevich. According to I. Solonevich: “Nicholas II, a man of “average abilities,” faithfully and honestly did everything for Russia that He knew how to do, that He could. No one else was able or able to do more”... “Left-wing historians speak of Emperor Nicholas II as mediocrity, right-wing historians as an idol whose talents or mediocrity are not subject to discussion.” […].

An even more right-wing monarchist, N. Markov, noted: “The sovereign himself was slandered and defamed in the eyes of his people, he could not withstand the evil pressure of all those who, it would seem, were obliged to strengthen and defend the monarchy in every possible way” […].

The largest researcher of the reign of the last Russian Tsar is S. Oldenburg, whose work remains of paramount importance in the 21st century. For any researcher of the Nicholas period of Russian history, it is necessary, in the process of studying this era, to get acquainted with the work of S. Oldenburg “The Reign of Emperor Nicholas II”. […].

The left-liberal direction was represented by P. N. Milyukov, who stated in the book “The Second Russian Revolution”: “Concessions to power (Manifesto of October 17, 1905) not only could not satisfy society and the people because they were insufficient and incomplete. They were insincere and deceitful, and the power that gave them did not for a moment look at them as if they had been ceded forever and finally” […].

Socialist A.F. Kerensky wrote in “History of Russia”: “The reign of Nicholas II was fatal for Russia due to his personal qualities. But he was clear about one thing: having entered the war and linking the fate of Russia with the fate of the countries allied with it, he did not make any tempting compromises with Germany until the very end, until his martyrdom […]. The king bore the burden of power. She weighed him down internally... He had no will to power. He kept it according to oath and tradition” […].

Modern Russian historians have different assessments of the reign of the last Russian Tsar. The same split was observed among scholars of the reign of Nicholas II in exile. Some of them were monarchists, others had liberal views, and others considered themselves supporters of socialism. In our time, the historiography of the reign of Nicholas II can be divided into three directions, such as in emigrant literature. But in relation to the post-Soviet period, clarifications are also needed: modern researchers who praise the tsar are not necessarily monarchists, although a certain tendency is certainly present: A. Bokhanov, O. Platonov, V. Multatuli, M. Nazarov.

A. Bokhanov, the largest modern historian in the study of pre-revolutionary Russia, positively assesses the reign of Emperor Nicholas II: “In 1913, peace, order, and prosperity reigned all around. Russia confidently moved forward, no unrest occurred. Industry worked at full capacity, agriculture developed dynamically, and every year brought greater harvests. Prosperity grew, and the purchasing power of the population increased year by year. The rearmament of the army has begun, a few more years - and Russian military power will become the first force in the world” […].

Conservative historian V. Shambarov speaks positively about the last tsar, noting that the tsar was too lenient in dealing with his political enemies, who were also enemies of Russia: “Russia was destroyed not by autocratic “despotism,” but rather by the weakness and toothlessness of power.” The Tsar too often tried to find a compromise, to come to an agreement with the liberals, so that there would be no bloodshed between the government and part of the people deceived by the liberals and socialists. To do this, Nicholas II dismissed loyal, decent, competent ministers who were loyal to the monarchy and instead appointed either unprofessionals or secret enemies of the autocratic monarchy, or swindlers. […].

M. Nazarov in his book “To the Leader of the Third Rome” drew attention to the aspect of the global conspiracy of the financial elite to overthrow the Russian monarchy... […] According to the description of Admiral A. Bubnov, an atmosphere of conspiracy reigned at Headquarters. At the decisive moment, in response to Alekseev’s cleverly formulated request for abdication, only two generals publicly expressed loyalty to the Sovereign and readiness to lead their troops to pacify the rebellion (General Khan Nakhichevansky and General Count F.A. Keller). The rest welcomed the abdication by wearing red bows. Including the future founders of the White Army, Generals Alekseev and Kornilov (the latter then had the task of announcing to the royal family the order of the Provisional Government for its arrest). Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich also violated his oath on March 1, 1917 - even before the Tsar’s abdication and as a means of putting pressure on him! - removed his military unit (the Guards crew) from guarding the royal family, came to the State Duma under a red flag, provided this headquarters of the Masonic revolution with his guards to guard the arrested royal ministers and issued a call for other troops to “join the new government.” “There is cowardice, treason, and deceit all around,” these were the last words in the tsar’s diary on the night of his abdication […].

Representatives of the old socialist ideology, for example, A.M. Anfimov and E.S. Radzig, on the contrary, negatively assess the reign of the last Russian Tsar, calling the years of his reign a chain of crimes against the people.

Between two directions - praise and overly harsh, unfair criticism are the works of Ananich B.V., N.V. Kuznetsov and P. Cherkasov. […]

P. Cherkasov adheres to the middle in his assessment of the reign of Nicholas: “From the pages of all the works mentioned in the review, the tragic personality of the last Russian Tsar appears - a deeply decent and delicate man to the point of shyness, an exemplary Christian, a loving husband and father, faithful to his duty and at the same time an unremarkable statesman an activist, a prisoner of once and for all acquired convictions in the inviolability of the order of things bequeathed to him by his ancestors. He was neither a despot, much less an executioner of his people, as our official historiography claimed, but during his lifetime he was not a saint, as is sometimes now claimed, although by martyrdom he undoubtedly atoned for all the sins and mistakes of his reign. The drama of Nicholas II as a politician lies in his mediocrity, in the discrepancy between the scale of his personality and the challenge of the time” […].

And finally, there are historians of liberal views, such as K. Shatsillo, A. Utkin. According to the first: “Nicholas II, unlike his grandfather Alexander II, not only did not give overdue reforms, but even if they were wrested from him by force by the revolutionary movement, he stubbornly strove to take back what was given “in a moment of hesitation.” All this “driven” the country into a new revolution, making it completely inevitable... A. Utkin went even further, agreeing to the point that the Russian government was one of the culprits of the First World War, wanting a clash with Germany. At the same time, the tsarist administration simply did not calculate the strength of Russia: “Criminal pride destroyed Russia. Under no circumstances should she go to war with the industrial champion of the continent. Russia had the opportunity to avoid a fatal conflict with Germany.”

Nicholas II is the last Russian Tsar who abdicated the throne and was executed by the Bolsheviks, later canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church. His reign has been assessed in various ways: from harsh criticism and statements that he was a “bloody” and weak-willed monarch, responsible for the revolutionary disaster and the collapse of the empire, to praise of his human virtues and statements that he was an outstanding statesman and reformer.

During his reign, there was an unprecedented flourishing of the economy, agriculture, and industry. The country became the main exporter of agricultural products, coal mining and iron smelting increased fourfold, electricity generation increased 100 times, and the gold reserves of the state bank more than doubled. The Emperor was the founder of Russian aviation and the submarine fleet. By 1913, the empire entered the top five most developed countries in the world.

Childhood and adolescence

The future autocrat was born on May 18, 1868 at the country residence of Russian rulers in Tsarskoye Selo. He became the first-born of Alexander III and Maria Feodorovna among their five children and the heir to the crown.

His main educator, according to the decision of his grandfather, Alexander II, became General Grigory Danilovich, who held this “position” from 1877 to 1891. Subsequently, he was blamed for the shortcomings of the complex character of the emperor.

Since 1877, the heir received home education according to a system that included general education subjects and lectures in higher sciences. Initially, he mastered the visual and musical arts, literature, historical processes and foreign languages, including English, Danish, German, and French. And from 1885 to 1890. studied military affairs, economics, and jurisprudence, which were important for royal activities. His mentors were prominent scientists - Vladimir Afanasyevich Obruchev, Nikolai Nikolaevich Beketov, Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev, Mikhail Ivanovich Dragomirov, etc. Moreover, they were only obliged to present the material, but not to test the knowledge of the heir to the crown prince. However, he studied very diligently.

In 1878, an English teacher, Mr. Karl Heath, appeared among the boy's mentors. Thanks to him, the teenager not only mastered the language perfectly, but also fell in love with sports. After the family moved to the Gatchina Palace in 1881, not without the participation of the Englishman, a training room with a horizontal bar and parallel bars was equipped in one of its halls. In addition, together with his brothers, Nikolai rode horses well, shot, fenced, and became well developed physically.

In 1884, the young man took the oath of service to the Motherland and began service, first in Preobrazhensky, and 2 years later in His Majesty’s Life Guards Hussar Regiment.

In 1892, the young man earned the rank of colonel, and his father began to introduce him to the specifics of governing the country. The young man took part in the work of Parliament and the Cabinet of Ministers, visited different parts of the monarchy and abroad: Japan, China, India, Egypt, Austria-Hungary, Greece.

Tragic accession to the throne

In 1894, at 2:15 a.m. in Livadia, Alexander III died of kidney disease, and an hour and a half later, in the Church of the Exaltation of the Cross, his son swore allegiance to the crown. The coronation ceremony - the assumption of power along with the corresponding attributes, including the crown, throne, scepter - took place in 1896 in the Kremlin.

It was overshadowed by the terrible events on the Khodynka field, where festivities were planned with the presentation of 400 thousand royal gifts - a mug with the monogram of the monarch and various delicacies. As a result, a million-strong crowd of people wishing to receive gifts formed on Khodynka. The result was a terrible stampede that claimed the lives of about one and a half thousand citizens.

Having learned about the tragedy, the sovereign did not cancel the festive events, in particular, the reception at the French embassy. And although he later visited victims in hospitals and financially supported the families of the victims, he still received the popular nickname “Bloody.”

Reign

In domestic politics, the young emperor maintained his father's commitment to traditional values ​​and principles. In his first public speech in 1895 in the Winter Palace, he announced his intention to “protect the principles of autocracy.” According to a number of historians, this statement was negatively received by society. People doubted the possibility of democratic reforms, and this caused an increase in revolutionary activity.

However, after his father’s counter-reforms, the last Russian Tsar began to maximally support decisions to improve the people’s life and strengthen the existing system.

Among the processes introduced under him were:

• population census;
• introduction of gold circulation of the ruble;
• universal primary education;
• industrialization;
• limitation of working hours;
• workers' insurance;
• improving soldiers' allowances;
• increasing military salaries and pensions;
• religious tolerance;
• agrarian reform;
• large-scale road construction.

Rare newsreel with Emperor Nicholas II in color

Due to growing popular unrest and wars, the reign of the emperor took place in a very difficult situation. Following the demands of the time, he granted his subjects freedom of speech, assembly, and press. The State Duma was created in the country, which performed the functions of the highest legislative body. However, with the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, internal problems worsened even more, and mass protests against the authorities began.

The authority of the head of state was also negatively affected by military failures and the emergence of rumors about the interference in the governance of the country by various fortune tellers and other controversial personalities, especially the main “adviser to the Tsar” Grigory Rasputin, who was considered by most citizens to be an adventurer and rogue.

Footage of the abdication of Nicholas II

In February 1917, spontaneous riots began in the capital. The monarch intended to stop them by force. However, an atmosphere of conspiracy reigned at Headquarters. Only two generals expressed their readiness to support the emperor and send troops to pacify the rebels; the rest were in favor of his abdication. As a result, in early March in Pskov, Nicholas II made the difficult decision to abdicate in favor of his brother Mikhail. However, after the Duma refused to guarantee his personal safety if he accepted the crown, he officially renounced the throne, thereby putting an end to the thousand-year Russian monarchy and the 300-year reign of the Romanov dynasty.

Personal life of Nicholas II

The first love of the future emperor was ballet dancer Matilda Kshesinskaya. He had an intimate relationship with her with the approval of his parents, concerned about his son’s indifference to the opposite sex, for two years, starting in 1892. However, the connection with the ballerina, the path and favorite of St. Petersburg, for obvious reasons could not result in a legal marriage. Alexei Uchitel’s feature film “Matilda” is dedicated to this page in the life of the emperor (although viewers agree that there is more fiction in this film than historical accuracy).

In April 1894, in the German city of Coburg, the engagement of the 26-year-old Tsarevich to the 22-year-old Princess Alice of Darmstadt of Hesse, granddaughter of Queen Victoria of England, took place. He later described the event as "wonderful and unforgettable." Their wedding took place in November in the church of the Winter Palace.

The couple had 5 children: Tatyana, Olga, Maria, Anastasia and Alexey.

Nikolai kept a diary from the age of 9, was interested in photography, cars, loved hunting, cinema, reading books, and smoking cigarettes.

Death of Nicholas II

After the abdication of the autocrat, power in Russia passed to the Provisional Government. According to his decision, on March 8, 1917, upon arrival in Tsarskoe Selo, Nikolai Alexandrovich along with his household were arrested. On August 1, the royal family was exiled to Tobolsk, ostensibly for security reasons - the Germans were stubbornly advancing towards the Russian capital, where anarchy reigned.

In April 1918, the former monarch and his wife, their children and several loyal servants were sent to Yekaterinburg by order of the Bolshevik government under the leadership of Vladimir Lenin. With the sanction of the leader of the revolution (although this fact is disputed by a number of historians), on the night of July 17, in the house where they were kept in captivity, all the prisoners were shot without a court verdict.

Murder of the royal family

In 1981, the family of the last monarch was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and in 2000 in the Russian Federation.