Nicholas II Alexandrovich. Milestones of domestic and foreign policy

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 fate: “I will be subjected to severe trials but I will see no 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 Khodynskoye 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 Alexey 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 are dissolving current composition State Duma, we confirm at the same time Our constant intention to keep in force the very law on the establishment of this institution and, in accordance with this Decree, given to the Governing Senate on July 8th, the time of its new convening was set for February 20, 1907.

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. Not with a pure heart, not with a desire to strengthen Russia and improve its system, many of the people sent from the population began to work, but with a clear desire to increase unrest and contribute to the decomposition 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.

Real result economic policy Witte saw 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 king had 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 began, a few more years - and the 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 the 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 evaluate 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 assessing 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 not outstanding statesman, a captive 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.”

The abdication of Nicholas 2 from the throne is perhaps one of the most confusing mysteries of the 20th century.

Its main reason was the weakening of the power of the sovereign, inevitable and inevitable in the conditions in which the empire was located.

The next day Petrograd was engulfed in riots. To organize the unrest, rumors about a shortage of bread were spread. A workers' strike was organized and grew with inexorable force. Slogans were shouted everywhere: “Down with autocracy” and “Down with war.”

For several days, unrest spread throughout the entire city and surrounding area. And finally, on February 27, a military revolt broke out. The Emperor instructed Adjutant General Ivanov to deal with its suppression.

However, while Ivanov was getting there, the situation in Petrograd changed, and the Provisional Committee of the State Duma and the Petrograd Council of Workers' Deputies, representing the revolutionary masses, came to the fore. If the latter believed that the liquidation of the monarchy in Russia was an established fact, then the Provisional Committee sought to compromise with the regime and transition to a constitutional monarchy.

The high military command at Headquarters and the fronts, which had previously unconditionally supported Nicholas II, began to be inclined to think that it was better to sacrifice the tsar, but preserve the dynasty and successfully continue the war with Germany, than to get involved in a civil war with the troops of the capital's military garrison and suburbs who had sided with the rebels , and expose the front. Moreover, having met with the Tsarskoye Selo garrison, which had also gone over to the side of the revolution, the punisher Ivanov withdrew his echelons from the capital.

Under the pressure of these events, Nicholas 2 decided to return to Tsarskoe Selo. Leaving the military headquarters, essentially the center for controlling the situation, was a fatal mistake. The emperor's train was stopped on the night of March 1, just 150 versts from Petrograd. Because of this, Nikolai had to go to Pskov, where the headquarters of Ruzsky, under whose command the Northern Front was located, was located.

The main problem of the last tsar was the lack of prompt and accurate information about the events in Petrograd. While at the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief (Mogilev) or while traveling on trains, he received news from various conflicting sources and with a delay. If the empress from quiet Tsarskoe Selo reported to Nicholas that nothing particularly terrible was happening, then messages came from the head of government, military authorities, and State Duma Chairman Mikhail Rodzianko that the city was in uprising and that decisive measures were needed.

“There is anarchy in the capital. The government is paralyzed... General discontent is growing. Units of troops shoot at each other... Any delay is like death,” he writes to the emperor on February 26. To which the latter does not react, calling the message “nonsense.”

Finding himself in Pskov on March 1, 1917, where Nikolai was stuck while advancing to Tsarskoe Selo, he began to receive a rapidly increasing flow of information about events in the capital and ever new demands from the Provisional Committee. The final blow was Rodzianko’s proposal to abdicate the throne in favor of his young son Alexei, during the regency of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, since “hatred of the dynasty had reached its extreme limits.” Rodzianko believed that the voluntary abdication of the tsar would calm the revolutionary masses, and most importantly, would not allow the Petrograd Soviet to overthrow the monarchy.

The proposal to abdicate was presented to the monarch by the commander of the Northern Front, General Nikolai Ruzsky. And telegrams were sent to all front and fleet commanders asking them to support the Tsar’s abdication. At first, Nikolai, under various pretexts, tried to delay the resolution of the issue and refuse to renounce, but upon receiving news that the entire high command of the country was asking him to do this, including the generals of the Northern Front headquarters, he was forced to agree. Hence “treason, cowardice and deceit are all around” - the famous phrase of Nicholas II, written in his diary on the day of his abdication.

Was Nicholas's abdication legal from a legal point of view?

Here is the assessment given by the Federation Council of Modern Russia:

“The abdication of the throne of Emperor Nicholas II has legal force, the Federation Council said. Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on Constitutional Legislation Konstantin Dobrynin:

"...The original of Nicholas II's abdication is kept in State Archives in Moscow. The autocrat had at that time all the power, including the possibility of his own renunciation in exactly the form in which God’s anointed one considered possible, and in the pen that he considered appropriate. Even a nail on a sheet of iron. And it will have absolute legal force"

He added that the act of abdication of Nicholas II was published in all newspapers of Tsarist Russia and was not questioned. To eliminate “doubts and misinterpretations,” the document was confirmed by the Minister of the Imperial Household, Baron Fredericks. Dobrynin added that after March 2, 2017, Nikolai did not declare anywhere about being forced to renounce for almost a year and a half.

On March 2, 1917, Nicholas II abdicated the throne for himself and his son in favor of his brother Mikhail, who refused to take power into his own hands. After this, the last Russian emperor and his family were under house arrest in the Tsarskoye Selo Palace. In July 1918, the Nicholas II family was shot in Yekaterinburg.

Monarchical ideas continually overwhelm the public. Recently, Deputies of the Legislative Assembly of the Leningrad Region invited representatives of the House of Romanov to return to Russia. On July 13, information appeared in the media (later turned out to be incorrect) that the descendants of the Romanov dynasty turned to to the Russian President with a request to grant imperial house official status and provide them with residence in Moscow. This appeal aroused criticism; it was noted that such an initiative was unacceptable for a democratic state. And the attitude towards monarchical views, as well as towards the Romanov family, in Russia is ambiguous."

Who has not been “wooed” by Russia into the newly-minted “tsars”. Even these:

Allegedly “Kirillovichi” and this bumpkin “heir”. He is called Zhorik among his loved ones. But they are right - 0

Plan: p.

Introduction 3

I. Beginning of the reign of Nicholas II 4

1) “Meaningless dreams” of liberals 4

2) Projects for solving the peasant question 6

a) “Special meeting on the needs of the agricultural industry.” (S.Yu. Witte) 6

b) Editorial Commission of the Ministry of Internal Affairs 8

c) Tsar’s manifesto of February 6, 1903 (V.K. Plehve) 9

3) Foreign policy initiatives of the Tsar 10

4) Attempts at concessions. “Autumn Spring” Svyatopolk-Mirsky 13

II. Nicholas II and the first Russian revolution 15

1) “Bloody” Sunday 15

2) Power maneuvers 17

3) “Bulyginskaya Duma” 19

5) Nicholas II and the State Duma 23

a) "First Russian constitution» 23

b) I State Duma 26

III. Calm and Reform 29

IV. Duma monarchy 31

V. Nicholas II and the First World War 34

VI. February Revolution and abdication of Nicholas 36

Conclusion 39

Introduction

Humanity will always be tormented by the question: What happened in Russia in the seventeenth? Is Nicholas II the culprit or the victim?

Starting to write my essay, I set myself the task of figuring out through the actions of Emperor Nicholas II whether he was rightly accused of being the culprit of all the tragedies that occurred in Russia during his reign. Contemporaries saw him as a good family man, but not a very good ruler. Here's what his contemporaries said about him:

A.F. Kony (famous judicial figure): “Cowardice and betrayal ran like a red thread through his entire life, throughout his entire reign, and in this, and not in a lack of intelligence or will, we must look for some of the reasons for how it ended for him.” and other".

P.N. Miliukov (leader of the Cadet Party): “Nicholas II was undoubtedly an honest man and a good family man, but had an extremely weak-willed nature... Nikolai was afraid of the influence of a strong will on himself. In the fight against her, he used the same thing, the only means available to him were cunning and duplicity.”

I used many books to write my essay, but I will dwell on some of them in more detail:

S.S. Oldenburg "The Reign of Emperor Nicholas II". In this book, the material is presented sequentially, perhaps not in great detail, but in it I found everything necessary information, which is not found in other publications.

Gilliard "The Emperor and His Family". In this book, the closest person in the family, Gilliard, the teacher, tells about Nicholas II what other people could not know or see.

However, when writing the essay, I used a 10th grade history textbook. Many events in this textbook are presented in a way that no other book can. For example, I took material from this textbook about the creation of the Constitution.

I took the very title of the essay from the book by Shatsillo F.K., which is called: “Nicholas II: reforms or revolution.”

I . Beginning of the reign of Nicholas II

1. “Meaningless dreams” of liberals

Alexander III died unexpectedly on October 20, 1894. The eyes of the liberal public turned with hope to his son and heir. The new Emperor Nicholas II was expected to change his father’s conservative course and return to the policy of liberal reforms of his grandfather, Alexander II. Society closely followed the statements of the young tsar, looking for the slightest hint of a turn in politics. And if words became known that at least to some extent could be interpreted in a liberal sense, they were immediately picked up and warmly welcomed. Thus, the liberal newspaper “Russian Vedomosti” praised the tsar’s notes, which had become public, in the margins of a report on the problems of public education. The notes acknowledged the problems in this area. This was seen as a sign of the tsar’s deep understanding of the country’s problems, a sign of his intention to begin reforms.

The public did not limit itself to laudatory reviews, intended to gently push the new tsar on the path of reform. Zemstvo assemblies literally inundated the emperor with greetings - addresses that, along with expressions of love and devotion, also contained very cautious wishes of a political nature.

The question of the constitution, of the real limitation of autocratic power, was not raised in the zemstvos' appeals to the emperor. The modesty and moderation of the public's wishes was explained by the confidence that the new tsar would not be slow to meet the dictates of the times.

Everyone was looking forward to what the new emperor would answer to society. The occasion for his first public appearance soon presented itself to the king. On January 17, 1895, on the occasion of the sovereign’s marriage, it was announced gala reception deputations from the nobility, zemstvos, cities and Cossack troops. The great hall was full. A nondescript guards colonel walked through the deputies who respectfully parted, sat down on the throne, put his cap on his knees and, lowering his eyes into it, began to say something indistinctly.

“I know,” the tsar muttered quickly, “that recently in some zemstvo meetings the voices of people who were carried away by meaningless dreams about the participation of zemstvo representatives in matters of internal government have been heard; let everyone know,” and here Nikolai tried to add metal to his voice, “that I will protect the principles of autocracy as firmly and unswervingly as my unforgettable late parent guarded it.”

2. Projects for solving the peasant question

a) “Special meeting on the needs of the agricultural industry.” (S.Yu. Witte)

In January 1902, the sovereign made an important fundamental decision to move the agrarian question forward. On January 23, the regulations on the Special Meeting on the needs of the agricultural industry were approved. This institution aimed not only to clarify the needs of agriculture, but also to prepare “measures aimed at benefiting this branch of national labor.”

Under the chairmanship of the Minister of Finance S.Yu. Witte - although he was always far from the needs of the village - with the close participation of D.S. Sipyagin and Minister of Agriculture A.S. Ermolov, this meeting consisted of twenty dignitaries, and along with members of the State Council, the chairman of the Moscow Society of Agriculture, Prince A.G., was also involved. Shcherbatov.

At the first meeting, on February 2, the scope of work was determined. S.Yu. Witte indicated that the meeting would also have to touch upon issues of a national nature, the resolution of which would then have to be addressed to the sovereign. D.S. Sipyagin noted that “many of the issues that are significant for the agricultural industry should not, however, be resolved solely from the point of view of the interests of agriculture” 2 ; Other, national considerations are possible.

The meeting then decided to ask stakeholders about their own understanding of their needs. Such an appeal was a bold step; as regards the intelligentsia it could hardly produce practical results. But in this case, the question was asked not to the city, but to the village - to those segments of the population, nobles and peasants, of whose loyalty the sovereign was convinced.

In all provinces of European Russia, provincial committees were established to determine the needs of the agricultural industry. Then committees were also organized in the Caucasus and Siberia. About 600 committees were formed throughout Russia.

In the summer of 1902, local committees began work on the needs of the agricultural industry - first provincial, then district. The work was set within a broad framework. Distributing to the district committees a list of questions for which it was desirable to have answers, the Special Meeting noted that it “did not mean to constrain the judgments of local committees, since these latter would be asked general question about the needs of the agricultural industry, giving them full freedom to express their views."

A variety of questions were raised - about public education, about the reorganization of the court; “about a small zemstvo unit” (volost zemstvo); on the creation of one or another form of popular representation.

The work of the district committees ended at the beginning of 1903; After that, the provincial committees summed up the results.

What were the results of this great job, this appeal to rural Russia? The proceedings of the committees occupied many dozens of volumes. One could find in these works the expression of a wide variety of views; the intelligentsia, more mobile and active, hastened to extract from them what seemed to them politically favorable to them. On all questions about the “foundations of law and order,” about self-government, about the rights of peasants, about public education, everything that corresponded to the direction of the compilers was extracted from the judgments of the committees; all dissent was either discarded or summarily noted as ugly exceptions.

The committees' conclusions about the needs of the agricultural industry were largely obscured by the press: they did not correspond to the views that dominated society. They also came as a bit of a surprise to the government.

b) Editorial commission of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

The material collected by local committees was published at the beginning of 1904. Based on this material, Witte compiled his “Note on the Peasant Question.” He insisted on the abolition of special class bodies of court and administration, the abolition of a special system of punishments for peasants, the elimination of all restrictions on freedom of movement and choice of occupation, and most importantly, on granting peasants the right to freely dispose of their property and to leave the community along with their communal property. an allotment that turns into the personal property of the peasant. Witte did not at all propose violent destruction of the community.

But back at the end of 1903, the so-called Editorial Commission of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, established in June 1902 with the consent of the Tsar by the Minister of Internal Affairs V.K., presented its directly opposite recommendations. Plehve to “edit” the existing legislation on peasants. The Commission saw the traditional patriarchal way of life of peasants as a guarantee of their commitment to autocracy. For the Commission this was much more important than economic feasibility. Therefore, it was proposed to protect the class isolation of the peasantry, remove supervision over it from the authorities, and prevent the transfer of land into personal ownership and free trade in it. As a concession to the spirit of the times, the most general wish was put forward “to take measures to facilitate the exit from the community of mentally outgrown peasants.” But there was immediately a reservation that in order to avoid the spread of mutual enmity and hatred in the village, leaving the community was permissible only with the consent of the majority of its members.

c) Tsar’s Manifesto of February 6, 1903 (V.K. Plehve)

The Editorial Commission of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was deliberately created as a counterweight to Witte’s “Special Meeting”. VC. Plehve was generally Witte’s main opponent in government districts. He was appointed to replace D.S., who was killed on April 2, 1902. Sipyagin.

In the confrontation with Witte Plehve he won. In August 1903, the Minister of Finance was forced to resign. Instead of one of the key ministries, Witte received a purely ceremonial post of Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, which had no influence on real politics. The works of the “Conference” he headed remained without consequences.

Nicholas II was clearly inclined towards the policy proposed by Plehve. On February 6, 1903, on the birthday of his “unforgettable parent,” the emperor signed the Manifesto, which had been in preparation for almost a year. It said, “turmoil, sown partly by plans hostile to state order, partly by passion for principles alien to Russian life, prevents general work to improve people's well-being." Confirming his vow to “sacredly preserve the centuries-old foundations of the Russian state,” the tsar simultaneously ordered the authorities to strictly observe the covenants of religious tolerance and announced the upcoming revision of laws “relating to the rural condition,” and the participation in this revision of “persons enjoying the trust of society.” But the local committees of the “Special Meeting” were instructed to base their works on “the inviolability of the communal system of peasant land ownership.” The manifesto spoke only of a temporary search for ways to facilitate the exit of individual peasants from the community and of taking immediate measures to abolish mutual responsibility, which was embarrassing for peasants. The latter was the only practical measure promised in the Manifesto.

3. Foreign policy initiatives of the tsar

The Russian government in December 1898 developed a note based on the experience of recent months and reducing the general proposals of the August 12 note to several specific points.

“Despite the manifest desire of public opinion in favor of general pacification,” this note said, “the political situation has changed significantly recently. Many states began to develop new weapons, trying to further develop their military forces. Naturally, with such an uncertain order of things, one could not help but wonder whether the powers consider the present political moment convenient for discussing internationally those principles that were set out in the circular of August 12...

It goes without saying that all questions relating to the political relations of states and the order of things existing on the basis of treaties, as well as in general all questions that will not be included in the program adopted by the cabinets, will be subject to unconditional exclusion from the subjects of discussion at the conference” 3.

Having thus reassured the dangerous I Franz II and Germany regarding the possibility of raising political issues, the Russian government put forward the following program:

1. Agreement on maintaining for a certain period the present composition of the ground and naval armed forces and budgets for military necessity.

7. Revision of the 1874 declarations on the laws and customs of war.

In this note, the original main idea of ​​reducing and limiting weapons already remained only “the first one” along with other proposals.

The Russian program for the peace conference was thus reduced to several very specific provisions. The venue for its convening was The Hague, the capital of Holland, one of the most “neutral” countries (and at the same time not officially “neutralized”, like Switzerland and Belgium).

In order to ensure the participation of all the great powers, it was necessary to agree not to invite African states, as well as the Roman Curia. The states of Central and South America were also not invited. All twenty European states, four Asian and two American ones took part in the conference.

The Hague Peace Conference met from May 18 (6) to July 29 (17), 1899, under the chairmanship of the Russian ambassador in London, Baron Staal.

The struggle was waged around two points - arms limitation and compulsory arbitration. On the first issue, the debate took place at the plenary meeting of the first commission (June 23, 26 and 30).

“Restrictions on the military budget and weapons are the main goal of the conference,” said the Russian delegate Baron Staal. - We are not talking about utopias, we are not proposing disarmament. We want restrictions, a stop to the growth of armaments" 4 . The military representative of Russia, Colonel Zhilinsky, proposed: 1) undertake not to increase the previous number of peacetime troops for five years, 2) accurately establish this number, 3) undertake not to increase military budgets during the same period. Captain Shein proposed limiting maritime budgets for a three-year period, as well as publishing all data on fleets.

Several states (including Japan) immediately stated that they had not yet received instructions on these issues. The unpopular role of official opponent was taken on by the German delegate, Colonel Gross von Schwarzhoff. He ironically objected to those who spoke about the unbearable hardships of armament.

The question was referred to a subcommittee of eight military men, which, with the exception of the Russian delegate Zhilinsky, unanimously admitted that 1) it is difficult to fix the number of troops even for five years without simultaneously regulating other elements of national defense, 2) it is no less difficult to regulate other elements by international agreement , different in different countries. Therefore, unfortunately, the Russian proposal cannot be accepted. Regarding naval weapons, delegations cited a lack of instructions.

Only the question of the arbitration court aroused passionate debate. The German delegation took an irreconcilable position on this issue.

A compromise was found by waiving the obligation of arbitration. The German delegation, in turn, agreed to the establishment of a permanent court. Wilhelm II, however, considered this a great concession that he made to the sovereign. The same was expressed by government officials from other countries.

Russian public opinion until the end of the Hague Conference, showed rather little interest in this issue. In general, a sympathetic attitude, with an admixture of skepticism and some irony, prevailed.

The Hague Conference of 1899, however, played its role in world history. It showed how far from general peace there was at that moment, how fragile the international calm was. At the same time, it raised the question of the possibility and desirability of international agreements to ensure peace.

4. Attempts at concessions. “Autumn Spring” by Svyatopolk-Mirsky

The speech of the Zemstvo Congress put Svyatopolk-Mirsky, as a minister of the tsarist government, in an extremely uncomfortable position. It turned out that with his connivance, an unheard-of violation of existing norms and an encroachment on the foundations of the existing system took place. On November 21, Mirsky sent a letter to the Tsar asking for his resignation. The next day, in an audience with Nikolai, he stated that in Russia there is no basic legality and protection of citizens and that if you do not meet the completely natural demands of liberal reforms, there will be a revolution. Nikolai again expressed his well-known opinion that “only intellectuals want change, but the people do not want it,” but still did not accept the minister’s resignation.

Mirsky continued to stick to his line. At the beginning of December, he submitted to the Tsar a draft decree instructing the Committee of Ministers to develop bills on some expansion of freedom of speech and the press, religious tolerance and local self-government, on some restrictions on the application of emergency laws, on the abolition of some restrictions in relation to foreigners. Work should have continued on projects to somewhat expand the rights of peasants. The last paragraph vaguely stated the intention to further involve elected representatives of the population in the preliminary development of bills before submitting them for consideration by the State Council and the monarch. However, nothing was said about limiting the king's legislative power. Thus, Svyatopolk-Mirsky’s program, while seemingly meeting the wishes of society, seemed to moderate and largely dilute the demands of the Zemstvo Congress. But even this ultra-cautious program seemed unacceptably radical to Nicholas II.

During the discussion of the project in the government, the tsar remained silent. This was regarded by the ministers as a sign of agreement. But on December 12, a Decree was published, loudly called “On plans for improvement public order" 5 . The decree insisted on the “indispensable preservation of the inviolability of the fundamental laws of the empire,” that is, the autocracy in its intact form.

If the Decree was perceived by a significant part of the liberal public as a slap in the face, then the “Message” was perceived as a kick from the gendarmerie’s boot. The right-wing liberal Maklakov called it “amazingly tactless,” and assessed the Decree itself, in general, positively.

Svyatopolk-Mirsky again announced his intention to resign.

II . Nikolay II and the first Russian revolution

1. Bloody Sunday

The ninth of January was a “political earthquake” - the beginning of the Russian revolution.

About 140 thousand people took to the streets on January 9. The workers walked with their wives and children, festively dressed. People carried icons, banners, crosses, royal portraits, and white-blue-red national flags. Armed soldiers warmed themselves by the fires. But no one wanted to believe that the workers would be shot. The king was not in the city that day, but they hoped that the sovereign would come to personally accept the petition from their hands.

A few hours later, the priest composed a new appeal to the people. He now called Nicholas II “the beast-king.” “Brothers, comrade workers,” wrote G. Gapon. - Innocent Blood All-it did spill... The bullets of the tsarist soldiers... shot through royal portrait and killed our faith in the king. So let us take revenge, brothers, on the tsar cursed by the people and all his viper brood, the ministers, and all the robbers of the unfortunate Russian land. Death to them all! 7 January 9, 1905 is considered the birthday of the first Russian revolution.

2. Maneuvers of power

Years of revolutionary propaganda could not have done as much to undermine the authority of the existing government in Russia as the execution on January 9 did. What happened on this day shattered the traditional ideas of the people about the king as a protector and patron. Gloomy people returning from the blood-stained streets of the capital to the “Collection” departments trampled on portraits of the Tsar and icons and spat on them. “Bloody Sunday” finally pushed the country into revolution.

The first desperate, albeit scattered, outbursts of workers' rage occurred already in the afternoon of January 9 and resulted in the destruction of weapons shops and attempts to build barricades. Even Nevsky Prospect was blocked by benches stolen from everywhere. On January 10, all 625 enterprises in the capital shut down. But for the next few days the city was in the grip of Cossack massacres and police brutality. The Cossacks rampaged through the streets, beating passers-by without any reason. Searches were carried out in private apartments, newspaper offices, premises public organizations, arrests of suspects. They were looking for evidence of a widespread revolutionary conspiracy. Gaponov's "Meeting" was closed.

On January 11, a new post of Governor-General of St. Petersburg was established with emergency, essentially dictatorial powers. Nicholas II appointed D.F. to him. Trepov. In early January, he defiantly resigned from the post of Moscow Chief of Police, boldly declaring that he did not share the liberal views of the Minister of Internal Affairs.

In reality, Trepov did not have any definite views, simply because he did not understand politics at all. Therefore, in the future, faced with the raging ocean of revolution and making sure that the only command he knew well was “hands down!” does not work here, he rushed to the most opposite extremes and at times expressed very left-wing proposals. He began, however, by prohibiting restaurants from renting out their halls for political banquets.

The strike subsided. The workers of the capital remained in a state of depression and stupor for some time. But this state quickly passed, which was again facilitated by the tsarist government. On January 19, Nicholas II, on the advice of Trepov, received a “working delegation” hastily organized by the former chief of police. Using pre-compiled lists, the police and gendarmes seized the most “reliable” workers indicated by the entrepreneurs, searched them, changed their clothes and took them to Tsarskoe Selo. It was to this carefully selected buffoonish “delegation” that the Russian Emperor read from a piece of paper his harsh assessment of what had happened:

The events of January 9 echoed throughout the country. Already in January, over 440 thousand people went on strike in 66 Russian cities - more than in the previous 10 years combined. These were mainly political strikes in support of St. Petersburg comrades. Russian workers were supported by the proletariat of Poland and the Baltic states. Bloody clashes between strikers and police occurred in Tallinn and Riga 8 .

Trying to make amends for what had happened, the tsar instructed Senator N.V. Shadlovsky to convene a commission « to urgently clarify the causes of workers’ dissatisfaction in the city of St. Petersburg and find measures to eliminate them in the future.” The commission was to include representatives of the owners and elected representatives of the workers.

But the commission was never able to start work. Among the electors nominated by the workers, the majority turned out to be Social Democrats, who initially characterized the Shidlovsky commission as a “commission of state tricks” intended to deceive the workers.

At the same time, the government tried to persuade St. Petersburg entrepreneurs to fulfill a number of socio-economic demands of workers and put forward a program for the creation of sickness funds, conciliation chambers, as well as a further reduction in the working day.

3. “Bulyginskaya Duma”

On August 6, 1905, on the day of the Transfiguration of the Lord, the Tsar’s manifesto on the establishment of the State Duma and the “Regulations” on elections to it were finally published. From the first lines of these documents, born in the throes of political passions, it became clear that the principles underlying them were hopelessly outdated. Russia was given an elected body - the Duma - for "preliminary development and discussion of legislative proposals and consideration of the list of state revenues and expenditures." The Duma also had the right to ask questions to the government and point out the illegality of the authorities' actions by directly reporting its chairman to the emperor. But no decisions of the Duma were binding either on the tsar or on the government.

When defining the election system, the developers were guided by the model of 40 years ago - the zemstvo regulations of 1864. Deputies were to be elected by “electoral assemblies” of a prescribed number of electors from each province. Voters were divided into 3 curia: landowners, peasants and urban residents.

Large owners who owned more than 150 acres of land directly participated in district congresses of landowners who voted for electors from the province. The elections for them, therefore, were two-stage. Small landowners elected representatives to district congresses. For them, the elections were three-stage. Landowners, who made up only a few percent of the voters, were to be represented at provincial assemblies by 34% of the electors.

There were also three-stage elections for townspeople, who were given 23% of the votes of provincial electors. In addition, there was a very high property qualification for them. Only homeowners and the largest apartment tax payers could vote. Most of the townspeople were not allowed to vote at all. These are, first of all, workers and the bulk of the intelligentsia. The government considered them the most susceptible to the corrupting influence of Western civilization, and therefore the least loyal.

But in the peasantry the government still saw a completely loyal, patriarchal-conservative mass, to which the very idea of ​​​​limiting tsarist power was alien. Therefore, the peasantry was allowed to participate in the elections in its entirety and even received a fairly significant share of the votes at provincial meetings - 43%. But at the same time, the elections for them were made in four stages. The peasants voted for representatives in the volost assembly, the volost assemblies elected the district congress of representatives from the volosts, and the district congresses elected peasant electors to the provincial electoral assembly.

So, the elections were not universal, not equal and not direct. The future Duma was immediately nicknamed “Bulyginskaya” 9. Lenin called it the most blatant mockery of popular representation. And he was far from alone in holding this opinion. All revolutionary parties and most liberals immediately announced their intention to boycott the Bulygin Duma. Those who agreed to participate in the elections stated that they were only using all legal opportunities to expose the false nature of the pseudo-popular pseudo-representation. The confrontation between government and society continued.

According to Witte, in those days “a web of cowardice, blindness, deceit and stupidity” reigned at court. On October 11, Nicholas II, who was living in Peterhof at that time, made an interesting entry in his diary: “We visited the boat (submarine) Ruff, which has been sticking out against our windows for the fifth month, that is, since the uprising on the Potemkin.” 10 . A few days later, the Tsar received the commanders of two German destroyers. Apparently, everything was ready in case of the need for an urgent departure of the king and his family abroad.

In Peterhof, the Tsar constantly held meetings. At the same time, Nicholas II continued to persist in attempts to deceive history and evade what had already become inevitable. Either he instructed the former Minister of Internal Affairs, the conservative Goremykin, to draw up a project alternative to Witte’s, or he invited his uncle, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, to accept the appointment as dictator in order to pacify the country by force. But Goremykin’s project turned out to be almost identical to Witte’s project, and his uncle refused the tsar’s proposal and, waving a revolver, threatened to shoot himself right there, in front of his eyes, if he did not accept Witte’s program.

Finally, the tsar surrendered and at five o’clock in the afternoon on October 17 he signed the manifesto prepared by Count Witte:

1) Grant the population the unshakable foundations of civil freedom on the basis of actual personal inviolability, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and association.

2) Without stopping the scheduled elections to the State Duma, now attract to participation in the Duma, to the extent possible, corresponding to the shortness of the period remaining before the convocation of the Duma, those classes of the population that are now completely deprived of voting rights, thereby granting further development the beginning of general suffrage and the newly established legislative order.

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.

5. Nikolay II and State Duma

a) “The First Russian Constitution”

The events that unfolded at the end of 1905 - beginning of 1906 did not at all contribute to the improvement of relations between the government and the democratic public.

This is not to say that the government did not try to do anything in the spirit of the promises of the October 17 Manifesto. On November 27, “temporary rules” on the press were issued, abolishing preliminary censorship and the right of the authorities to impose administrative penalties on periodicals. On March 4, 1906, “temporary rules” about societies and unions appeared. These rules themselves were quite liberal. On the same day, “temporary rules” on public gatherings were issued.

The main goal The government, when issuing all these rules, was to introduce at least some framework for the use of political freedoms, which since the beginning of the revolution had been carried out by Russian society “in person,” spontaneously and without any restrictions.

Along the way, new restrictions were introduced, directly contradictory the newly adopted rules. On February 13, 1906, a very vague law was passed, according to which any person guilty of “anti-government propaganda” could be prosecuted. A decree on March 18 introduced new “temporary rules” on the press. The issuance of these rules, as stated in the decree, was caused by the fact that the previous rules “turn out to be insufficient to combat violators of the prescribed requirements. The new rules effectively restored prior censorship. The “Temporary Regulations” of 1881 on enhanced and extreme protection continued to be in full effect, making the enjoyment of all rights and freedoms proclaimed in the Manifesto of October 17 completely dependent on the discretion of the authorities.

The new electoral law, issued on December 11, 1905, could not satisfy the public either. Although it allowed a significant number of citizens excluded from them under the first electoral law to participate in elections, and made elections almost universal, they remained multi-stage and very disproportionate for various segments of the population .

The question of who and in whose favor would develop a constitution was decided during the armed confrontation between the government and revolutionaries in December 1905 - January 1906. The government won and considered it possible to dictate the terms of the swap. Therefore, everything was done to minimize the influence of the future Duma on decision-making and to preserve as much as possible from the autocracy.

The new “Basic State Laws” of the Russian Empire were promulgated on April 23, 1906. All executive power remained with the emperor. He appointed and dismissed ministers at his discretion. The exclusive right to conduct international affairs, declare war and make peace, introduce martial law and declare an amnesty also belonged to the king.

As for legislative power, it was now distributed between the monarch, the Duma and the transformed State Council. This previously purely advisory meeting of elderly dignitaries appointed for life by the tsar was made half-elective by decree of February 20 and turned into the second chamber of the Russian parliament, endowed with equal rights to the Duma. For the law to come into force, it now needed its approval by both chambers and, in the final instance, by the monarch. Each of the three could completely block any bill.

Thus, the king could no longer legislate at his own discretion, but his veto power was absolute.

Legislative chambers were to be convened annually by decrees of the emperor. The duration of their classes and the timing of the break were determined by the king. The Tsar could dissolve the Duma altogether at any time before the expiration of its five-year term of office.

Article 87 of the Basic Laws subsequently acquired particular importance. According to it, during breaks between sessions of the Duma, in the event of emergency, urgent circumstances, the tsar could issue decrees that had the force of law.

b) I The State Duma

The Duma met on April 27, 1906. At the request of the Tsar, a new era of state life in Russia was to be opened in a solemn manner. On this occasion, a reception was held for members of both legislative chambers in the Winter Palace.

At the entrance to the hall of the royal couple, a loud “hurray” was heard from the ranks of the members of the State Council. From the crowd of Duma deputies, only a few people shouted “hurray” and immediately stopped short, not finding support.

In his speech from the throne, Nicholas II welcomed the deputies to the “best people” elected by the people at his command. He promised to unwaveringly protect the new institutions given to him, said that the era of renewal and revival of the Russian Land was beginning, and expressed confidence that the deputies would devote all their strength to this cause in unity with the authorities. The tsar's conciliatory speech, however, was received rather coldly by the deputies.

The first question, the answer to which the deputies so wanted to hear and did not hear, concerned political amnesty. The second question that worried everyone can be called a constitutional question. And although no political decisions were made at the first - organizational - meeting of the Duma, a challenge was issued. The fight has begun. A clash with the government became inevitable.

By the beginning of 1906, those in the highest spheres had already come to terms with the inevitability of abandoning the community so dear to their hearts. Work was underway on draft relevant resolutions. But the authorities, as always, did not keep up with events. The country was overwhelmed by a series of peasant riots and pogroms. The movement unfolded under the slogan of the destruction of private ownership of land. The All-Russian Peasant Union based its program on these demands. And it was with his support that most of the peasant deputies were elected to the First State Duma, who later united into the Trudovik faction.

However, it was not just a matter of centuries-old resentment. The last time the peasants were “offended” was relatively recently - during the reform of 1861. The peasants considered the conditions for the abolition of serfdom to be a blatant injustice.

The conditions of the reform of 1861 were indeed defiantly hothouse for the landowners and unjustifiably harsh for the peasants. Resentment at this injustice gave rise to deep hostility in the village.

With any agrarian reform, the nobles had to sacrifice something, give up their interests, so that it would be visible to everyone. The peasantry would not have accepted any other solution to the problem.

The Cadets understood this and tried to take it into account in their party program. The alienated land formed a state land fund, from which plots were to be allocated to peasants, but not for ownership, but again for use.

On May 8, the Cadets presented to the Duma their bill on agrarian reform (“Project 42”). On May 19, the Trudoviks also submitted their draft (“Project 104”). If, according to the cadet project, highly productive estates, recognized as having generally useful value, were retained by the owners, then according to the Trudoviks project, all privately owned lands exceeding the so-called “labor norm”, i.e., the area that a family can cultivate on its own, were transferred to the public fund. The agrarian reform, according to the Cadet project, was to be carried out by land committees composed on a parity basis from representatives of peasants, landowners and the state, while according to the Trudoviks project, by bodies elected by the local population by general and equal elections. The Trudoviks wanted to hand over the question of whether to pay ransom to the landowners at all to the people for a final decision.

The “Government Message” was perceived by the Duma as another challenge and humiliation of popular representation. The Duma decided to answer the challenge with a challenge. At the meeting on July 4, it was decided to address the people with an “explanation” that it - the Duma - will not deviate from the principle of forced alienation and will block any bill that does not include this principle. The tone of the final version of the text, adopted on July 6, was somewhat softened, but the essence remained the same.

As a result of the exchange of “clarifications” on the agrarian issue, the conflict between the government and the Duma assumed a threatening character. The government unequivocally perceived the Duma’s appeal to the population as a direct call to seize landowners’ lands.

Nicholas II had long wanted to disperse the rebellious Duma, but could not decide to do so - he was afraid of an explosion of mass indignation. In response to the proposal of Nicholas II, Stolypin, after a sluggish attempt to refuse under the pretext of ignorance of the secret currents and influences of St. Petersburg, raised the question of the immediate dissolution of the Duma.

During the two-day meetings of the Tsar, Goremykin and Stolypin in Peterhof, the issue of the new appointment and fate of the Duma was finally resolved. On July 9, a large castle was displayed on the doors of the Tauride Palace, and on the walls was the Tsar’s Manifesto on the dissolution of the Duma.

III . Calm and reform

There was another side to Stolypin’s program. Speaking as Minister of Internal Affairs in the First Duma, he said: in order to carry out reforms, it is necessary to restore order in the country. Order is created in the state only when the authorities show their will, when they know how to act and give orders.

Stolypin was completely convinced of the need to preserve and strengthen tsarist power as the main instrument of change. That is why, when he failed to persuade the liberal opposition to compromise, he came to the idea of ​​dissolving the Duma.

But even after the suppression of open mutinies in the army and navy, the situation in the country was far from calm. On August 2, bloody clashes between crowds and troops and police took place in Warsaw, Lodz, and Plock, with a large number of casualties on both sides. In the rural areas of the Urals, the Baltic states, Poland, and the Caucasus, a real guerrilla war was going on.

Armed revolutionaries seized printing houses, printed calls for a general uprising and reprisals against government officials, and proclaimed local regional republics led by the Soviets. Revolutionary terror reached its maximum level - political murders and expropriations, that is, robberies for political purposes.

Gradually the terror and exes degenerated. People were killed “for their position”; those who were easier to reach were killed. Often they tried to kill the most worthy officials who had authority among the population and thereby could raise the authority of the authorities. The targets of attacks were small shops and workers after payday. Increasingly, the participants in the attacks began to keep part of the money for themselves “for housekeeping.” Robbery turned out to be too much of a temptation. Mixed in with the “expropriators” were purely criminal elements who sought to “fish in troubled waters.”

Stolypin acted decisively. Peasant riots were suppressed with the help of special punitive detachments. Weapons were confiscated. The strike sites were occupied by volunteers from monarchist organizations under the protection of troops. The publication of dozens of opposition publications was suspended. However, the new prime minister understood that this was not enough for lasting calm and the start of reforms could not be postponed until future stabilization. On the contrary, for the final victory over the revolution it is necessary to show everyone as soon as possible that reforms have begun.

Stolypin continued his attempts to attract public figures from the liberal camp to the government. Already on July 15, he met with Shipov again. Together with Shipov, his comrade in the leadership of the “Common Land Organization”, Prince G.E., was invited. Lviv.

Stolypin briefly introduced Shipov and Lvov to his reform program. But the agreement again did not take place. Public figures again set known conditions for the liberal opposition: immediate amnesty, termination of exceptional laws, suspension of executions. In addition, they strongly objected to Stolypin’s intention to begin a series of reforms on an emergency basis, without waiting for the convening of a new Duma, seeing in this a desire to belittle the importance of parliament and score additional political points for themselves, and at the same time for the tsarist power in general. Stolypin argued that the situation required urgent action, that in the end it did not matter who started.

IV . Duma monarchy

On June 3, 1907, the tsar's manifesto was published on the dissolution of the Second State Duma and changes in the election regulations. The publication of a new election law was actually a coup d'etat, since it violated the “Basic State Laws,” according to which no law could be followed without approval by the Duma.
The State Duma of the first two convocations was only formally a legislative body. During the 72 days of activity of the First State Duma, Nicholas II approved 222 legislative acts, but only one of them was considered in the Duma and the State Council and was approved by them. During the 102 days of the existence of the Second Duma, the emperor approved 390 laws, and only two of them passed through the State Duma and the State Council.

The new electoral law increased the number of electors from landowners by almost 33%, and the number of electors from peasants decreased by 56%. The law of June 3, 1907 gave the Minister of the Interior the right to change the boundaries of electoral districts and at all stages of elections to divide electoral assemblies into independent branches. Representation from the national outskirts has sharply decreased. The total number of Duma deputies was reduced from 524 to 442.

The electoral law of June 3, its Senate “clarifications,” the actions of the local administration, the broad election campaign of right-wing and Black Hundred parties, the climate of disappointment in the revolution, and repressions gave an election result that corresponded to the government’s hopes.
The following were elected to the Third Duma: moderate right and nationalists - 97, extreme right - 50, Octobrists - 154, progressives - 28, Cadets - 54, Trudoviks - 13 and Social Democrats - 19, Muslim group - 8, Polish-Lithuanian - 18. At the very first meetings of the Third Duma, which opened its work on November 1, 1907, a right-wing Octobrist majority was formed, which amounted to 300 members. The presence of this majority determined the nature of the activities of the Third Duma and ensured its efficiency. Over the five years of its existence (until June 9, 1912), it held 611 meetings, at which 2,572 bills were considered, of which 205 were put forward by the Duma itself. The main place in the Duma debates was occupied by the agrarian question related to the reform, labor and national.

In June 1912, the powers of the deputies of the Third Duma expired, and elections to the Fourth State Duma were held in the fall of that year. The sessions of the IV Duma opened on November 15, 1912. Its chairman was the Octobrist M. V. Rodzianko. The main factions of the IV State Duma were: rightists and nationalists (157 seats), Octobrists (98), progressives (48), cadets (59), who still constituted two Duma majorities. In addition to them, Trudoviks (10) and Social Democrats (14) were represented in the Duma.
The Progressive Party took shape in November 1912 and adopted a program that provided for a constitutional monarchical system with the responsibility of ministers to popular representation, expansion of the rights of the State Duma, etc. The emergence of this party (between the Octobrists and Cadets) was an attempt to consolidate the liberal movement.

The world war that began in 1914 temporarily extinguished the flaring opposition movement. At first, the majority of parties spoke out for trust in the government. On July 24, 1914, the Council of Ministers was granted emergency powers, that is, it received the right to decide most matters on behalf of the emperor.

At an emergency meeting of the IV Duma on July 26, 1914, the leaders of the right and liberal-bourgeois factions made a call to rally around the “sovereign leader leading Russia into a sacred battle with the enemy of the Slavs,” 11 putting aside “internal disputes” and “scores” with the government. However, failures at the front, the growth of the strike movement, and the inability of the government to ensure governance of the country stimulated activity political parties, their opposition, the search for new tactical steps.
In August 1915, at a meeting of members of the State Duma and State Council The Progressive Bloc was formed, which included the Cadets, Octobrists, Progressives, some nationalists (236 out of 422 members of the Duma) and three groups of the State Council. The chairman of the bureau of the Progressive Bloc became the Octobrist S.I. Shidlovsky, and the actual leader was P.N. Milyukov. The bloc's declaration, published in the newspaper Rech on August 26, 1915, was of a compromise nature and provided for the creation of a government of “public trust.”

V . Nikolay II and World War I

In the summer of 1914, Europe felt the approach of great war. The maid of honor and close friend of the Empress Anna Vyrubova recalled that during these days she often “found the sovereign pale and upset.” When the war became a fait accompli, the mood of Nicholas II changed sharply in better side. He felt cheerful and inspired and said: “While this question was hanging in the air, it was worse!” 12

July 20, the day of the announcement se Because of the war, the sovereign and his wife visited St. Petersburg. Here he found himself the main participant in the exciting scenes of national upsurge. On the streets, Nicholas II was greeted by immense crowds of people under tricolor banners, with his portraits in their hands. In the hall of the Winter Palace, the sovereign was surrounded by an enthusiastic crowd of deputies.

Nicholas II made a speech, which he ended with a solemn promise that he would not make peace until he expelled the last enemy from Russian soil. The answer to him was a powerful “hurray!” He went out onto the balcony to greet the popular demonstration. A. Vyrubova wrote: “The whole sea of ​​people on Palace Square, seeing him, as one person knelt down in front of him. Thousands of banners bowed, sang a hymn, prayers... everyone cried... Amid the feeling of boundless love and devotion to the Throne, the war began” 13.

In the first year of the war, the Russian army suffered a number of heavy defeats. At the news of the fall of Warsaw, Nicholas left his usual equanimity, and he heatedly exclaimed: “This cannot continue, I cannot sit here and watch how destroy army; I see mistakes - and I must remain silent! 14 . The situation inside the country has also worsened. Under the influence of defeats at the front, the Duma began to fight for a government responsible to it. In court circles and Headquarters, some plans were brewing against Empress Alexandra F. Dorovna. She aroused general hostility as a “German”; there was talk of forcing the Tsar to send her to a monastery.

All this prompted Nicholas II to stand at the head of the army, replacing Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. He explained his decide The main point is that in difficult times the supreme leader of the nation must lead the troops. On August 23, 1915, Nicholas arrived at Headquarters in Mogilev and assumed supreme command.

Meanwhile, tension in society was growing. The Chairman of the Duma, Mikhail Rodzianko, at every meeting with the tsar, persuaded him to make concessions to the Duma. During one of their conversations already in January 1917, Nicholas II clasped his head with both hands and exclaimed bitterly: “Have I really been trying for twenty-two years to make everything better, and have been wrong for twenty-two years!?” 15 . During another meeting, the sovereign unexpectedly spoke about his experiences: “I was in the forest today... I went looking for wood grouse. It’s quiet there, and you forget everything, all these squabbles, the vanity of people... It was so good in my soul. There it is closer to nature, closer to God...”

VI . February Revolution and Nicholas' abdication

In mid-February 1917, interruptions in the supply of bread arose in Petrograd. “Tails” lined up near the bakeries. Strikes broke out in the city, and on February 18 the Putilov plant shut down.

International Women's Day was celebrated on February 23 (March 8). Thousands of workers took to the streets of the city. They shouted: “Bread!” and “Down with hunger!” On this day, about 90 thousand workers took part in the strike, and the strike movement grew like a snowball. The next day, more than 200 thousand people were on strike, and the next day - over 300 thousand people (80% of all capital workers).

Rallies began on Nevsky Prospekt and other main streets of the city. Their slogans became more and more decisive. Red flags were already flashing in the crowd, and one could hear: “Down with the war!” and “Down with autocracy!” 16 . The demonstrators sang revolutionary songs.

On February 25, 1917, Nicholas II from Headquarters telegraphed the commander of the capital's military district, General Sergei Khabalov: “I command you to stop riots in the capital tomorrow, which are unacceptable in difficult times of war” 17 . The general tried to carry out the order. On February 26, about a hundred “instigators of the riots” were arrested. Troops and police began to disperse the demonstrators with gunfire. In total, 169 people died during these days, about a thousand were injured (later, several dozen more people died from among the wounded).

However, the shots in the streets only led to a new outburst of indignation, but this time among the military themselves. The soldiers of the reserve teams of the Volyn, Preobrazhensky and Lithuanian regiments refused to “shoot at the people.” A riot broke out among them, and they went over to the side of the demonstrators.

On February 27, 1917, Nicholas II wrote in his diary: “Unrest began in Petrograd several days ago; Unfortunately, troops also began to take part in them. It’s a disgusting feeling to be so far away and receive fragmentary bad news!” 18 . The Emperor sent General Nikolai Ivanov to the rebellious capital, ordering him to “establish order with the troops.” But ultimately nothing came of this attempt.

On February 28, the last defenders of the government, led by General Khabalov, surrendered in Petrograd. “The troops gradually dispersed...,” said the general. “They just dispersed gradually, leaving the guns” 19. The ministers fled and were later arrested one by one. Some came into custody themselves to avoid reprisals.

On the last day of February, the sovereign departed from Mogilev for Tsarskoe Selo. However, on the way, information was received that the path was occupied by the rebels. Then the royal train turned to Pskov, where the headquarters of the Northern Front was located. Nicholas II arrived here on the evening of March 1.

On the night of March 2, Nicholas II summoned the commander-in-chief of the front, General Nikolai Ruzsky, and told him: “I decided to make concessions and give them a responsible ministry” 20 .

Nikolay Ruzsky immediately reported the king's decision on straight wire Mikhail Rodzianko. He replied: “It is obvious that His Majesty and you are not aware of what is happening here; one of the most terrible revolutions has arrived, which will not be so easy to overcome... Time is lost and there is no return” 21 . M. Rodzianko said that it was now necessary for Nicholas to abdicate in favor of the heir.

Having learned about this answer from M. Rodzianko, N. Ruzsky, through Headquarters, requested the opinion of all the commanders-in-chief of the fronts. In the morning their answers began to arrive in Pskov. They all begged the sovereign to sign a renunciation to save Russia and successfully continue the war. Perhaps the most eloquent message came from General Vladimir Sakharov on the Romanian Front. The general called the proposal to abdicate “disgusting.”

At about 14:30 on March 2, these telegrams were reported to the sovereign. Nikolai Ruzsky also spoke out in favor of renunciation. “Now we have to surrender to the mercy of the winner” - this is how he expressed his opinion to those close to the king. Such unanimity among the leaders of the army and the Duma made Emperor Nicholas II strong impression. He was especially struck by the telegram sent by Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich...

In the evening of the same day, Duma deputies A. Guchkov and V. Shulgin arrived in Pskov. The Emperor received them in his carriage. In the book “Days,” V. Shulgin conveyed the words of Nicholas II this way: “His voice sounded calm, simple and precise.

I decided to abdicate the throne... Until three o'clock today I thought that I could abdicate in favor of my son Alexei... But by this time I changed my mind in favor of my brother Mikhail... I hope you understand my father's feelings... He said the last phrase more quietly...” 22.

Nikolai handed over to the deputies a manifesto of renunciation, typed on a typewriter. The document bore the date and time: “March 2, 15:55.”

Conclusion

In my work on the history of the Fatherland, the question arose about the last Russian autocrat, Nicholas II, as the culprit or victim of those terrible events that we can only judge from books or memoirs of the older generation.

Having written an essay and analyzed the actions of Nicholas II, I still cannot answer the question, since his life can be viewed both from the side of a deeply religious person, a caring family man, a patriot, where he is a victim, and from the other side, where he is an autocrat, was a bad ruler because he could not cope with the situation.

Literature cited:

1. S.S. Oldenburg The reign of Emperor Nicholas II. Rostov-on-Don, “Phoenix”, 1998 - page 48

2. Ibid. - page 155

3. Rybachenok I.S. Russia and the Hague Disarmament Conference of 1899 New and recent history, 1996, No. 4

5. A. Bokhanov Emperor Nicholas II. “Russian Word”, Moscow, 2001 - page 229

6. S.S. Oldenburg Decree. op. - page 292

7. Mosolov A.A. At the emperor's court. Riga, 1926 - page 125

8. S.S. Oldenburg Decree. op. - page 224

9. A. Bokhanov Decree. op. - page 232

10. Diary of Emperor Nicholas II. “Orbit”, 1992 - entry for 1905.

11. Muravyov A.M. The first rumbles of the great storm. Leningrad, 1975 - page 20

12. Vyrubova A. Pages of my life. Moscow, 1993 - page 274

13. Ibid. - page 278

14. A. Bokhanov Decree. op. - page 352

15. Ibid. - page 393

16. Ibid. - page 425

17. S.S. Oldenburg Decree. op. - page 549

18. Diary... - entry for 1917.

19. S.S. Oldenburg Decree. op. - page 554

20. Paleolog M. Tsarist Russia on the Eve of the Revolution. Moscow, 1991 - page 253

21. Ibid. - page 255

22. P.E. Shchegolev Abdication of Nicholas II. Moscow, “Soviet Writer”, 1990 - p.118

Used Books:

1. S.S. Oldenburg The reign of Emperor Nicholas II. Rostov-on-Don, “Phoenix”, 1998

2. The country is dying today. Memories of the February Revolution of 1917. Moscow, “Book”, 1991

3. Gilliard P. Emperor Nicholas II and his family, M., 1991

4. A. Bokhanov Emperor Nicholas II. “Russian Word”, Moscow, 2001

5. Diary of Emperor Nicholas II. "Orbit", 1992

6. Vyrubova A. Pages of my life. Moscow, 1993

7. Muravyov A.M. The first rumbles of the great storm. Leningrad, 1975

8. S. Lyubosh The Last Romanovs. Leningrad-Moscow, “Petrograd”, 1924

9. Shatsillo K.F. Nicholas II: reforms or revolution // History of the Fatherland: People, ideas, decisions. Moscow, 1991

10. K. Waliszewski The first Romanovs. Moscow, 1993

11. K. Valishevsky Time of Troubles. Moscow, 1989

12. P.Kh. Grebelsky, A.B. Mirvis House of Romanov. "Editor", 1992

13. V.P. Obninsky The Last Autocrat. "Book", 1912

14. Sokolov N.A. The last days of the Romanovs. "Book", 1991

15. Kasvinov M.K. Twenty-three steps down (3rd edition, revised and expanded). Moscow, 1989

Soldiers' demonstration in Petrograd. February 23, 1917 (Photo: RIA Novosti)

A general strike began in Petrograd, in which about 215 thousand workers took part. A spontaneous movement covers the entire city, and students join it. The police are unable to “stop the movement and gathering of people.” City authorities are putting efforts into strengthening the security of government buildings, the post office, telegraph office and bridges. Mass rallies continue throughout the day.

From the diary of Nicholas II.“At 10½ I went to the report, which ended at 12 o’clock. Before breakfast they brought me a military cross on behalf of the Belgian king. The weather was unpleasant - a snowstorm. I took a short walk in the kindergarten. I read and wrote. Yesterday Olga and Alexei fell ill with measles, and today Tatyana (the Tsar’s children - RBC) followed their example.”

The army and police set up checkpoints on all the main bridges in the morning, but crowds of protesters moved into the center of Petrograd straight along the ice of the Neva. The number of strikers exceeded 300 thousand people. Mass rallies took place on Nevsky Prospekt, and calls for the overthrow of the Tsar and the government were added to the demands for bread.

Clashes between protesters and the police continued, who had to open fire on the crowd several times. By evening, the unrest in the capital was reported to Nicholas II, who demanded that the city authorities decisively stop it. During the night, police arrested several dozen people.

From the diary of Nicholas II.“I got up late. The report lasted an hour and a half. At 2½ I went to the monastery and venerated the icon of the Mother of God. I took a walk along the highway to Orsha. At 6 o'clock I went to the all-night vigil. I studied all evening.”

Demonstration at the Petrograd Arsenal. February 25, 1917 (Photo: RIA Novosti)

Protesters continued to gather in the center of Petrograd, despite the raised bridges. Clashes with the army and police became increasingly violent, the crowds could only be dispersed after they were fired upon, and the death toll already numbered in the hundreds. Pogroms began in some areas. State Duma Chairman Mikhail Rodzianko sent a telegram to the Tsar in which he called what was happening in the city anarchy, but did not receive any response from him.

Later, Chairman of the Council of Ministers Nikolai Golitsyn announced the suspension of the work of both chambers of parliament - the State Council and the State Duma - until April. Rodzianko sent another telegram to the Tsar demanding that the decree be immediately suspended and a new government formed, but he also received no response.

From the diary of Nicholas II.“At 10 o'clock. went to mass. The report ended on time. There were a lot of people having breakfast and all the cash was foreigners. I wrote to Alix (Empress Alexandra Feodorovna - RBC) and drove along the Bobruisk highway to the chapel, where I took a walk. The weather was clear and frosty. After tea I read and received Senator Tregubov before lunch. I played dominoes in the evening.”

The training team of the reserve battalion of the Life Guards Volyn Infantry Regiment mutinied - the soldiers killed their commander and freed those arrested from the guardhouse, simultaneously joining several neighboring units to their ranks. Armed soldiers joined forces with the striking workers, after which they seized some of the weapons from the workshops of the Gun Factory. An armed uprising began in the capital.

The rebels managed to get to the Finlyandsky Station, on the square in front of which new numerous rallies began. Several tens of thousands of soldiers joined the crowd of protesters, the total number of demonstrators exceeded 400 thousand people (with a population of Petrograd of 2.3 million people). Prisons were being vacated throughout the city, including “Kresty”, from which several Mensheviks were released, who declared that the main task of the rebels was to restore the work of the State Duma.

The rebel soldiers of the Volyn Regiment march with banners to the Tauride Palace. February 27, 1917 (Photo: RIA Novosti)

In the afternoon, protesters gathered near the Tauride Palace, where the State Duma was meeting. The deputies decided to formally submit to the resolution of dissolution, but continued their work under the guise of a “private meeting.” As a result, a new government body was formed - the Provisional Committee, which essentially became the center of the protest movement. At the same time, representatives of the left parties created an alternative governing body - the Provisional Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet.

Towards evening, the government gathered for its last meeting and sent a telegram to Nicholas II, in which it said that it was no longer able to cope with the current situation, proposed to dissolve itself and appoint a person enjoying general confidence as chairman. The Tsar ordered troops to be sent to Petrograd and refused to accept the resignation of the government, which dispersed without waiting for a response from the monarch. Nicholas II decided to personally arrive in the capital, meanwhile the Provisional Committee of the State Duma announced that it was taking power in the city into its own hands.

From the diary of Nicholas II.“Unrest began in Petrograd several days ago; Unfortunately, troops also began to take part in them. It's a disgusting feeling to be so far away and receive fragmentary bad news! I was at the report for a short time. In the afternoon I took a walk along the highway to Orsha. The weather was sunny. After lunch I decided to go to Tsarskoye Selo as quickly as possible and at one in the morning I got on the train.”

City authorities inform Nicholas II that almost all the military personnel present in the city went over to the side of the protesters. During the day, armed workers and soldiers captured the Peter and Paul Fortress, taking control of all its artillery. The revolutionaries forced the head of the Petrograd Military District, Lieutenant General Khabalov, to leave the Admiralty. He carried out the instructions, withdrawing the remnants of the troops loyal to him to the Winter Palace, which was also soon occupied by the rebels.

On the morning of the same day, former Minister of Internal Affairs Alexander Protopopov was arrested in the Tauride Palace. The rebels actually took control of the situation in the city. There were almost no forces left in the capital ready to carry out the king’s orders.

Nicholas II (Photo: RIA Novosti)

Meanwhile, Nicholas II left Mogilev early in the morning for Tsarskoe Selo, where Empress Alexandra Feodorovna was at that time. While in Orsha, he received a telegram from members of the Provisional Committee, who informed him about the critical situation in the capital, which drove the masses to despair and forced the troops to join them. The Tsar was asked to “decisively change internal policy” and approve the composition of the new cabinet of ministers.

By this time, the Provisional Committee had managed to send out a message throughout the country that it was taking full control of the entire railway network in the empire. The chief of the tsar's military staff, General Mikhail Alekseev, who initially intended to seize this control, abandoned his decision. Moreover, he changed the rhetoric in his communications to other commanders-in-chief, moving away from describing chaos and anarchy in the capital. In his message to General Nikolai Ivanov, who was sent by the Tsar with prefabricated units to suppress the uprising in Petrograd, he reported that the Provisional Committee had managed to take control of the situation in the capital. Having received the letter, Ivanov decided not to send troops into the city until the situation became completely clear.

From the diary of Nicholas II.“I went to bed at 3 o’clock because... I spoke for a long time with N.I. Ivanov, whom I am sending to Petrograd with troops to restore order. Slept until 10 o'clock. We left Mogilev at 5 o'clock. morning. The weather was frosty and sunny. In the afternoon we passed Vyazma, Rzhev, and Likhoslavl at 9 o’clock.”

Nicholas II's train never managed to reach Tsarskoye Selo - in the area of ​​Malaya Vishera, the tsar was informed that the neighboring stations were in the hands of the rebels. The Emperor turned the train around and went to Pskov, where the headquarters of the Northern Front was located. The new authorities unsuccessfully tried several times to block Nicholas's train to prevent his reunification with the army.

Nevertheless, the tsar managed to get to Pskov, where he received a telegram from Alekseev. He informed Nikolai about the unrest that began in Moscow, but called for avoiding a forceful solution to the problem and as soon as possible “put at the head of the government a person whom Russia would trust and instruct him to form a cabinet.” The commander-in-chief of the Northern Front, Ruzsky, made similar proposals in a personal conversation with the tsar.

Nicholas until the last refused to establish a government responsible to the Duma, not wanting to become a constitutional monarch and bear responsibility for decisions that he could not influence. However, towards the end of the day, another telegram arrived from Alekseev, containing a draft of the proposed manifesto on the establishment of a responsible government. Having lost the support of his own chief of staff, Nikolai sends a telegram to General Ivanov and asks him to abandon the armed suppression of the rebellion and suspend the advance of troops towards Petrograd.

Nicholas II (foreground right) and Mikhail Alekseev (foreground left). 1915 (Photo: RIA Novosti)

Meanwhile, in the capital, the Provisional Committee and the executive committee of the Petrograd Soviet have already begun to discuss the composition of the new government. The parties agreed that a Provisional Government should be formed, which would declare a political amnesty, guarantee basic freedoms to the population and begin preparations for elections in constituent Assembly, which will have to determine how the new Russia will live.

That same night, the Petrograd Soviet, without any coordination, issued its “Order No. 1,” in which it subjugated the army located in the capital and transferred all leadership in military units to soldiers’ committees, depriving officers of power. A dual power arose: de jure power was in the hands of the Provisional Committee, but de facto in Petrograd the main decision-making body was the Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies.

From the diary of Nicholas II.“At night we turned back from M. Vishera, because Lyuban and Tosno were occupied by the rebels. We went to Valdai, Dno and Pskov, where we stopped for the night. I saw Ruzsky. He, [military leaders] Danilov and Savvich were having lunch. Gatchina and Luga also turned out to be busy. Shame and shame! It was not possible to get to Tsarskoe. And thoughts and feelings are there all the time! How painful it must be for poor Alix to go through all these events alone! Lord help us!

In his telegram, Alekseev said that “it is necessary to save the active army from collapse”, “the loss of every minute can be fatal for the existence of Russia” and that “the war can be continued to a victorious end only if the demands made regarding the abdication of the throne” are fulfilled in favor of his son Nicholas II. All front commanders in their responses asked the tsar to abdicate the throne in order to save the country.

In the afternoon, Nicholas II signed the abdication manifesto. A little later, representatives of the Provisional Committee Alexander Guchkov and Vasily Shulgin came to him, who told the tsar about the situation in the country and again asked him to transfer power to his son during the regency of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. Nicholas informed them that he had already abdicated the throne in favor of Tsarevich Alexei, but now, not wanting to lose contact with him, he was ready to abdicate in favor of Mikhail. Closer to midnight, the manifesto was handed over to deputies.

Manifesto of Nicholas II on abdication

In the days of the great struggle with an external enemy, who had been striving to enslave our Motherland for almost three years, the Lord God was pleased to send Russia a new ordeal. The outbreak of internal popular unrest threatens to have a disastrous effect on the further conduct of the stubborn war. The fate of Russia, the honor of our heroic army, the good of the people, the entire future of our dear Fatherland demand that the war be brought to a victorious end at all costs. The cruel enemy is straining his last strength, and the hour is already approaching when our valiant army, together with our glorious allies, will be able to finally break the enemy. In these decisive days in the life of Russia, we considered it a duty of conscience to facilitate close unity and rallying of all the people’s forces for our people to achieve victory as quickly as possible, and in agreement with the State Duma, we recognized it as good to abdicate the throne of the Russian state and relinquish supreme power. Not wanting to part with our beloved son, we pass on our legacy to our brother Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich and bless him to ascend the throne of the Russian state. We command our brother to rule over state affairs in complete and inviolable unity with the representatives of the people in legislative institutions on those principles that will be established by them, taking an inviolable oath to that effect. In the name of our beloved Motherland, we call on all the faithful sons of the Fatherland to fulfill their sacred duty to him by obedience to the Tsar in difficult times of national trials and to help him, together with representatives of the people, lead the Russian state onto the path of victory, prosperity and glory. May the Lord God help Russia.

After this, Nicholas went back to Headquarters, having previously sent a telegram to Grand Duke Mikhail. "Events last days forced me to irrevocably decide to take this extreme step. Forgive me if I upset you and didn’t have time to warn you. I remain forever a faithful and devoted brother. I fervently pray to God to help you and your Motherland,” he wrote.

Mikhail, who never had time to receive this telegram from his brother, also abdicated the throne a day later. The Russian autocracy fell, all official power passed into the hands of the Provisional Government.

Editorial of the newspaper "Morning of Russia". March 2 (15), 1917 (Photo: Photo archive of M. Zolotarev)

From the diary of Nicholas II.“In the morning Ruzsky came and read his long conversation on the phone with Rodzianko. According to him, the situation in Petrograd is such that now the ministry from the Duma seems powerless to do anything, because The Social Democratic Party, represented by the workers' committee, is fighting against it. My renunciation is needed. Ruzsky conveyed this conversation to headquarters, and Alekseev to all commanders in chief. Replies came from everyone. The point is that in the name of saving Russia and keeping the army at the front calm, you need to decide to take this step. I agreed. A draft manifesto was sent from Headquarters. In the evening, Guchkov and Shulgin arrived from Petrograd, with whom I spoke and gave them the signed and revised manifesto. At one o'clock in the morning I left Pskov with a heavy feeling of what I had experienced. There is treason, cowardice and deceit all around!”

In February 1917, liberals overthrew Emperor Nicholas II and threw Russia at the feet of their mentor and patron, the West. The country was divided into dozens of warring territorial entities. Hunger, devastation and typhus came to the country. The Russian state was doomed to destruction, and the Russian nation to extermination. But in October 1917, forces were found in the country that united the dismembered Russian state. These forces were headed by V.I. Lenin, who today is cursed by liberals, Banderaites and the entire Western world.

Emperor Nicholas II was overthrown by liberals in February 1917. It was the liberals who overthrew the Russian Tsar in 1917 and divided the country into dozens of “states” warring with each other.

It was after February 1917 that the country broke up into many territorial entities. It was in February 1917 that internecine wars, famine, devastation and infectious diseases came to the country, decimating the people. Unfortunately, many in Russia do not know this and do not understand the essence of the events of 1917. And whoever has not understood the events that took place in February and October 1917 is unable to understand further history of our state.

Why was February possible? Because contradictions have accumulated in the country, which the liberals used for their own purposes, and at all times they had the same goal: to destroy the Russian state and exterminate the Russian nation.

Liberals claim that there were no contradictions, that is, there was no revolutionary situation in Tsarist Russia.

The media created the opinion that in Tsarist Russia everyone lived richly and happily. Supposedly high wage, rosy-cheeked schoolgirls and general prosperity were characteristic of our country at that time, but the Bolsheviks came and overthrew the tsar.

Such statements are completely untrue. The liberals were able to overthrow the tsar, primarily because the people lived poorly and unhappily in tsarist Russia.

F. M. Dostoevsky prophetically called liberals the enemies of Russia at all times. For the second time in the twentieth century, liberals dismembered our country in 1991, but both the first and second dismemberment of the country were blamed on the communists.

It was the February Revolution, in which the Bolsheviks, one might say, did not take part, that led to the Tsar’s abdication of the throne.

The beginning of the February Revolution is considered to be February 27, 1917. On this day, the Volynsky, as well as the Preobrazhensky and Lithuanian regiments rebelled.

General M.V. Alekseev, who from August 1915 to February 1917 was the chief of staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of Emperor Nicholas II and Alekseev’s main ally in this matter, the commander of the Northern Front, General N.V. Ruzsky, convinced the tsar that the Petrograd rebellion irresistible and forced him to abdicate the throne.

The Emperor abdicated the throne on March 2 (15), 1917. On March 8, Alekseev announced to him: “Your Majesty should consider yourself as if under arrest”... The Emperor did not answer anything, turned pale and turned away from Alekseev”; however, on the night of March 3, Nicholas II wrote in his diary, clearly referring to generals Alekseev and Ruzsky: “There is treason, cowardice, and deception all around!”

She emigrated to the USA and published the book in 1986: “People and Lodges. Russian Freemasons of the 20th Century" N.N. Berberova claims that both M.V. Alekseev and N.V. Ruzsky were Freemasons and therefore naturally sought to destroy the historical statehood of Russia." But in general, other researchers do not give a clear answer to this statement.

On March 7, L. G. Kornilov personally arrested the Empress and the children of Nicholas II in Tsarskoe Selo. Alekseev in Mogilev surrendered the emperor to the Duma convoy. Then, in Crimea, Kolchak’s deputy (who at that very moment was summoned to Petrograd by the Provisional Government), Rear Admiral V.K. Lukin, supervised the arrest of the Grand Dukes who were there, including one of the most prominent representatives of the royal family, Alexander Mikhailovich. As can be seen from the above facts, it was not the Bolsheviks who arrested the tsar, but his first assistant M.V. Alekseev.

In 1917, Russian liberals destroyed the monarchy in our country, and English liberals (English government) refused to accept the Russian Emperor and doomed him to death.

Today's liberal revisionists praise the Tsar and pre-revolutionary Tsarist Russia with the sole purpose of turning us away from Soviet Russia.

In reality, the Tsarist Russia of Nicholas II was a great, but poor and technically backward country, and the liberal Russia of Kerensky was a dying country that was saved by the Bolsheviks.

The leaders of Tsarist Russia, including Tsar Nicholas II, were personalities far from the images created later. In addition, they turned out to be statesmen incapable of governing the state. To confirm the above, let us consider the individual actions of Nicholas II.

For the torment that Nicholas II and his family endured, everything is forgiven him, and we are obliged to sympathize with him with all our hearts as a martyr of the Russian land. But at the same time, you need to know the truth about the morals of the king, about the regime.

There is an archival fund that contains reports from high-ranking police leaders on the horrific cruelty and illegality of the actions of punitive expeditions against peasants. These reports are marked in blue pencil by the king's hand. Under each note is certified in calligraphic handwriting: “Inscribed by His Imperial Majesty with his own hand” - and the signature of the head of the imperial chancellery.”

The tsar's notes are not orders to investigate and bring the perpetrators to justice, but shameful inscriptions and jokes. In a similar way, Nicholas II treated not only peasants, but also statesmen. The Tsar did not value statesmen loyal to Russia and the autocracy, even outstanding ones. Because of his painfully developed pride, he did not like to argue. He once admitted: “I always agree with everyone on everything, and then I do it my own way.”

General A. A. Mosolov, head of the office of the Ministry of the Court in 1900-1917, wrote: “He dismissed persons, even those who had served under him for a long time, with extraordinary ease. It was enough for him to start slandering, without even citing any factual data, for him to agree to the dismissal of such a person. The tsar never sought to establish for himself who was right, who was wrong, where the truth was and where the slander was... The tsar was least inclined to defend one of his associates or to establish for what reasons the slander was brought to his attention, the tsar.”

Protopresbyter of the Army and Navy G. Schavelsky, who was at the tsar's headquarters in 1916-1917, left detailed descriptions of how the tsar spent his days as commander-in-chief. “Reading them leaves a heavy feeling. It is clear that the revolution, and at the hands of the highest military ranks, was inevitable,” writes S. G. Kara-Murza.

From the above examples, the decomposition of the ruling layer of tsarist Russia is obvious. In 1917, there was a revolutionary situation in Russia not only because of the disintegration of the ruling layer, but also for many other reasons.

Russia has been heading towards revolution since the times of Stepan Razin and Emelyan Pugachev. The lack of rights and poverty of peasants and workers led the country to revolution.

The level of poverty of the people is evidenced, in particular, by the fact that in tsarist Russia 40% of young men arriving at conscription ate meat for the first time in the army, because these families did not have sufficient funds to buy meat. Children were given cheaper food. As they say: “If you don’t care about fat, you would be alive.” Despite this, traders and landowners exported grain and meat abroad, effectively taking away food from Russian children.

Peasants in Russia conducted communal use of the land and assumed an obligation in certain cases to provide assistance to community families in cultivating the land, growing crops and harvesting crops. Children were born, new families were formed, and for each family, for each peasant there was less and less land.

In addition to material injustice, peasants constantly endured insults and humiliation, both from landowners and kulaks, and from government officials.

The working class, which was small compared to the peasantry, was not in a better position. Every day, exhausting work for low pay, which was barely enough to support, as a rule, a large family. They worked 12 hours a day, without an idea, stupidly, like cattle, and saw nothing in life except work. And all the higher-ranking, wealthier townspeople treated the workers with disrespect and disdain.

This situation in the country could not last very long. Previously, the peasant grew grain, raised children, and the nobleman, the landowner, served in the army, shed blood, defending the Fatherland and the same peasant.

In the 20th century in Tsarist Russia, landowners, merchants, and owners of factories and factories, exempted from compulsory military service, were presented to workers and peasants as parasites, in most cases creating nothing and bringing no benefit to either the people or the state.

On the contrary, when the people were half-starved, many representatives of the privileged classes, in particular the nobility, traveled abroad, held balls there, and spent thousands of gold rubles earned by working people.

Wealthy people, being more sophisticated than one another, used only foreign things, paying for them in Russian gold. Such a huge export of money abroad led to the weakening of the Russian state and the increasing impoverishment of the people. The lack of demand had a negative impact on the development of domestic production.

For a long time now, the elite had reached such a level of disrespect for their people and their culture that they communicated with each other only in French. And if you consider that a large number of landowners’ lands belonged to foreigners, then it becomes clear why Russian men burned landowners’ estates in 1917. The elite has crossed the line beyond which a social explosion follows.

Back in 1905-1907, peasants began to fight for land and freedom. It should be noted that during that revolutionary period, the peasantry showed amazing organization and culture: during the destruction of about 3 thousand estates (15% of their total number in Russia), there were practically no cases of theft of personal belongings and violence against owners and their servants.

Here is what the English historian of the Russian peasantry T. Shanin writes about the violence of 1907: “Arson often followed a special scenario. The decision about them was made at a community gathering, and then, using lots, executors were chosen from among the participants in the gathering, while the rest of those present swore an oath not to hand over the arsonists... Peasant actions were to a noticeable extent ordered, which is not at all like a crazy rampant of hatred and vandalism, which the enemies of the peasants expected to see, as well as those who extolled the peasant jacquerie... The peasant uprisings of Russia turned out to be unlike the image of the European jacquerie left to us by its executioners and chroniclers.”

The tsarist government, represented by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers and the Minister of Internal Affairs, Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin, tried to carry out reforms aimed at solving the agrarian issue. The peasants were offered land in Siberia and Central Asia, given a loan, a farmstead, and paid for travel. They offered free land in private property.

They offered, but did not understand that life on a farm was not for a Russian person. What if something happens to the head of the family: dies of illness, dies? How can a single widow with children survive? And there were 5-10 children per family. In the event of the loss of a breadwinner, the community will sow grain on the family plot, collect the harvest, and bring it to the house. Children will not die of starvation. And on the farm? On a farm, in the event of the loss of a breadwinner, the whole family will go around the world.

There were other reasons for the lack of desire among many peasants to move to new lands. Resettlement, of course, proceeded, but not at the pace that was needed to resolve the issue of landless peasants and the settlement of Russian territories in the Russian Empire. The reform allowed for leaving the community and obtaining land as private property without relocating to new lands.

The scientist S.G. Kara-Murza writes the following about Stolypin’s reforms: “The meaning of Stolypin’s reforms was to transform the peasant class - the base of the class society of Russia - into two warring classes, the rural bourgeoisie and the rural proletariat. In other words, it was supposed to transform traditional society into a modern one through “reform from above” in the shortest possible time, western type. This is an incomparably deeper shock than, for example, the transformation of the traditional society of Tsarist Russia into a traditional society of the Soviet type.” Other researchers and historians point to this.

After the murder of P. A. Stolypin in Kyiv in 1911 by a Jew with the Russian surname D. Bogrov, the active implementation of land reform ceased, and the land issue in Russia was not resolved not because the implementation of Stolypin’s reforms ceased, but because to resolve the land issue It was necessary to abolish private ownership of land, and, naturally, the tsarist regime could not agree to this.

In total, in the period from 1907 to 1916, 22.7% of the total number of community members separated from the communities. Many of the peasants who separated from the community sold their lands to rich peasants, as a result of which the kulaks arose, and those who sold the land became farm laborers.

As mentioned above, Stolypin sought to create lords and farm laborers in the countryside, according to the European model, for which, when the liberals came to power, they elevated him to the rank of a great statesman. Unlike the peasant created by Stolypin's reforms, the communal peasant was not a farm laborer. He was the master of his land.

Stolypin's reform could not solve the land issue, since it supported the landowners and formed the rural bourgeoisie - kulaks, which did not correspond to the aspirations of the peasants.

And the February revolution of the “Chubais” could not win in 1917, because in the huge class Russian society there were too few people who supported the transformation of the country into a liberal state. In Russia in February 1917 there was still no soil on which the poisonous seeds of liberalism could sprout abundantly.

Liberals felt like an alien element in Russia. Not at all like in France during the Great French Revolution, in which they showed what the bourgeoisie eager for power is capable of.

English thinker Thomas Carlyle in his early years directly observed last period French Revolution. In 1837 he published a fundamental work on the French Revolution of 1789. “Carlyle sought to comprehend the countless monstrous atrocities of the French revolutionaries. Barges were flooded, whose holds were filled with priests who did not accept the new order; “But why sacrifice the barge? - Carlyle continued. Isn't it easier to push into the water with hands tied and shower the entire river with lead hail until the last of those floundering goes to the bottom?.. And small children were thrown there, despite the pleas of their mothers. “These are wolf cubs,” answered Marat’s company, “wolves will grow out of them.” Then the women and men are tied together by the hands and feet and thrown. This is called a “republican wedding”... Armed executioners “shot small children, and women with infants... shot 500 people at a time...” And here is Carlyle’s conclusion: “The panther of the forests is cruel..., but there is in man a hatred more cruel than this.” .

And an example of “ultimate” (or rather, limitless) monstrosity: “In Meudon... there was a tannery for the tanning of human skins; from the skin of those guillotined who were found worthy of being flayed, amazingly good leather like suede was made... History, looking back... will hardly find in the whole world a more disgusting cannibalism... Civilization is still only an outer shell through which the wild, devilish nature of man peeks through” - so concludes Carlyle.

For a quarter of a century (before the start of the Restoration in 1814), the French Revolution devoured, according to various estimates, from 3.5 to 4.5 million human lives. This may not seem such a huge figure if we forget that the population of France was then 6-7 times smaller than the population of Russia during the era of its Revolution (and, therefore, the death of 4 million Frenchmen corresponded to the death of 25-30 million inhabitants of Russia) and that in the end The 18th century did not have the means of destruction that “progress” had created by the 20th century.

Well-known specialist in the field of historical demography B.Ts. Urlanis wrote about the victims of the French Revolution: “... this damage was so significant that the French nation was never able to recover from it and... it was the reason for the decrease in population growth in France throughout the subsequent decades.” And in fact: by the time of the Revolution the population of France was 25 million people, Great Britain - 11 million, Germany - 24 million, and by the end of the 19th century, respectively: 38 million, 37 million, and 56 million; that is, the population of Germany has grown by more than two times, Great Britain - even more than three times, and France - by only 50 percent...

I turned to the French Revolution, in particular, because they are constantly trying to “explain” the barbarity of the Russian Revolution by some specifically “Russian” cruelty. Meanwhile... the annual magnificent celebrations in Paris on July 14 to the sounds of “La Marseillaise” are overshadowed by the monstrous spectacles played out in front of crowds of thousands (boys of 13-14 years old were also guillotined, “who, due to their short stature, the knife of the guillotine did not fall on the throat, but was supposed to crush the skull "), and drown out the screams of people locked in barges going to the bottom...

One of the leaders of the French Revolution, Saint-Just, addressing his comrades-in-arms, gave a formula that became a kind of law: “You must punish not only traitors, but also the indifferent; you must punish everyone who is passive in the republic,” wrote V.V. Kozhinov. God had mercy on Russia, and the February Revolution did not find support among the country's population.

There is an opinion that the February Revolution was brought to the country by the West, was a foreign phenomenon for Russia and therefore did not find support within the country. This opinion cannot be called erroneous.

I remember at the end of the 1970s I was at a meeting in the capital of the Belarusian SSR, Minsk. For excursions with Soviet and foreign guests, the plant maintained a large, beautiful Ikarus bus. An employee of the plant's chief technologist department was appointed as a tour guide.

When we drove past the building where the first congress of the RSDLP was held in 1898, the guide said that almost all parties were financed by the West to one degree or another and had one primary task - to eliminate the autocracy in Russia. It was a revelation for me.

Probably, the West believed that as a result of the liquidation of the autocracy, Russian statehood would collapse and defenseless Russia would find itself in the hands of the West. But Russia and its statehood, having fallen from the hands of the autocracy and the Provisional Government, ended up not in the hands of the West, but in the hands of the Bolsheviks.

As a result of the February Revolution, the Provisional Government came to power. Inspired by international elite circles, the Provisional Government began to pursue a course in the country's domestic and foreign policy that corresponded to the interests of Western countries, primarily England and the United States.

The Entente was impatient to begin dividing the Russian Empire and destroying Russian statehood forever. Without a doubt, these countries sought, instead of the Russian Empire, to have many countries on Russian territory that were completely dependent on the West. The Russian nation was losing its imperial status and would eventually disappear from the face of the earth

Alexander Blok wrote on July 12, 1917: The “separation” of Finland and Ukraine suddenly scared me today. I'm starting to fear for " Great Russia" In September, following Ukraine, the Northern Caucasus began to separate, where (in Yekaterinodar) the “United Government of the South-Eastern Union of Cossack Troops, Caucasian Highlanders and Free Peoples of the Steppes” arose), in November - Transcaucasia (the founding of the “Transcaucasian Commissariat” in Tiflis), in December - Moldova (Bessarabia) and Lithuania, etc. Individual regions, provinces and even counties proclaimed their “independence!”

The catastrophic collapse of the country was a consequence of the February Revolution. The Bolsheviks brought together the Russian lands that had been divided under the Provisional Government of Kerensky.

It is impossible not to pay attention and not to say that the liberals of 1991 continued the work of their “February” predecessors and separated vast territories from Russia. Russia has invested enormous amounts of money in the development of the seized lands and has always defended these lands from invaders.

The great moralist Adam Smith defined the bourgeois state, the liberal civil society that is being built again in Russia since the destruction of the USSR, as follows: “The acquisition of large and extensive property is possible only with the establishment of a civil government. In so far as it is established for the protection of property, it becomes, in reality, a defense of the rich against the poor, a defense of those who own property against those who have no property.”

After the collapse of the class monarchy, the Russian people did not strive for a civil society of free individuals, but for a Christian commune, that is, for a family-society, a socialist socio-political system.

Russia has never been a “civil society” of free individuals. In Russia there was a class society (peasants, nobles, merchants and clergy - not classes, not proletarians and property owners).

Such a society (like the Soviet one) in the West is classified as a totalitarian society. The concept that such a society is terrible has already been implanted into people's minds. Although it is the civil society that gave birth to fascism that is terrible, because in a civil society the main value is enrichment, and in it, one might say, everything that makes a profit is moral.

This is exactly what Hitler thought, killing millions of people to enrich Germany. Only the Law, fear, restrains individuals of Western civil society from committing crimes. By the way, French word total means all-encompassing, complete, comprehensive. Totalitarianism means unity in Russian.

The Provisional Government set a course to continue the war with Germany to a victorious end, but did not stop taking actions leading to the collapse of the country. Uprisings spread throughout the country.

V.V. Kozhinov, analyzing these events, said that the very existence of Russia is impossible without firm state power. Without a doubt, he meant the government, which in domestic and foreign policy is guided by the interests of its country, its people.

The power that came as a result of the February Revolution of 1917 was the power of the liberal-bourgeois state led by the Provisional Government. She pursued a policy that was completely inconsistent with Russia’s interests.

Declaring the preservation of a “united and indivisible” Russia, the liberal-bourgeois state cultivated separatism - and the Bolsheviks, declaring the right of nations to self-determination, acted everywhere as irreconcilable opponents of separatism.

The Provisional Government quickly lost power because it was hostile to peasant Russia. The revolutionaries of the liberal parties destroyed power from top to bottom, so that anarchy affected literally every person. The horror of anarchy hovered over the country, leading to humiliation, suffering and death of many thousands of people.

Anarchy was deliberately maintained by the Provisional Government for the complete destruction of Russian statehood. As the leader of the right, A.I. Guchkov, admitted then, “we not only overthrew the bearers of power, we overthrew and abolished the very idea of ​​power, destroyed those necessary foundations on which all power is built.” In this desire to destroy Russia to the limits determined by the West, the liberals crossed the line and themselves lost power.