It was a landmark event for Russian history. The overthrow of the monarch could not happen in a vacuum; it was prepared. Many internal and external factors contributed to it.
Revolutions, regime changes, and overthrows of rulers do not happen instantly. This is always a labor-intensive, expensive operation, which involves both direct performers and the passive, but no less important for the result, corps de ballet. The overthrow of Nicholas II was planned long before the spring of 1917, when the historic abdication of the last Russian emperor from the throne took place. What paths led to the fact that the centuries-old monarchy was defeated, and Russia was drawn into revolution and a fratricidal Civil War?
Public opinion
The revolution occurs primarily in the heads; a change of the ruling regime is impossible without a lot of work on the minds of the ruling elite, as well as the population of the state. Today this method of influence is called the “path of soft power.” In the pre-war years and during the First World War, foreign countries, especially England, began to show unusual sympathy towards Russia.
British Ambassador to Russia Buchanan, together with British Foreign Secretary Gray, organized two trips of delegations from Russia to Foggy Albion. First, Russian liberal writers and journalists (Nabokov, Egorov, Bashmakov, Tolstoy, etc.) went to warm up to Britain, followed by politicians (Miliukov, Radkevich, Oznobishin, etc.).
Meetings of Russian guests were arranged in England with all the chic: banquets, meetings with the king, visits to the House of Lords, universities. Upon their return, the returning writers began to write excitedly about how good it is in England, how strong its army is, how good parliamentarism is...
But the returning “Duma members” actually stood in the vanguard of the revolution in February 1917 and entered the Provisional Government. Well-established ties between the British establishment and the Russian opposition led to the fact that during the allied conference held in Petrograd in January 1917, the head of the British delegation, Milner, sent a memorandum to Nicholas II, in which he almost demanded that the people needed for Britain be included in the government. The tsar ignored this request, but the “necessary people” were already in the government.
Popular propaganda
How massive the propaganda and “people's mail” were in anticipation of the overthrow of Nicholas II can be judged by one interesting document - the diary of the peasant Zamaraev, which is kept today in the museum of the city of Totma, Vologda region. The peasant kept a diary for 15 years.
After the tsar’s abdication, he made the following entry: “Romanov Nikolai and his family have been deposed, are all under arrest and receive all food on a par with others on ration cards. Indeed, they did not care at all about the welfare of their people, and the people’s patience ran out. They brought their state to hunger and darkness. What was going on in their palace. This is horror and shame! It was not Nicholas II who ruled the state, but the drunkard Rasputin. All the princes were replaced and dismissed from their positions, including the commander-in-chief Nikolai Nikolaevich. Everywhere in all cities there is a new department, the old police are gone.”
Military factor
Nicholas II’s father, Emperor Alexander III, liked to repeat: “In the whole world we have only two faithful allies, our army and navy. “Everyone else, at the first opportunity, will take up arms against us.” The peacemaker king knew what he was talking about. The way the “Russian card” was played in the First World War clearly showed that he was right; the Entente allies turned out to be unreliable “Western partners.”
The very creation of this bloc was beneficial, first of all, to France and England. The role of Russia was assessed by the “allies” in a rather pragmatic manner. The French Ambassador to Russia, Maurice Paleologue, wrote: “In terms of cultural development, the French and Russians are not on the same level. Russia is one of the most backward countries in the world. Compare our army with this ignorant, unconscious mass: all our soldiers are educated; in the forefront are young forces who have proven themselves in art and science, talented and sophisticated people; this is the cream of humanity... From this point of view, our losses will be more sensitive than Russian losses.”
The same Paleologus on August 4, 1914 tearfully asked Nicholas II: “I beg Your Majesty to order your troops to go on an immediate offensive, otherwise the French army risks being crushed...”.
The Tsar ordered the troops who had not completed mobilization to advance. For the Russian army, the haste turned into a disaster, but France was saved. Now it’s surprising to read about this, considering that by the time the war began, the standard of living in Russia (in large cities) was no lower than the standard of living in France. Involving Russia in the Entente is only a move in a game played against Russia. The Russian army seemed to the Anglo-French allies as an inexhaustible reservoir of human resources, and its onslaught was associated with a steam roller, hence one of Russia’s leading places in the Entente, in fact the most important link in the “triumvirate” of France, Russia and Great Britain.
For Nicholas II, the bet on the Entente was a losing one. The significant losses that Russia suffered in the war, desertion, and unpopular decisions that the emperor was forced to make - all this weakened his position and led to inevitable abdication.
Renunciation
The document on the abdication of Nicholas II is today considered very controversial, but the fact of the abdication itself is reflected, among other things, in the emperor’s diary:
“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 is powerless to do anything, since social workers are fighting it. -dem. the party represented by the working committee. My renunciation is needed. Ruzsky conveyed this conversation to headquarters, and Alekseev to all commanders in chief. By 2½ o'clock answers came from everyone. The point is that in the name of saving Russia and keeping the army at the front calm, you need to decide to take this step. I agreed. A draft manifesto was sent from Headquarters. In the evening, Guchkov and Shulgin arrived from Petrograd, with whom I talked and gave them the signed and revised manifesto. At one o'clock in the morning I left Pskov with a heavy feeling of what I had experienced. There is treason, cowardice, and deceit all around!”
What about the church?
To our surprise, the official Church reacted calmly to the abdication of God’s Anointed One. The official synod issued an appeal to the children of the Orthodox Church, recognizing the new government.
Almost immediately, prayerful commemoration of the royal family ceased; words mentioning the Tsar and the Royal House were removed from the prayers. Letters from believers were sent to the Synod asking whether the Church's support of the new government was not a crime of perjury, since Nicholas II did not abdicate voluntarily, but was actually overthrown. But in the revolutionary turmoil, no one received an answer to this question.
To be fair, it should be said that the newly elected Patriarch Tikhon subsequently decided to hold memorial services everywhere commemorating Nicholas II as Emperor.
Shuffle of authorities
After the abdication of Nicholas II, the Provisional Government became the official body of power in Russia. However, in reality it turned out to be a puppet and non-viable structure. Its creation was initiated, its collapse also became natural. The Tsar had already been overthrown, the Entente needed to delegitimize power in Russia in any way so that our country could not participate in the post-war reconstruction of borders.
Doing this through the Civil War and the Bolsheviks coming to power was an elegant and win-win solution. The Provisional Government “surrendered” very consistently: it did not interfere with Leninist propaganda in the army, turned a blind eye to the creation of illegal armed groups represented by the Red Guard, and in every possible way persecuted those generals and officers of the Russian army who warned about the danger of Bolshevism.
Newspapers write
It is indicative how the world tabloids reacted to the February revolution and the news of the abdication of Nicholas II. The French press reported a version that the tsarist regime fell in Russia as a result of three days of a hunger riot. French journalists resorted to an analogy: the February Revolution is a reflection of the revolution of 1789. Nicholas II, like Louis XVI, was presented as a “weak monarch” who was “harmfully influenced by his wife,” the “German” Alexandra, comparing this with the influence of the “Austrian” Marie Antoinette on the king of France. The image of the “German Helen” came in very handy in order to once again show the harmful influence of Germany.
The German press gave a different vision: “The end of the Romanov dynasty! Nicholas II signed the abdication of the throne for himself and his minor son,” shouted the Tägliches Cincinnatier Volksblatt.
The news talked about the liberal course of the new cabinet of the Provisional Government and expressed hope for the Russian Empire to exit the war, which was the main goal of the German government. The February Revolution expanded Germany's prospects for achieving a separate peace, and they stepped up their offensive on a variety of fronts. “The Russian Revolution put us in a completely new position,” wrote Austria-Hungary Foreign Minister Chernin. “Peace with Russia,” wrote the Austrian Emperor Charles I to Kaiser Wilhelm II, “is the key to the situation. After its conclusion, the war will quickly come to a favorable end for us.”
Candidate of Historical Sciences P. Multatuli convincingly proves the spiritual, legal and historical inconsistency of the renunciation manifesto. Modern examination shows that the text of the renunciation is a fake.
From a spiritual point of view
“Glorified by the almighty God does not need human rehabilitation,” says P. Multatuli.
From a legal point of view
The laws of the Russian Empire did not have such articles as the abdication of the reigning monarch. Lawyers argue that the document has no legal force. The Manifesto of Nicholas II was never published by the Senate, as required by the law of that time, and its drafting took place without the participation of the Sovereign himself, as the bearer of supreme power. That is, the very fact of the Emperor’s abdication of the throne does not exist.
From a historical point of view
The totality of historical sources indicates that by the beginning of 1916, a conspiracy between the liberal-cadet opposition and revolutionary groups that had close ties with certain political and financial forces of the West had finally taken shape, with the goal of overthrowing Emperor Nicholas II from the throne.
Later, a headquarters was created headed by A.I. Guchkov, who intended to replace the monarchical current ruler with a minor constitutional one.
The conspirators' plan was to seize the imperial train during one of the sovereign's trips to Headquarters. Having arrested the Sovereign, it was intended to immediately force him to abdicate in favor of Tsarevich Alexei during the regency of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, and in case of refusal, to kill him. At the same time, a constitutional system would be introduced in the country.
The author of this plan was Guchkov. The corresponding manifestos were prepared in advance. It was supposed to do all this at night, and in the morning all of Russia and the army would know about the abdication. All this was accomplished in the fateful February-March days of the February Revolution of 1917.
However, A.F. had his own plans. Kerensky, who saw Russia after the coup only as a democratic republic, which would be headed not by a regency council, but by a constituent assembly. Those. not a monarchy in any form, but a republic. And Kerensky made Guchkov’s plan part of his plan, because he understood that acting openly would not achieve success.
Guchkov established contacts with the highest military command: Chief of Staff of Headquarters, Adjutant General M.V. Alekseev, Commander-in-Chief of the armies of the Northern Front, Adjutant General N.V. Ruzsky, Commander-in-Chief of the armies of the Southwestern Front, Adjutant General A.A. Brusilov, Alekseev’s deputy, cavalry general V.I. Gurko. They played a decisive role in the success of the coup.
The question of renunciation was a foregone conclusion
On February 22, 1917, the Tsar was lured to Headquarters by General Alekseev and torn away from the capital, where riots immediately began. The sovereign's order to send troops to quell the unrest was not carried out. The sovereign was captured by the conspirators and deprived of his freedom.
What is the paper that is considered to be a manifesto?
Forgery of the abdication manifesto. GARF, f. 601, op. 1, building 2100a, l. 5.
“The so-called renunciation manifesto is a fabricated fake. It was compiled with gross violations of pre-revolutionary paperwork, has edits, erasures, and was printed using different typewriters,”– says P. Multatuli.
The back of the fake abdication manifesto. GARF, f. 601, op. 1, building 2100a, l. 5 rev.
It can be seen that the paper was torn, i.e. was compiled from pieces of different texts.
It can be seen that the letter “th” in the first half of the text is not printed, but in the second it is printed clearly and clearly.
It can be seen that the inscription “G. Pskov" was typed on a different typewriter.
Instead of the title preceding the manifesto, there is the inscription: “To the Chief of Staff.” It was about the chief of staff of the conspirators. It can be assumed that this is Kerensky, to whom Guchkov sent a telegram that the sovereign had agreed to abdicate.
The Tsar's signature was made in pencil and outlined through the glass.
Nicholas II always personally drafted the most important documents. Therefore, the inconsistency of the false manifesto is proven by another document: a draft of the draft manifesto of renunciation, compiled at the headquarters of the Supreme High Command. The main text is typewritten. But contains hand edits. At the end of the document, words written in Alekseev’s hand are the beginning of a fabricated manifesto of renunciation.
Thus, Nicholas II never wrote or signed a manifesto of abdication! He was captured by conspirators on a train at Pskov station. Bottom and forcibly deprived of power in favor of the provisional government.
There was no renunciation!
It was not the tsar who abdicated the throne, it was Russia who abdicated the tsar.
http://xn----7sbbz2c8a3d.xn--p1ai/facts/otrecheniya-ne-bylo?yclid=5920620749295984060
The Minister of the Court, Count Fredericks, did not countersign the falsified “abdication” of Tsar Nicholas II
A forged signature on a form with typewritten text, which was never put by the Minister of the Court of Emperor Nicholas II, Adjutant General Count Frederiks Vladimir Borisovich:
Of course, the Minister of the Court, Count Fredericks, had an excellent calligraphic handwriting, honed by decades of service, which cannot be said about the signature on the form of the forged Manifesto of Abdication (GARF, f. 601, op. 1, d. 2100a, l. 5), uncertainly drawn in ink over pencil. The spelling of most letters and the endings of the signature do not correspond to the authentic ones:
Moreover, the form itself was composed of two paper halves, which had previously been carefully glued together with a narrow strip of tissue paper, glued to the back of the document along a horizontal line running approximately along the transverse axis of symmetry of the sheet along the typewritten line “... WE considered it our duty conscience to ease the cramped conditions for OUR people...” (GA RF, f. 601, op. 1, d. 2100a, l. 5v.)
Count Fredericks V.B. During the interrogation carried out by the Extraordinary Investigative Commission of the Provisional Government about the “abdication” of Emperor Nicholas II, he stated that he was not with the Emperor at that time and even before March 2/15, 1917, he left for Petrograd and was arrested.
There were good reasons for Fredericks not being with the Tsar at that time. The first was stated by the Emperor himself: “There is information that they want to arrest you. For me it would be an even more insult if someone were arrested in my house, especially my minister of the court. Therefore, you will do me a favor if you go to Petrograd.”
Emperor Nicholas II and the Minister of the Court, Count Fredericks V.B.
To which Fredericks replied: “It pains me terribly, Your Imperial Majesty, to leave you at such a moment, but I will leave today.” Fredericks left on the same day, and was nevertheless arrested in Mogilev.
The second reason why Fredericks had to go to St. Petersburg was the looting and burning of his own house, after which Fredericks’s wife and daughters were taken to the Horse Guards hospital.
Sources:
1. Antonov B.I. “The Imperial Guard in St. Petersburg”, St. Petersburg, 2001, pp. 257-259 (according to the memoirs of Count V.B. Fredericks’ son-in-law - V.N. Voeikov).
2. Rostkovsky F.Ya. “Diary for recording... (1917: revolution through the eyes of a retired general)”, M., 2001, p.203.
From a letter from Empress Alexandra Feodorovna dated March 2/15, 1917, we also learn: “They burned the house of Fred (Eriks), his family in the Horse Guards. hospital."
Autocracy in Russia fell. The three-hundred-year era of the Romanov dynasty has ended. The Russian imperial army was beheaded. All these colossal events occurred on March 2 (15), 1917. Then, in the lounge carriage of the royal train at the station in Pskov, Emperor Nicholas II signed his abdication of the throne.
This event is still surrounded by a web of versions and speculation. Historians and writers argue about the reasons for the king’s fatal act. There are even versions that there was no renunciation. This article is an attempt to understand this very difficult historical issue.
"Conspiracy of the Generals"
One of the most common hypotheses about the reasons for the abdication is the so-called “conspiracy of the generals” - a military coup undertaken by the top of the army and navy. The main figures in this party are considered to be A. I. Guchkov and General M. V. Alekseev. But, firstly, did the Chief of Staff of Headquarters really have nothing to do except lead the preparations for the overthrow of the Tsar in the conditions of a very difficult war? In addition, it should be remembered that Alekseev was a rather controversial military administrator, difficult in relationships. This also influenced personnel decisions at the top of the army - for example, friction between him and Yu. N. Danilov did not allow the latter to remain at the head of the Main Directorate of the General Staff. In correspondence with his son, Alekseev spoke quite unequivocally about his colleagues:
Radko worked poorly, Dobrorolsky, who turned out to be an unfit chief of staff, did even worse. During this time, Ivanov turned into a completely wet chicken, Dragomirov became nervous and was replaced by someone else.
General Mikhail Pustovoitenko, Nicholas II, General Mikhail Alekseev
The head of the Main Artillery Directorate, General A. A. Manikovsky, was accused not only of participating in a conspiracy against the Tsar, but also of involvement in Freemasonry. Meanwhile, he himself flatly refused the offer to become a military dictator at the beginning of the February Revolution. And this is not surprising if you look at his letters written six months earlier:
Is there really no such faithful and truthful servant near the LORD who directly and openly reported [would] HIM that this should not continue<…>But the fire is ALREADY BURNING, and only the blind and the obvious enemies of the Tsar do not see it...
Finally, even Guchkov himself later admitted: “ NNone of the major military men could be attracted to the conspiracy" However, another fact is also known for certain: on March 2 (15), Alekseev sent telegrams to the commanders of the armies and navies, asking for their opinions on the prospect of the abdication of Nicholas II. If they were driven by the desire to overthrow the crown and rebuild the Old World, then it manifested itself like this:
The Chief of Staff of the Headquarters, Adjutant General M.V. Alekseev, worked diligently until the evening of February 28 on a plan to pacify the St. Petersburg unrest, and already on the second day after the abdication of Nicholas II he confessed to his Quartermaster General A.S. Lukomsky:
I will never forgive myself for believing in the sincerity of some people, listening to them and sending telegrams to the commanders-in-chief on the issue of the abdication of the sovereign.
The Commander-in-Chief of the armies of the Northern Front, Infantry General N.V. Ruzsky, deeply regretted that “ in his long conversation with the sovereign on the evening of March 1, he shook the foundations of the Throne, wanting to strengthen them...", until the end of my days I could not talk about " tragic days of March 1 and 2».
Nicholas II with generals Yanushkevich, Ruzsky and Brusilov
The commander of the Black Sea Fleet, Admiral A.V. Kolchak, of all Alekseev’s addressees, he was the only one who did not support the ultimatum to the tsar on March 2. Then, at the height of the revolutionary events in the Black Sea Fleet, Kolchak, in protest against the confiscation of weapons from officers and the resolution of the Delegated Assembly of the Army, Navy and Workers on their arrest on June 6, 1917, voluntarily surrendered his position. A month and a half later, not wanting to participate in political games, he left for the United States as part of the Russian naval mission to the American fleet. Quite strange manifestations of zeal for power at that time, isn’t it?
The commander of the Petrograd Military District, Infantry General L. G. Kornilov, became the first revolutionary general, arresting Empress Alexandra Fedorovna on March 7, 1917, but subsequently did not hide:
I have never been against the monarchy, since Russia is too big to be a republic. Besides, I am a Cossack. A real Cossack cannot help but be a monarchist.
This sum of facts casts doubt on the version of a military coup. At the same time, there is no doubt: Nicholas II abdicated the throne under the yoke of not only circumstances, but also the military elite of the country.
However, there were also generals who undoubtedly remained loyal to the emperor. Among them, the cavalry general, Adjutant General Huseyn Ali Khan of Nakhichevan is often mentioned. On his behalf, but without his knowledge, the chief of staff of the Guards Cavalry Corps, Major General Baron Wieneken, sent his telegram to Nicholas II - expressing devotion and readiness to come to the rescue. However, the corps, along with its commander, swore allegiance to the Provisional Government a little over a week later. It was then that Khan Nakhichevan actually sent a telegram - albeit addressed to Minister of War A.I. Guchkov and with the following content:
I bring to your attention that even before the day of the oath, the entire guards cavalry, from the senior general to the last soldier, was and is filled with the desire to lay down their lives for their dear Motherland, now led by the new government.
After a few more days, Wieneken, who truly remained loyal to the crown, took his own life.
Renunciation: to be or not to be
Relatively recently, a completely avant-garde theory arose and took hold in Russian journalism: there was no abdication of Nicholas II, the text was a forgery. A number of writers and historians supported it, while other authors rejected it as fabrications. Meanwhile, this idea is disavowed on almost every point.
First of all, the abdication is declared false because of its design and the signature of Nicholas II, written in pencil. The first to draw attention to it many years ago was the novelist Valentin Pikul, who wrote in his novel “Moonzund”: “Nicholas signed the act of renunciation not in ink, but in pencil, as if it were a list of dirty linen to be washed.”. How the writer’s metaphor became an argument in scientific debate is difficult to say.
The same pencil signature
Another contra argument about the authenticity of the first copies of the emperor’s renunciation states: two autographs from two different sheets of the “renunciation” are absolutely identical. It can be assumed that over the years of his reign, the Sovereign either developed an exceptionally stable signature with uniquely similar strokes, or the signatures were applied by someone else as a carbon copy, or through glass. This assumption is not supported by the results of graphological examination: its supporters limited themselves to overlaying layers with several autographs in graphic editors on their PCs. Reconciliation with earlier signatures of Nicholas II revealed a certain difference in the style - and this was enough for a solid conspiracy base. However, even the autographs of royalty were not a constant throughout their lives. This is clearly demonstrated by the evolution of Napoleon Bonaparte's signatures.
How Napoleon Bonaparte's signature changed
Be that as it may, it’s time to ask the question: why did Nikolai Romanov, who had already abdicated the throne, not tell anyone about the true background of the events? Supporters of the “there was no renunciation” version argue that over the next year and a half the tsar was in an information vacuum. Those to whom he could reveal himself were allegedly killed.
However, in reality, Nicholas II told at least one other person about his abdication. And more than equal to him. And not killed, but died peacefully in Denmark. We are, of course, talking about his royal mother, Maria Feodorovna (Dagmar).
“Fate has never been as cruel to any country as to Russia. Her ship sank while the harbor was in sight. ...In March the Tsar was on the throne; The Russian Empire and the Russian army held out, the front was secured and victory was indisputable.”Winston Churchill
RUSSIAN HISTORY
March 15 is the day of abdication of Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II from the throne. The events of this day in 1917 are strange and mysterious, the testimonies of the participants are contradictory. Some researchers even question the very fact of the Emperor’s abdication. But no matter how history is interpreted, an unbiased researcher soon becomes aware that those closest to him betrayed their king, and, in fact, became accomplices in the largest crime in the history of Russia, which put an end to the Russian monarchy.
The enemies of Russia are trying to cover up the extreme meanness and complete immorality of this betrayal with an impenetrable fog of slander against the tsarist government, the royal family and the entire system of Russian life of that time. But the most slandered in this story is Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II.
Historian Pyotr Multatuli, speaking at a conference dedicated to the 90th anniversary of the Yekaterinburg tragedy, said: “For decades, the name of Emperor Nicholas II was surrounded by slander, lies, misunderstanding, condemnation and mockery. Perhaps there is no statesman in Russian history so hated by Russia’s slanderers as the last Russian Tsar. Moreover, we are not talking about different scientific assessments of the reign of Nicholas II, which, of course, can be different, but about conscious slander and deliberate mockery. For many decades, a false image of Nicholas II was created... The truth about Nicholas II was too terrible and dangerous for the usurpers who reigned in Russia in 1917. The true image of the Tsar, whom they called “weak” and “bloody,” was too terrible and dangerous for them, but the memory of whom continued to live among the people. The contrast between the tsarist era, with its prosperity and true freedom, and their revolutionary era, the era of genocide, famine, civil war, total robbery, prisons and concentration camps, was too striking.”
THE TSAR AND THE WAR
On August 23, 1915, Nicholas II assumed supreme command of the Russian army. This decision was made not at the moment of victories, but at the most difficult time, when our troops suffered defeats, and the supply of weapons and reinforcements was intermittent. The king managed to change the course of events. Under his leadership, the front stabilized, supplies were restored, communications were established, and the interaction of military formations improved. Imperceptible and seemingly insignificant measures led to a build-up of military power, and brought the power closer to the very threshold of victory - the army became emboldened and began to breathe deeply. Moreover, according to historians, not only the prudent command of Nicholas II played a role, but also the Tsar’s own presence in the troops, as the universally revered leader of the Russian people.
The Emperor, in a letter to Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, reported: “People accepted this step as something natural and understood it like we do... Everything must be done to bring the war to a victorious end. This was officially told to me by all the deputations that I received the other day , and so on throughout Russia. The only exceptions are Petrograd and Moscow - two tiny dots on the map of our Fatherland!
But it was these two “tiny dots” that subsequently played a fatal role in the fate of the huge country.
PROSPECTS FOR VICTORY
If Russia had emerged victorious from World War I while remaining an autocratic Orthodox monarchy, it might have become the most powerful and influential state in the world. During the war, Russia was supposed to receive the Turkish straits of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, which opened up the possibility of dominance over the most important sea communications. In addition to military and political reasons, the straits also had a certain religious meaning. They opened the way to a great mission: to receive Constantinople under Russian citizenship and raise the cross on St. Sophia.
This state of affairs did not suit the world elite, who sought to maintain and strengthen their control over the world. Foreign powers made great efforts to intensify the revolutionary movement in Russia with the goal of overthrowing the Tsar and destroying the Empire. Today we see something similar to this, only on a smaller scale, in the example of “color” revolutions.
CONSPIRACY
By 1917, under the influence of revolutionary and liberal propaganda, society had become greatly corrupted. The number of people who did not consider the Autocracy to be God’s institution, or Orthodox Christianity their faith, increased. Many remarkable statesmen and military leaders fell at the hands of terrorists. Fewer and fewer people loyal to the king remained in his circle. There was also fermentation in the Church, which subsequently led to the actual support of the Holy Synod for the February Revolution.
By the end of 1916, a conspiracy was drawn up against Nicholas II, in which the tsarist generals were involved. The main organizers of the conspiracy were the Progressive Bloc and the upper classes of the bourgeoisie, supported by the Entente. The traitors decided to take advantage of the war to carry out political changes,
Tsar Nicholas II did not foresee the betrayal of his generals during a difficult and bloody war, and, moreover, literally on the eve of victory.
UNITS IN THE CAPITAL
On February 23, a strike began at some Petrograd factories, to which the authorities did not at first attach much importance. But soon professional militants began to appear in the crowds of workers, provoking the police and troops. Workers carrying red flags threw hand grenades and bottles at the police, prompting retaliatory shooting. There were also “American anarchists” who, according to the Security Branch, were sent to Russia on the eve of the events.
Nicholas II, who before the outbreak of unrest was lured by deception to Mogilev, where the Headquarters of the Supreme Command was located, gives a clear order: to immediately restore order in Petrograd. But the military leadership of Petrograd did not have the will to fulfill this order of the Sovereign.
Despite their revolutionary nature, the events in Petrograd did not pose a mortal danger to the Empire. The return of the Sovereign to Petrograd, or even sending him loyal military units, would restore order in the capital in a matter of hours. The conspirators understood this well.
On February 27, at about 11 p.m., Emperor Nicholas II realized that he had been deceived and decided to leave Headquarters back to Tsarskoe Selo. The return of the Tsar would have led to the restoration of order, but, apparently, by that time the Tsar had ceased to control the route of his own train. Headquarters sabotaged the tsar's order to send loyal troops to Petrograd. The trap slammed shut, and the Tsar found himself captured in his own imperial train.
RENUNCIATION
At the decisive moment, in response to Chief of Staff Alekseev’s deftly formulated request to the front commanders for abdication, only two generals publicly expressed loyalty to the Sovereign - Adjutant General Khan Nakhichevansky and Lieutenant General Count F.A. Keller, but their telegrams were not transmitted to the Emperor. Most military leaders, including the future founders of the White Army, Generals Alekseev and Kornilov, welcomed the abdication by wearing red bows.
The scale of the betrayal amazed the Emperor. Having learned that his abdication was allegedly demanded by the army, the people and even members of the dynasty, the Anointed One did not consider it possible to maintain his power by force, since the people did not need him. And it is wrong to look for reasons in the imaginary “lack of will” and “lack of political abilities” of Nicholas II. The abdication to which the Sovereign was forced was the least evil, because the use of force could lead to a split in society and bloodshed. This would weaken Russia in the face of a still very strong enemy. At the same time, transferring power to his brother, the Tsar wanted to ease the conscience of the people, not to impose on them the sin of perjury. “There is treason, cowardice, and deception all around,” these were the last words in the tsar’s diary on the night of his abdication.
THE SPIRITUAL MEANING OF THE KING'S FEAT
Tsar Nicholas correctly understood that it was no longer possible to save Russia by forceful measures (which he first tried to take to suppress the rebellion, but they were canceled behind his back by the conspiratorial generals). Always strictly examining his conscience and carefully thinking through his decisions, the Emperor now made the only correct choice at that time, which required considerable courage and dedication from him. This was a great sacrifice made by the Tsar in the name of saving his beloved people, who had succumbed to the insidious temptation of “democracy”.
And this was the beginning of God’s wrath against Russian society for the apostasy and greed of many Russian people who had completely lost touch with the Church. The enemies of Russia managed to deceive them and contrast them with the obvious truth - the Orthodox faith and love for the Tsar and the Fatherland.
On the day of the Tsar’s abdication, the icon of the Sovereign Mother of God appeared in the village of Kolomenskoye near Moscow. By this, the Most Holy Theotokos showed Russia that from now on the royal crown, scepter and orb were accepted by Her. The face of the Mother of God, filled with sadness, foreshadowed both the royal Ekaterinburg Golgotha and the future torment of Russia. But most people in those days knew nothing about this appearance of the Mother of God. They were passionate about the revolution.
CONCLUSION
On March 2, 1917, in the conditions of a terrible war, on the eve of its victorious conclusion, a betrayal of the leading part of Russian society and the aristocracy to their Tsar - God's Anointed, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief - took place, which has no examples in history. This was the fruit of a gradual cooling of faith, which led to blindness and a reorientation of society towards false guidelines.
To justify themselves, the usurpers of power tried to accuse the Tsar himself of “anti-people activities.” Later, a commission of the Provisional Government, created to discover evidence of the accusation, found nothing of the kind. Chief investigator V.M. Rudnev ended his report with the words: “The Emperor is pure as crystal.” However, neither he nor his family were released from arrest, which contributed to the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks and the subsequent execution of the royal family.
Today many are calling us to repentance before the Passion-Bearer King. It certainly should be. But there must also be a firm understanding that each of us has changed and is no longer capable of such betrayal.
Prince Lvov also perceived the revolution in the spirit of enthusiastic populism. “The Great Russian Revolution is truly wonderful in its majestic, calm procession. What is wonderful about it is not the enchantment of the revolution, not the enormity of the shift, not the strength and speed of the onslaught, the assault on power, but the very essence of its guiding idea. The freedom of the Russian revolution is imbued with elements of a world, universal character. The soul of the Russian people turned out to be a global democratic soul by its very nature. It is ready not only to merge with the democracy of the whole world, but to stand ahead of it and lead along the path of human development on the great principles of freedom, equality and brotherhood,” he declared. Needless to say, these words were received “with the greatest pleasure” by some of the socialists, who saw in them a hint of world revolution.
However, there is also evidence about Georgy Lvov of a slightly different kind. Vasily Maklakov wrote that “Lvov also in this (Provisional – TASS) government resumed his provincial system, creating a government within the government, that is, a small group of like-minded people of 5 “democrats” with whom he intrigued against those who remained outside of this top five." “I saw clearly how he had to turn around all the time, sometimes lie, sometimes promise something that he did not intend to do or could not keep, and find himself in a stupid and false position,” Maklakov recalled.
Among the people, both the appointment of Lvov as head of the cabinet and the composition of the Provisional Government as a whole were perceived without enthusiasm. Vasily Shulgin recalled a worker’s speech at a rally on March 3 (16): “For example, they formed a government... who are they in this government? Do you think, comrades, is anyone from the people?.. So to speak, from that people, who got freedom for themselves? No matter how it is... Read... Prince Lvov... Prince... So this is why we, comrades, made the revolution..."
For example, they formed a government... who are they in this government? Do you think, comrades, someone from the people?.. No matter how it is... Read... Prince Lvov... Prince...
However, the question of what to do with the ruling sovereign remained unresolved. Everyone understood that, as Pavel Milyukov said in one of his speeches at the Tauride Palace, “the old despot, who brought Russia to complete ruin, would voluntarily renounce the throne or be deposed.” Vasily Maklakov wrote later that on the eve of the revolution, “there was a saying throughout St. Petersburg: “To save the monarchy, you must kill the monarch.”
“That Nicholas II would no longer reign was so indisputable for the widest circle of the Russian public that no one thought about the technical means to carry out this general decision,” Miliukov later wrote. However, this is not so.
The coup that would overthrow Nicholas II, if not prepared, then at least had been thought out for a relatively long time, and the person who came closest to the position of its organizer was the one who eventually became the initiator of the trip to Nicholas II for abdication and was ready to follow him even “on "at your own risk," - head of the Central Military-Industrial Committee, former chairman of the State Duma of the third convocation, Alexander Guchkov.
Alexander Guchkov
Chairman of the Central Military-Industrial Committee
Guchkov himself admitted that “in the fall of 1916, a plan was born for a palace coup, as a result of which the sovereign would be forced to sign an abdication of the throne and transfer it to the rightful heir.”
However, instead of the coup planned by Guchkov, a revolution began. In the conditions of mass popular uprisings, the commander of the Northern Front, General Nikolai Ruzsky, under whose protection Nicholas II arrived in Pskov, contacted Mikhail Rodzianko and received an answer that the only way out of the current situation was the abdication of the emperor. Negotiations between Ruzsky and Rodzianko were simultaneously telegraphed to Headquarters. General Mikhail Alekseev, the chief of staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, who was there, interviewed the commanders of the fronts and fleets about their attitude to the possible abdication of the sovereign. Every single commander advocated abdication, which was reported to Nicholas II. It was assumed that Nikolai would abdicate in favor of his son, Tsarevich Alexei.
