Back to the past: was the abdication of Nicholas II legal? Nicholas II did not abdicate

The well-known "Manifesto on the Abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the Throne" was published in Izvestia of the Central Executive Committee of Soviets of Workers' Deputies and other newspapers on March 4, 1917. However, the "original" or "original" renunciation was discovered only in 1929.

At the same time, it is not enough to mention only its discovery. It is necessary to say under what circumstances and by whom the "original" was discovered. It was discovered during the communist purge of the USSR Academy of Sciences and used to fabricate the so-called academic case.

Based on this suddenly discovered document, the OGPU accused the remarkable historian S.F. Platonov and other academicians in nothing less than preparations for the overthrow of Soviet power!

The authenticity of the renunciation document was instructed to verify the commission headed by P.E. Shchegolev. And the commission stated that the document is genuine and is the original of the renunciation.

But who is Shchegolev? He and A.N. Tolstoy were caught preparing and publishing a fabricated Diary of Vyrubova, a friend of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. Shchegolev was also caught making a false Rasputin's Diary.

Moreover, the discovered document is a typewritten text on a plain sheet of paper. Could the most important document not be on the imperial letterhead? Could not. Could the most important document be without a personal imperial seal? Could not. Could such a document be signed not with a pen, but with a pencil? Could not.

In this regard, there were and observed strict rules established by law. It was not difficult to observe them on the royal train on March 2, 1917. Everything was at hand. In addition, according to existing laws, the original of the royal manifesto had to be written by hand.

It should also be added that there is some kind of wear under the sovereign's pencil signature. And to the left and below this signature is the signature of the Minister of the Imperial Court, Count V.B. Frederiks, who certified the signature of the emperor. So this signature was also made in pencil, which is unacceptable and has never happened on important government documents. Moreover, the minister's signature is also circled with a pen, as if this is not a document, but a children's coloring book.

When historians compare the signatures of Emperor Nicholas II under the "abdication" with his signatures on other documents and compare the signature of Minister Frederiks on the "abdication" with his other signatures, it turns out that the signatures of the emperor and minister on the "abdication" coincide several times with their other signatures.

However, forensic science has established that the same person does not have two identical signatures, they are at least a little, but different. If two documents have the same signature, then one of them is fake.

The famous monarchist V.V. Shulgin, who participated in the overthrow of the tsar and was present at his abdication, in his memoirs "Days" testifies that the abdication was on two or three telegraph forms. However, what we have is on one sheet of plain paper.

Finally, in all collections of documents, in student and school anthologies, the discovered document is published under the title "Manifesto on the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne." However, the document itself has a different heading: "To the Chief of Staff." What it is? Did the emperor abdicate before the chief of staff? It can not be.

From all this it follows that the document discovered in 1929 and now stored in the State Archives of the Russian Federation is NOT THE ORIGINAL RETRACT. There is no doubt about this.

Does it follow from what has been said that there was no renunciation? The point of view, popular in the Orthodox environment, that there was no renunciation, is just derived from the fact that there is no original document.

At the same time, I will point out at least such a relatively recent precedent. The Americans found a copy of the secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in an archive in Berlin. And the USSR for decades denied the existence of a secret protocol on the basis that there is no original. Only during Gorbachev's glasnost was the original stored in Moscow declassified and presented.

I really wish there were no renunciations. And I wish success to those who are trying to prove it. In any case, the existence, development and clash of several points of view is useful for historical science.

Indeed, there is no original renunciation, but there is enough reliable evidence that he was!

From March 4 to March 8, 1917, Nicholas II met with his mother, Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, who arrived in Mogilev. In the surviving diary of the Empress there is an entry dated March 4, which tells with dramatic empathy about the abdication for herself and her son, about the transfer of the throne to her younger brother from the words of Nicholas II himself. On the anniversary of the abdication, Empress Alexandra Feodorovna also testifies to him in her diary.

There are also testimonies of renunciation, transmitted from the words of Alexandra Feodorovna. For example, the testimony of Pierre Gilliard, the faithful tutor of her children. Archpriest Athanasius (Belyaev) should also be mentioned, who spoke with the tsar, confessed him and later recalled that the tsar himself had told him about renunciation. There is other reliable evidence that the renunciation did take place.

So why is there no original? After all, the Provisional Government was absolutely interested in preserving the original, since, from a legal point of view, there was no other justification for the legitimacy, legality of the creation and activities of the Provisional Government itself. The original renunciation was also not superfluous for the Bolsheviks.

Could lose such an important state document? Anything can happen, but it's highly unlikely. Therefore, I will make an assumption: the Provisional Government destroyed the original because it contained something that did not suit the government. That is, the Provisional Government went to the forgery, changing the text of the renunciation. There was a document, but not like that.

What could not suit the government? I suppose that there was some phrase or phrases in which the sovereign sought to direct what was happening in a legal direction. The basic laws of the Russian Empire of 1906 did not provide for the very possibility of renunciation. Renunciation was not even mentioned; in its spirit and direction, the Basic Laws did not allow renunciation, which legal practice allows to consider as a prohibition of renunciation.

According to the same laws, the emperor had great power, allowing him to first issue a Manifesto (Decree) to the Senate, which would prescribe the possibility of abdication for himself and his heir, and then issue the Manifesto of renunciation itself.

If there was such a phrase or phrases, then Nicholas II signed such a renunciation, which might not mean an immediate abdication. It would take at least some time for the Senate to draw up the Manifesto, and then again it is necessary to sign the already final renunciation, announce and approve it in the Senate. That is, the king could sign such a renunciation, which from a strictly legal point of view was more like a declaration of intent.

Obviously, the leaders of the February coup d'etat (as well as the leaders of the State Duma, its chairman, the Octobrist M.V. Rodzianko, the leader of the Octobrists, A.I. Guchkov, the leader of the constitutional democrats, P.N. Milyukov, the Trudovik socialist A.F. Kerensky), the Provisional Government didn't want to waste time.

Suffice it to say that the chairman of the State Duma misinformed the Headquarters, the chief of staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, General M.V. Alekseev, informing him that the events in the capital are under control, that for her to calm down and successfully continue the war, only the abdication of the king is necessary.

In reality, events got out of control or were only partially controlled: the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies (it was dominated by Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries) had no less or more influence than the Duma and the Provisional Government; propagandized revolutionary masses seized the streets and released all criminals from prisons, including murderers, rapists, thieves and terrorists, and it became unsafe for decent people to leave their homes, massacres of officers and policemen took place. A few more days - and this would have become known at Headquarters in Mogilev. And how would events unfold then? After all, the fate of the revolution depended on the position of the army.

However, the top generals headed by Alekseev, not understanding the situation, hastened to believe the reports coming from the Duma and support the revolution. And the leaders of the latter were aware that the matter should be done quickly. In a word, even if the renunciation manifesto is not legal, but everything can be attributed to the revolution, because “after a fight they don’t wave their fists”, but time you can't lose during a revolution.

In favor of the conclusion about the falsification of the abdication document is also evidenced by the fact that the last order of the emperor, dated March 8, 1917, was falsified. This appeal of the emperor and Supreme Commander Nicholas II to the troops is known and published according to the text of the order of General Alekseev, who inserted the royal order into his order. Moreover, the original order of the tsar has been preserved in the State Archive of the Russian Federation, and it differs from that in the order of Alekseev. Alekseev arbitrarily inserted an appeal to "obey the Provisional Government" into the tsar's order.

In this case, the forger is General Alekseev, who sought to give some kind of legitimacy and continuity to the Provisional Government. Perhaps the general thought that he would replace the tsar as Supreme Commander and himself victoriously end the war in Berlin.

Why then did the emperor not clarify? Obviously, because the deed was done. The headquarters, the highest generals and commanders of the fronts, the State Duma, all parties from the Octobrists to the Bolsheviks and the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church went over to the side of the revolution, and the noble and monarchist public organizations seemed to have died out, and not a single elder, even from Optina Pustyn, did not enlighten those who were carried away by the revolutionary reorganization of Russia. The February Revolution has won.

To whom and what will you prove in revolutionary insanity, lies and pogrom? Talk about the nuances of a really signed document? Who would understand this? They would laugh.

The emperor could convey his appeal to the people through the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna. But to risk a woman, to involve her in what will turn out to be unknown to her? In addition, there was still hope that the worst would not come.

On March 8, the tsar and his family were arrested by decision of the Provisional Government under pressure from the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. However, since March 1, the status of the tsar was de facto limited in Pskov, where he came to the headquarters of the Northern Front to General N.V. Ruzsky. They already met him not quite as a king, as having power.

What do we want from an arrested person who is being slandered and poisoned at all intersections of the capital? Could he call a press conference? And surely someone, perhaps even the unfortunate monarchists Guchkov and Shulgin who came to accept the renunciation, warned the tsar that they could not vouch for the life of his family in Tsarskoye Selo, near revolutionary Petrograd, if something happened.

Empress Alexandra Feodorovna corresponded, including illegally, with true friends, primarily with her girlfriends. The addressees of these letters were not political figures, and the queen was constantly worried about the safety of those who dared not only maintain worthy friendships, but also enter into illegal correspondence.

Only renunciation according to the law and voluntarily can be considered unconditionally legal. There was no waiver of the law. There is nothing to say about voluntariness, the king was forced to sign a renunciation. The latter is a sufficient legal basis for considering the renunciation illegal.

In addition, according to the then existing laws, the tsar's manifesto came into force only after it was approved by the Senate and published by the tsar himself - the ruling head of state - in the government newspaper. However, there was nothing of the kind. That is, even the manifesto published then did not enter into force.

At the same time, for the sake of objectivity, it should be noted that in history, including in the history of the Romanov dynasty, laws and traditions were not always respected. For example, Catherine II illegally seized power as a result of a palace coup. Moreover, she is involved in the regicide, at least covered this crime, thereby complicity in it. And this did not prevent her from going down in history under the name of Catherine the Great. God is her judge.

However, what happened at the turn of February-March 1917 is not comparable with all the precedents in the thousand-year history of Russia. The overthrow of the legitimate Tsar Nicholas II became the starting point, the initial impulse and impetus for subsequent events, including the Civil War and the Red Terror, collectivization and the famine, the Gulag and the Great Terror; including the fact that even now we have a broken trough, surrounded by idols Voikov, Dzerzhinsky, Lenin and similar revolutionary geeks.

What happened on March 2, 1917 is a drama on a universal scale. It goes beyond the narrow-minded judgments that anything in history happens; goes beyond the framework of the proper legal or formal-legal, objectivist approach.

Ultimately, everything rests on the conscience, the conscience of a historian or the conscience of a person of any other profession who is interested in history and thinks about the fate of Russia. And conscience quietly prompts - AN UNPLEASANT DEAL WAS HAPPENED ON MARCH 2, 1917; it is more than illegal, it is AGAINST RUSSIA, THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE AND ITS FUTURE.

The emperor himself, signing some kind of abdication document, sought to avoid the worst, an internal civil war during an external war with the Kaiser's aggressors. The emperor was not a prophet: he would not have signed, knowing how the matter would turn out; he would have climbed the chopping block back in 1917, but would not have signed; he would ascend with his beloved family ...

And let's pay attention: in the events that fell upon the king, it turned out that the document he signed contained a renunciation for himself and for his son, but not for the empress! And she didn't give up. The communists killed the rightful unabdicated empress.

And more about the "original". You should pay attention to how the signatures of Nicholas II and Fredericks are crowded at the bottom of the sheet. This is how schoolchildren who do not fit into the given volume crowd the text. Can this happen in a document of national importance? It is possible that the emperor and the minister prepared, just in case, blank sheets with their signatures. Such sheets could be discovered, and the text of "renunciation" could be inserted into such a sheet. That is, it is possible that the signatures are real, but the document is fake!

In the 1990s, a government commission was created to study issues related to the study and reburial of the remains of the Russian Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family. The commission was headed by First Deputy Prime Minister B.E. Nemtsov. V.N. Solovyov, who prepared the most important examinations.

Meeting with Solovyov, I asked him a question: why did the commission not carry out a state, official examination of the authenticity of the emperor's signature under the "abdication"? After all, this is one of the most important necessary examinations, and such examinations are being carried out, and for millions of believers, this particular examination is of particular importance.

The forensic prosecutor answered my question: we understood that such an examination was necessary, but the archivists did not want to give the document to the experts, and the experts did not want to go to the State Archives of the Russian Federation, where the document is now stored.

This is such a kindergarten, not an answer. After all, the commission was headed by the vice-premier, he could decide who should go where. And I would have to go. However, this has not been done. Why? Maybe they were afraid of exactly what the examination would testify: the tsar's signature was forged?

In addition, the government commission headed by Nemtsov did not conduct an examination of the “renunciation” typeface. Did the typewriters of 1917 have such a font? Was there such a typewriter, a typewriter of such a brand, on the tsarist train, at the headquarters of General Ruzsky, at Headquarters, in the Duma, at the Provisional Government? Is the “renunciation” printed on the same typewriter? The last question leads to a careful examination of the letters in the document. And if on several machines, what does this mean? That is, it was necessary to work more, to search. Didn't the aforementioned forensic prosecutor of the General Prosecutor's Office understand this?

Comparison of the text of the "abdication" with undoubtedly authentic documents, memoirs shows that the "original" is obviously based on the draft of the renunciation, prepared on March 2, 1917 in the diplomatic office of the Headquarters under the leadership of its director I.A. Basili by order and under the general editorship of General Alekseev.

The so-called "renunciation" published on March 4, 1917, by no means announced the liquidation of the monarchy in Russia. Moreover, from what was said above about the then existing legislation, it follows that neither the transfer of the throne by the "abdication" of Emperor Nicholas II, nor the manifesto of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich of March 3, 1917 with the refusal to accept the throne (with the transfer of the final decision to the future Constituent Assembly) are legal. The manifesto of the Grand Duke is not legal, it was signed under pressure, but this is not a fake, its author is cadet V.D. Nabokov, father of the famous writer.

Now the time has come to say that it is impossible to renounce the royal chrismation. It cannot be undone. De facto, Nicholas II ceased to be tsar after the February coup, however, in a mystical and purely legal sense, he remained the Russian tsar and died tsar. He and his family ascended their Golgotha ​​so worthily that they are canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church.

I continue my excursion into the history of domestic law. Previous publications can be viewed at the links: 1. ; 2.; 3.; four. ; 5. .

More than 100 years have passed since the February Revolution. The events of the revolution logically ended on March 2 (15), 1917, when the emperor, in a carriage at the station in Pskov, signed an act of abdication on his own behalf and on behalf of Tsarevich Alexei in favor of his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. The dispute about the legality of the abdication of Nicholas II periodically receives new rounds of discussion. To what extent did the publication of such an act correspond to the requirements of the legislation of that time?

Was it provided for by law?

The chapter of the second Code of Fundamental State Laws, which was part of the first volume of the first Code of Laws of the Russian Empire, contained the order of succession to the throne. Article 37 indicated that under the rules on the order of succession to the throne, “a person who has the right to this (the Throne - the author) is given the freedom to renounce this right in such circumstances when there will be no difficulty in further succession to the Throne.” Article 38 of the same chapter prescribed that “[o]nance such, when it is made public and converted into law, is then recognized as irrevocable.”

Consequently, the rules on renunciation were contained in the legislation in force at that time. But did they apply to the case when an already ruling monarch abdicates? Or is their action limited to the situation of renunciation of the right to the throne of the heir to the throne who has not yet taken the royal title? It is worth remembering that the rules of articles 37 and 38 of the Code appeared a century before the events in question. Let us turn to the history of the reigning house.

"Pavlovichi" and the act of succession to the throne

All the emperors who were on the Russian throne in the 19th century until Nicholas II were direct descendants of Paul I (reigned 1796-1801). The family of Paul I and Empress Maria Feodorovna was really numerous and consisted of 10 children, including 4 sons: the eldest son Alexander (future Emperor Alexander I), Konstantin, Nikolai (future Emperor Nicholas I) and the youngest son Mikhail.

In order to streamline the transfer of the throne, Paul I on the day of his coronation on April 5 (16), 1797, promulgated an act of succession to the throne. The act established the rule for the succession of the throne through the direct male line. The first to inherit the throne is the eldest son and all his male generation. After the suppression of the male generation of the eldest son, the throne passes to the second son of the emperor, and so on.

Subsequently, Alexander I, already being emperor, for the purposes of succession to the throne, by a manifesto of March 20 (April 1), 1820, added the requirement for the need to marry a person belonging to any royal or sovereign house. Children born in a marriage with a person who does not have the corresponding dignity are deprived of the right to the throne. This rule was dictated by the combination of his brother Konstantin Pavlovich in a morganatic marriage with Countess Grudzinskaya, but did not deprive Konstantin himself of the right to inherit the throne.

The 1823 Manifesto and the Emergence of the Right to Abdicate

After the death of Paul I, the royal throne was taken by his eldest son Alexander. The absence of heirs from Alexander I allowed Constantine to claim the throne as the second oldest brother in the imperial family. However, due to personal disinclination to govern the state, weighed down by the impossibility of passing the throne by inheritance, Constantine did what no one had done before him - he voluntarily renounced the right to the throne! On January 14 (26), 1822, Constantine wrote a letter to Alexander I with a request to release him from the burden of becoming emperor and transfer this right to the one to whom it belongs after him. Alexander I accepted his brother's abdication and on August 16 (28), 1823 issued a secret manifesto on this occasion. This document was the first to record the provisions that made up the content of Articles 37 and 38 of the Code.

The Manifesto of 1823 recognized that "the existing regulations on the order of succession to the Throne from those entitled to it do not take away the freedom to renounce this right in such circumstances when there will be no difficulty in further succession to the throne." The document emphasized the firmness and immutability of Constantine's free renunciation of the right to the throne. Following the rules of the act of succession to the throne of Paul I, the third brother Nicholas was appointed heir to the throne.

The manifesto was kept secret until the death of Alexander I in 1825. Even the newly appointed heir, Nikolai, did not know about him. After the death of Alexander I, Constantine was proclaimed emperor, but after clarifying all the circumstances, Nicholas nevertheless announced the acceptance of imperial power. On December 12 (24), 1825, the manifesto of Alexander I was officially promulgated, becoming an appendix to the manifesto of Nicholas I on ordination. The mystery surrounding the manifesto largely contributed to the growth of uncertainty in the candidacy of the new tsar and, undoubtedly, added flame to the Decembrist uprising that was emerging these days - but this is already a story about something else.

Can a reigning monarch renounce ordination?

So, the rule on the possibility of renunciation of the right to the throne initially implied a situation where the heir to the throne, even before accepting the title, renounces it. This norm had nothing to do with the situation of the abdication of the throne, which had already taken the title of monarch. Decades later, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the meaning of the renunciation rule had already changed. The norm implied not only the freedom of heirs to renounce the right to ascend the throne, but also the possibility of the current emperor to abdicate the throne. The connection with the events of the succession to the throne by the three sons of Paul I had already been forgotten by that time.

In confirmation of this, Professor N.M. Korkunov, in his course on Russian state law in 1909, with reference to the noted norms, concluded: “Can someone who has already taken the throne abdicate? Since the law grants this right to everyone in general "having the right to the throne" and since the person who reigns, of course, also has the right to it, then, apparently, this question should be resolved in the affirmative sense.

Could NicholasII to abdicate on behalf of the young son Alexei?

This question must also be answered in the affirmative. Article 199 of the Code established that the custody of a minor person of the imperial family belongs to his parents. Thus, Nicholas II could exercise the right of his young son, the Tsarevich, and abdicate the throne on his behalf.

The completed acts of renunciation did not prevent further succession to the throne, as required by Article 37 of the Code. The renunciations of the throne were made in favor of Nicholas II's brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, and followed the goal of maintaining continuity in the transfer of power. All necessary legal requirements were met. And the question of the legality of renunciation can be put to rest. At least until any new information about the events of a century ago appears.

Speaking about the March events of 1917, it should be said that they became the final stage of the conspiracy that matured against Emperor Nicholas II in the depths of the Progressive Bloc of the State Duma, certain circles of the highest generals and representatives of the ruling circles of the Entente countries. This conspiracy was the result of many years of confrontation between Russian social, liberal and revolutionary forces with the Tsarist government.

Speaking about the participation of the West in the overthrow of the monarchy in Russia, it is wrong to present it as a result of the activities of the national governments of England, France and the United States. Although the representatives of these governments took a lively part in organizing the coup d'état, they primarily represented not the interests of their countries, but the interests of transnational financial groups. The headquarters of these financial groups was in the United States of America.

The main residence of this center was in New York at 120 Broadway, in a 35-story skyscraper. By the way, William Schacht, the father of the future chief financier of Adolf Hitler, Hjalmar Horace Schacht, took part in the construction of this skyscraper. On the 35th floor was the Bankers' Club, where Morgan, Schiff, Baruch, Loeb and other "whales" of the American financial world gathered. In the same building were the offices and directors of the US Federal Reserve System, headed by the banker Warburg, a relative of Jacob Schiff. In addition, the skyscraper housed the office of American International Corporation. The main shareholder of this company was the bank of the same Schiff Kuhn and Loeb. At 120 Broadway was the office of John McGregor Grant, who represented the Petrograd banker D. G. Rubinstein in the United States. Grant was put on the list of suspicious persons by US military intelligence. Grant, in turn, was closely associated with the banker Morgan's Grand Trust. All these organizations took an active part in the February and then in the Bolshevik revolutions.

In the same Broadway building, there were constantly people closely associated with the future leaders of the revolutionary governments. At 120 Broadway was the banking office of Veniamin Sverdlov, the brother of the Bolshevik Yakov Sverdlov. Settled in a skyscraper and the famous English agent Sydney Reilly, the main link between Trotsky, Sverdlov and American financial groups. Reilly was on close friendly terms with the banker Abram Zhivotovsky, the uncle of Leon Trotsky. At 120 Broadway, Alexander Weinstein, also a good friend of Reilly, ran his business. Weinstein's brother, Grigory Weinstein, was the owner of the Novy Mir newspaper. The composition of the editorial board of this newspaper is interesting: Bukharin, Volodarsky, Chudnovsky, Uritsky, Kollontai - all the future leaders of the Bolshevik government.

Another frequenter of the bankers' club was Sidney Reilly, a resident of the English intelligence officer William Wiseman. It was through Reilly that Wiseman came across the eminence grise of American politics, Colonel House. House, long before Zbigniew Brzezinski, expressed the idea that “the rest of the world will live more peacefully if there are four Russias in the world instead of a huge Russia. One is Siberia, and the rest are the divided European part of the country.” Weissman began to transmit information received from House to his immediate superiors in London, bypassing the British ambassador.

Soon, English politicians were actively drawn into the preparation of a conspiracy against Emperor Nicholas II. First of all, these are Lord Alfred Milner, British Prime Minister D. Lloyd George and the British Ambassador in Petrograd, Sir George Buchanan. Milner maintained close ties with Weissman, and thus with the American bankers who lived on 120 Broadway.

What united such diverse people as English lords, American financiers, Russian revolutionaries and British intelligence officers? A careful study of these people, it turns out that they were involved in secret societies, whose members were often related to each other by blood.

In 1891 a secret society called the Round Table was formed in London. This society became one of the most influential forces in the formation and implementation of British imperial and foreign policy in the early twentieth century. Among the founding members of the society were, for example, Stead, Lord Escher, Lord Alfred Milner, Lord Rothschild, Lord Arthur Balfour and Sir George Buchanan, the future British ambassador to Russia. The main task of the group was to spread British dominance throughout the world, as well as the introduction of English as a world language, the creation of a single world government.

In 1904, Alfred Milner became the head of the Round Table. He established the Rhodes Scholarship, which enabled selected students from all over the world to study at Oxford University. Each of these students, at the most receptive period of his life, was indoctrinated with the founder's dream of a one world government.

Colonel Mandel House was closely associated with the Round Table and knew Milner well. Collaborated with the "Round Table" and Lloyd George. Subsequently, during the Versailles Conference, Lloyd George's closest advisors were members of the Round Table. Through Rothschild, the Round Table has links in the US with the Schiff, Warburg, Guggenheim, Rockefeller, and Carnegie families. Schiff, Warburgs, Aschberg generously financed Kaiser Germany in its subversive activities directed against Russia. Beginning in 1914, the Germans subsidized the Russian Revolution through the international bank of the Warburgs in Hamburg. This bank provided revolutionaries in Russia with money through its representative offices in Sweden. With the same money, German agents organized strikes and riots in Russia in 1915 and 1916. By the way, the main enemy of Russia in the German leadership was Chancellor Theobald Bethmann-Hollweg, who was a distant relative of Jacob Schiff. Namely, Bethmann-Hollweg, without informing Wilhelm II, gave the consent of the German government to Lenin's passage through Germany in the spring of 1917. Thus, we see that the circle is closed: the American and British participants in the conspiracy against the Tsar were united with the Germans. Therefore, the main reason for the participation of Western forces in the overthrow of Emperor Nicholas II was not the national interests of certain countries, but the desire of a supranational secret organization to establish a New World Order in the world.

It is noteworthy that the general head of the French military mission at the tsarist Headquarters, Maurice Janin, wrote in his diary on April 7, 1917 that the February Revolution "was led by the British and specifically by Lord Milner and Sir Buchanan."

In Russia itself, the organizers of the coup found serious support in the face of representatives of the Duma opposition, the same representatives who in 1915 were part of the Progressive Bloc. However, in addition to them, an active role in the seizure of power was to be played by the lawyer Alexander Fedorovich Kerensky, also a deputy of the State Duma. The name of Kerensky was then not at that time known as the names of Guchkov or Milyukov, but it was he, Kerensky, who, according to the plans of Milner and Buchanan, was to become the main figure in the coming upheaval. Compared with other oppositionists, Kerensky had one advantage: he headed the Masonic lodge "Great East of the Peoples of Russia."

M. Safonov believes that the text of the “renunciation” was written on the form of the royal telegram, with the signature of the Tsar and the Minister of the Court, Count Frederiks, already in place. What kind of "historical document" can then be discussed? And what was said in the original test of the manifesto, which Emperor Nicholas II handed over in two copies to Guchkov and Shulgin, about which there is an entry in the Tsar's diary, unless, of course, the diary was falsified? “If the ‘drafters’ of the Act of Renunciation so freely manipulated its form,” Safonov asks, “didn’t they treat the very text that Nicholas II transmitted to them with the same freedom? In other words, didn’t Shulgin and Guchkov make fundamental changes to the text of Nicholas II?

The most interesting study of the so-called "abdication manifesto" of Nicholas II was the study of A. B. Razumov. This study convincingly and reliably proved that the so-called "abdication manifesto" of Emperor Nicholas II was nothing more than a clever fake. Razumov writes: “Let's look carefully at this paper. Its unhurried analysis will tell an inquisitive person a lot. For example, all researchers are struck by the fact that the Sovereign's signature was made in pencil. Surprised historians write that during the 23 years of his reign, it was the only time when the Sovereign put a pencil signature on an official document.

In addition, there is no personal seal of Nicholas II on the paper, and the paper itself was not endorsed by the Governing Senate, without which no tsar's manifesto had legal force.

A lot of confusion arises when clarifying the question of how the very paper that the Sovereign signed looked like. So, V. V. Shulgin writes that the text of the renunciation was written on telegraph "quarters". “These were two or three quarters,” he writes, “such as, obviously, were used at Headquarters for telegraph forms.”

May 19 is the birthday of St. Passion-bearer Tsar Nicholas II. Could the anointed of God renounce the throne? How did the Russian Church react to the abdication? Historian Andrey ZAYTSEV answers

Valentin Serov. Portrait of Emperor Nicholas II (1900)

Mystery Document

On the afternoon of March 2, 1917, two documents appear in Pskov with a difference of several hours, signed by Nicholas II. In the first text, signed from 2:45 pm to 3:00 pm and handed over to General N. Ruzsky and his entourage, the last Russian emperor abdicated in favor of his son Alexei. At 4 pm, Nicholas II sent a telegram to the Chief of Staff of the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, General M. Alekseev: “In the name of the good, tranquility and salvation of my beloved Russia, I am ready to abdicate the throne in favor of my son. I ask everyone to serve him faithfully and without hypocrisy. NICHOLAS".

However, this telegram was not destined to become a historical document about the abdication of the last Russian tsar. On March 2, at 11:40 pm, representatives of the State Duma A. I. Guchkov and V. V. Shulgin received the final text of the abdication of Nicholas II from the throne for himself and his heir Alexei, known in history as the Abdication Manifesto. Power passed to Mikhail Alexandrovich Romanov, who abdicated the next day until the convocation of the Constituent Assembly.

The manifesto on the abdication of Nicholas II is one of the key and mysterious documents of the Russian history of the twentieth century. Until now, historians cannot come to a consensus regarding the reasons that caused its appearance. The range of versions is unusually wide: from attempts to prove that there was no abdication and Nicholas II deliberately signed a text that could not be legal, to the idea that the fall of the monarchy in Russia was the result of a well-organized conspiracy of the military, deputies and dignitaries, who believed that in order to save the country it was necessary to remove the last autocrat from power.

Most likely, we will never be able to fully find out what exactly happened on the tsar's train, en route from Mogilev to Tsarskoye Selo, but ended up in Pskov. A significant number of memoirs have come down to us, but their value as historical sources is unequal. Some memoirs were written much later than March 2, taking into account the political situation in Russia and the position that the author took in relation to the events of February or October 1917.

One thing is clear: the emperor had to make a decision in a critical, constantly changing situation and in a very short time (this explains several telegrams of the sovereign). Neither Nicholas II nor Alexandra Feodorovna could at that moment calmly communicate with each other, and also get a more or less complete picture of what was happening. What seemed to the Empress a rebellion of “boys and girls” on February 25 turned into a powerful revolution in two days, when the troops refused to obey orders, and the front commanders asked Nicholas to abdicate.

Almost all sources reporting on the reasons that guided Nicholas II on March 2 speak of his unwillingness to shed blood, his desire to stay with his family and live as a "private person" without leaving his homeland. Nicholas II decided to abdicate under strong pressure from the military and deputies and in circumstances of exceptional difficulty. Until the very last moment, the emperor hoped to save the dynasty: only on the night of March 1-2 did he agree to reforms in the government of the country, which were demanded by the representatives of the Duma and which limited the autocratic power of the monarch, but the situation changed too quickly. This measure, as Nicholas II was assured, was no longer enough to stop the unrest in St. Petersburg and Moscow.

The Church took note

At the same time, the king himself believed that the abdication of the throne gives reason to accuse him of violating the oath. The historian S.P. Melgunov in his book gives one of the versions of how the act of renunciation was signed: “If it is necessary that I step aside for the good of Russia, I am ready for it,” said the Sovereign: “but I am afraid that people won't understand. The Old Believers will not forgive me that I changed my oath on the day of the sacred coronation. However, despite the fears of Nicholas II, “attempts to discover the composition of some church-canonical crime in the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from power seem to be untenable,” notes the Act of glorification of the family of the last Russian emperor. The canonical status of the Orthodox sovereign anointed for the Kingdom was not defined in church canons. The anointing to the kingdom has never been an ecclesiastical sacrament. There are also no sufficient theological and historical grounds for considering royal power as a kind of priesthood. In Byzantine and Old Russian texts, we can find many pompous expressions describing the power of the tsar, who is responsible only to Christ and himself represents a certain image of Christ on Earth. But these magnificent metaphors did not protect the rulers either from political conspiracies, or from forced monastic tonsure, or from violent death. Suffice it to recall the fate of some Byzantine emperors, as well as Paul I, Alexander II and other Russian rulers. Of course, in the Middle Ages the figure of the monarch was sacred. In France and England, there was a belief that the hand of the king heals from scrofula, and the rulers periodically performed a certain ritual of healing and distribution of alms. In Russia, the position of the tsars was also special: disputes between Patriarch Nikon and Archpriest Avvakum ended in tragedy for both after Alexei Mikhailovich supported Nikon's reforms, but then took a personal part in condemning the patriarch. The tragic conflict between Ivan the Terrible and St. Philip also showed that the tsar felt he had the right to interfere in the affairs of the Church, but the latter opposed this even during the synodal period. The church looked at the monarch not as a priest, but as a person who received a blessing to govern the state. The king differed from other people in his origin and ministry, but he remained a layman. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish loyal praise of the king from his canonical status in the Church.

On March 9, 1917, the Holy Synod expressed its attitude towards the renunciation. The working papers stated that the abdication of Nicholas II and his brother Mikhail should be "taken into account." In the promulgated appeal “To the faithful children of the Russian Orthodox Church on the occasion of the events now going through,” it was written: “The Most Holy Synod fervently prays to the All-Merciful Lord, may He bless the works and undertakings of the Provisional Government, may He give him strength, strength and wisdom, and the great sons subordinate to him May the Russian state lead on the path of brotherly love. According to one version, such a reaction of the Synod could be explained by the fact that the Synod followed the logic of the sovereign, also trying to avoid bloodshed and stop the unrest.

Almost immediately, the prayerful commemoration of the royal family ceased. Letters were sent to the Synod from believers asking whether the support of the new government by the Church was perjury, since Nicholas II did not abdicate voluntarily, but was actually overthrown? Therefore, they tried to raise the question of the abdication of Nicholas II at the Council of 1917-1918. It was discussed on the sidelines and in the special committees of the Council, but it was not put on the agenda: the situation in the country was changing rapidly, the Provisional Government was losing power, which passed to the Bolsheviks, and the Council was forced to interrupt its work as a result.

It is worth noting that St. Tikhon of Moscow, having learned in July 1918 about the execution of the royal family, during the discussion at the Council of the Local Council of the issue of commemorating her, decided to serve memorial services everywhere with the commemoration of Nicholas II as emperor. And this meant that the Church understood at what tragic moment the tsar abdicated, and refused to consider him a "citizen Romanov." Having canonized the royal family as royal martyrs, and not just as Nikolai Alexandrovich and Alexandra Feodorovna, the Russian Church recognizes the fact of the abdication of the sovereign, but also recognizes that this step was forced and not voluntary.

The tragedy of Nicholas II and his family was that the emperor was forced to abdicate the throne, who perceived the absolute monarchy as a shrine for which he was responsible before God. Almost all the stories about the family of the last Russian emperor note their true religiosity and readiness to give their lives for Russia. Alexandra Feodorovna writes to him the day before and after her husband's abdication that the people love him, that the army supports him, and that God will return the Russian throne to him for the suffering they endure in February 1917. These hopes were not destined to come true, but the family of the last Russian emperor considered abdication as a sacrifice that they had to make to appease Russia. These motives became one of the reasons why the abdication of the throne did not become an insurmountable obstacle to the glorification of the family of Nicholas II in the rank of martyrs, which is directly stated in the act of canonization: subjects, decided to abdicate the Throne in the name of inner peace in Russia, gives his act a truly moral character.

Pyotr Multatuli, candidate of historical sciences, author of books about Nicholas II

Then, in March 1917, in Russia they believed the Manifesto on the abdication of the emperor Nicholas II. Rather, they believed what the newspapers published. After all, no one has seen the original document. And if they saw it, a lot of questions would immediately arise.

How did they do it?

Let's start with how the so-called. manifesto stored in the State Archive of the Russian Federation. It is a piece of paper torn (cut?) in half. The top and bottom parts are printed on different (!) typewriters. Although, according to the basic law of the empire, the sovereign had to write the original documents of such importance by hand. The word "Pskov" is generally typed on a third typewriter, and the date and time entered by hand at the bottom have traces of erasures and corrections. The "Manifesto" is addressed not to "loyal subjects", but to the mysterious "chief of staff". The title of the emperor and his personal seal are missing from the document. The sovereign's signature is inscribed in pencil (!). Signature of the Minister of the Imperial Court Count Fredericks also applied with an indelible pencil, and only then outlined with ink. During interrogation at the Extraordinary Investigative Commission of the Provisional Government, Frederiks said: "I was not at that moment next to the emperor." A member of the Duma Shulgin, which, in his own words, together with Guchkov accepted the abdication from the sovereign, assured that the document of the "manifesto" was not one sheet of paper, but ... four telegraph quarters!

These gross frauds point to the violent overthrow of Nicholas II from the throne. Representatives of the Kadet-liberal opposition, large industrial and banking capital, and, of course, revolutionary circles, who were greatly assisted by representatives of the Stavka generals, took part in the conspiracy. Not without the support of the conspirators from the ruling circles of a number of Western countries.

Who benefited?

It was important for our Western "allies" to weaken Russia from within, to prevent its victory in the First World War, which by March 1917 was close to. After all, then Russia would have received under its control the Black Sea Straits, Constantinople (Istanbul), East Prussia, Galicia, Western Armenia, becoming a superpower.

The plan of the conspirators was daring: to capture the sovereign. To do this, he was lured from Petrograd to Headquarters. There the emperor learned about the unrest that had begun in Petrograd and ordered them to be suppressed. Convinced of the inaction of the authorities in the capital and the existence of a conspiracy in Headquarters, Nicholas II ordered loyal troops to be sent to the capital and he himself went to Tsarskoye Selo. However, the imperial train was forcibly sent by the conspirators, first to the Dno station, and then to Pskov, where a false manifesto was drawn up. The sovereign was blocked in the carriage. No one could get to him without the permission of the commander-in-chief of the armies of the Northern Front, General Ruzsky.

Manifesto on the abdication of Nicholas II. Photo: Public Domain

According to the plan of the conspirators, an abdication was required in favor of a candidate who would have the right to the throne, but this right could be challenged. This was the emperor's brother Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. In 1912 he married a divorced Natalia Wulfert, forfeiting the right to become emperor. Nicholas II himself signed the order depriving his brother of the rights to the throne. Could he then transfer the throne into his hands?

What is the law?

And finally, the legal aspect of the issue. The basic laws of the Russian Empire did not know such a thing as "renunciation" when it came to the reigning monarch. Even if we assume that Nicholas II signed a well-known paper in Pskov, then according to Art. 91 of the Fundamental Laws, the document on renunciation could come into force only after its promulgation in the Governing Senate. And nothing else. As you know, the "manifesto" of Nicholas II was never published by the Senate, and therefore did not enter into force. In addition, according to Art. 86, this document could not be adopted "without the approval of the State Council and the State Duma." However, the meetings of the State Duma from February 27, 1917 were suspended by an imperial decree. And the so-called "abdication" dates back to March 2 (15), 1917. Thus, the "abdication" of Nicholas II as a legal fact is absent.