Nicholas II did not abdicate. Was the abdication of the Sovereign from the throne

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 not at that time known at that time, like 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.”

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 sort. 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.

Earlier, in the article "The February Revolution - a conspiracy of corrupt officials" we showed that Guchkov (the head of the Military-Industrial Commission) and Lvov (the head of Zemgor), by the autumn of 1916, found themselves under accusations and investigations about huge corruption in their organizations - under the prospect of a trial and prison no later than the spring of 1917, they activated the conspiracy plan against Nicholas II that had existed since the beginning of the First World War, and by mid-February 1917 the plan had already been developed in detail, with the involvement (through the Guchkov Military Lodge) of several generals (including Alekseev and Ruzsky) , as well as the deputies-Masons of the Duma Nekrasov, Kerensky, Tereshchenko, Bublikov and the official of the Ministry of Railways Yu. Lomonosov (travel engineer, revolutionary). The last two blocked the advance of the imperial letter train to Petrograd on February 28. On March 1, Nicholas II found himself in isolation at the Pskov railway station. The commander of the North-Western Front, Ruzskaya, cut him off from all communication channels here and presented an ultimatum, demanding to abdicate the throne.
***
Sometimes you can hear: why did Nicholas II succumb to the conspirators on March 2 in Pskov? We had to resist to the end. Like, “cut and shoot, I’ll accept a martyr’s end, but I won’t renounce God-given power” ... Well, suppose ... But it was not only about his own life: General Ruzsky even at the first conversation directly told the tsar that in case of refusal he would not can vouch for the safety of Alexandra Feodorovna. It was blackmail, but after the murder of Rasputin, the hatred of the entire opposition turned out to be directed precisely at her. Although even Ambassador Buchanan wrote that the Empress in Petrograd was the most resolute patriot and intended to stand for the war to a victorious end (this is a word about the scale of slander). There is no doubt that if Nicholas II had refused to abdicate, Alexandra Feodorovna would have been immediately arrested by the conspirators, and maybe killed - this was what was going on.

Suppose Nicholas II refused to abdicate. Three or four hours later he was informed that Alexandra Fyodorovna had been arrested, and all of Petrograd was demanding his abdication (a lie, but they would say). Suppose he still refuses to recant. In this case, the conspirators would have to arrest him, and most likely kill him. On the throne, according to the law of succession, the sick Alexei would have ended up under the regency of Michael. Mikhail also abdicated while his brother was still alive, when Nicholas II abdicated in his favor - which means that he would have abdicated in this case too - in favor of the same Provisional Committee (government). All this would happen in three or four days. Well, maybe within a week. The result - everything is the same, only with Nikolai and Alexandra arrested a few days earlier (it is possible that with the murders), with the sick Alexei, who would have died without the daily attention of his mother in a month or two.
Would the people rise up for the sovereign?
Maybe he would have risen if the Church had called. But on February 26, the Holy Synod in Petrograd refused to call on the Orthodox laity (that is, almost the entire city) not to participate in riots and demonstrations under red flags, and a few days after the abdication, it joyfully welcomed the new government and blessed it.
Following the logic of opponents, we can say that Nicholas II is to blame for this. However, the Catholic parish in Petrograd issued an appeal to its parishioners - not to participate in demonstrations - and not a single Catholic took part in the events of February-March 1917! Comrade (deputy) Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod (from September 1916 to March 1917) Prince N. D. Zhevakhov honestly wrote about this in his memoirs, [see. his "Memoirs ...", pp.385-387] Did Nikolay especially love Catholics? No, it didn't.
Thus, in any scenario, the result would be similar, or worse (with the murder of him or the queen). Perhaps Nicholas II understood this. Perhaps he did not think about it, but thought about his wife and sick children. In any case, he had no other choice. Not to mention that from the point of view of a normal person, he did exactly the right thing.
It is most likely that on the evening of March 1 in Pskov, Ruzsky, during the most stormy ("there was a storm" - in the words of Ruzsky himself) hours of blackmail, after almost undisguised threats against the empress, openly told the tsar that they (the conspirators) in case of further persistence there will be no other way out but to remove him, the sovereign - and that this will cause a split in the army, but now they have no other way out. Most likely, even then, on the evening of March 1, Ruzsky told Nikolai that the abdication had been agreed with the allies, with the ambassadors of England and France. Almost certainly it was so: the plot was agreed in general terms, and Ruzsky told the sovereign about this. There is no doubt that after the common victory in World War I, the allies did not want to see either Russia becoming a hegemon in Europe, or the fact that it was headed by a strong sovereign. The fact that the United States did not want to enter the war while Nicholas II was on the throne, and that Russia did not have a constitution, has long been known. Nicholas II knew this. Let me remind you that the United States entered the war after the fall of the monarchy in Russia. Probably, Ruzsky unleashed all this on the tsar on the evening of March 1 in the tsar's car of the letter train in Pskov.
Nicholas II agreed to abdicate the next day, March 2, when Ruzsky showed him five telegrams from the front commanders in support of the abdication, while hiding the sharp refusal of the representative of the fleet at the Headquarters, Admiral A. I. Rusin. Generals F. A. Keller and Khan Nakhichevansky also objected to the abdication. The commander of the Black Sea Fleet, Admiral Kolchak, also did not support the idea of ​​abdication on March 2. Let me remind you once again that Nicholas II was isolated from all communications in Pskov all this time and did not have the opportunity to influence the situation.
Apparently, the main reason why Nicholas II agreed to voluntarily abdicate was his fear of a split in the army in the event of news of his death. It is unlikely that the army would have believed in his natural death or death in a railway accident.

Did Nicholas II sign the Abdication Manifesto?

In the last three or four years, a version has spread that Nicholas II did not actually sign the Abdication Manifesto. Indeed, he did not sign the Abdication Manifesto on March 2, 1917. As such, the conspirators used the telegram of the sovereign early. headquarters Alekseev, which, in fact, was only a draft document, and was deliberately signed by him (the sovereign) in pencil. But then he did not challenge the Manifesto published on his behalf - so as not to split the army.
There is one more important detail. When on March 3 the already former tsar found out about the refusal of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich from the throne, he may have wanted to change the text of his abdication in favor of his son, Alexei. General A.I. Denikin stated in his memoirs that on March 3, in Mogilev, Nikolai told General Alekseev:
"I changed my mind. I ask you to send this telegram to Petrograd. On a piece of paper, in a distinct handwriting, the sovereign wrote with his own hand about his consent to the accession to the throne of his son Alexei ... Alekseev took away the telegram and ... did not send it. It was too late: two manifestos had already been announced to the country and the army Alekseev did not show this telegram "in order not to embarrass the minds", he kept it in his wallet and handed it to me at the end of May, leaving the supreme command.
[General A. I. Denikin. Revolution and the royal family // Essays on Russian Troubles. Volume One, Issue One - Paris, 1921, p. 54]
Obviously, on March 3 in Mogilev, after the news of the refusal of the throne of his brother and new news about the revolution in Petrograd, Nicholas II realized that events were taking an unexpected turn, and was already ready for what he wanted to avoid earlier.

A sacrifice to save Russia, or a vain sacrifice?

In refutation of the well-known myth about the weakness of Nicholas II, here are some vivid examples of the manifestation of his willpower:
initiative and perseverance in convening the Hague Peace Conference in 1899, despite the initial skepticism and even sarcasm of some European leaders;
the conclusion of the Peace of Portsmouth (August 1905) on terms acceptable to Russia, contrary to the initial skepticism of S. Yu. Witte in the achievability of this goal;
taking decisive measures to end the terror and restore order in 1905-1907;
constant support for the activities and reforms of P. A. Stolypin, despite the resistance of the Duma and opposition leaders (not everyone knows, by the way, that the tsar did not accept his resignation in March 1911);
elimination in 1912 of the threat of a European war, contrary to the position of the "hawks" in the government and in the immediate environment;
personal merit in the fight against alcoholism and the eradication of drunkenness - the "dry law" of 1914, contrary to the opinion of skeptics (including Prime Minister V. N. Kokovtsev), which gave excellent results and did not undermine the country's budget;
taking over the Supreme Command (August 1915) in the conditions of a military disaster in the spring-summer of 1915 - contrary to popular belief and unjustified fears (including almost the entire immediate environment), and the rapid restoration of martial law, overcoming the "shell hunger", a rapid improvement in the situation on all fronts.
There is a well-known statement about the free in 1927 Soviet journalist Mikhail Koltsov about Nicholas II. I quote from [Multatuli P.V. The Lord bless my decision. - St. Petersburg, 2002]:
“Koltsov was then in the camp of the victors, those who exterminated the Romanovs “as a class”, who in every possible way slandered and humiliated the memory of the last Tsar. All the more interesting for us is Koltsov’s unexpected conclusion when he writes about Nicholas II: “Where is the rag? Where is the icicle "Where is the weak-willed insignificance? In the frightened crowd of defenders of the throne, we see only one person loyal to himself - Nicholas himself. There is no doubt that the only person who tried to persist in maintaining the monarchical regime was the monarch himself. The Tsar alone saved and defended the Tsar. It was not he who destroyed him, he ruined." [Multatuli, chapter 6, p.528]
Of course, in general, Koltsov's text is sarcastic, but, apparently, he did not deny the power of the tsar's will. As for the “frightened crowd of defenders of the throne,” Koltsov still twitches: on March 1-2, none of the sovereign’s retinue loyal to the Oath on the train was yet scared - they simply couldn’t do anything without his order, and he already understood that there was nothing but bloodshed, it won't. Here is an excerpt from the memoirs of one of the contemporaries of the events of those days (Major General S.F. Pozdnyshev in exile collected information and testimonies of participants in the events of March 1-2 in Poskov):
"March 2. Arrival from Petrograd of Guchkov and Shulgin:
A young officer of the Life Guards of the Moscow Regiment, standing at the door, looked with hatred at Guchkov. So he grabbed a saber, maybe steel will flash now. The sovereign noticed the movement of his hand, quickly said: “Soloviev, calm down, go out into the next room. I don't want anyone's blood."
[Pozdnyshev S. D. Crucify Him. Paris: 1952]
Already a few days after the abdication, the catastrophic essence of what they had done began to reach some of the participants in the conspiracy and associates close to them. General V.I. Gurko, who from November 1916 to mid-February 1917 acted as the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief (a member of the Guchkov Military Lodge, who did not take a direct part in the conspiracy at its last stage), wrote a letter of de facto repentance to Nikolai two days after his abdication. Here is the beginning of this letter:
“In the mournful days that are now going through all of Russia and, undoubtedly, most painfully resonate in your soul, allow me, sovereign, guided by the most cordial affection, to send you the following few lines, written in the conviction that you will see in them only my need to convey to you with what pain I and millions of other devoted sons of Russia learned about Your Majesty's magnanimous deed. Driven by the desire for the prosperity and happiness of Russia, you preferred to take on all the consequences and all the gravity of what happened, rather than doom the country to all the horrors of a long internecine struggle or, what would have been even more terrible is to leave it defenseless against the triumphant enemy weapons. Your behavior will deserve the due reward of history and the grateful memory of the people. The knowledge that at this mournful moment you decided without hesitation on an act of the greatest self-sacrifice for the sake of the integrity and well-being of our country, which you, following example of their crowned ancestors, have always been faithful, truly your most faithful servant and well-wisher, will serve you as a worthy reward for the unparalleled sacrifice you made on the altar of your country. I do not find words to express my admiration for the greatness of the sacrifice you made - both yours and your heir. "(Bold type is mine - B.R.)
For the full text, see [Gurko V. War and Revolution in Russia. Memoirs of the Commander of the Western Front. 1914-1917. - M.: 2007, pp. 389-392].
Apparently, Gurko refers to Nicholas as the current emperor ("Your Majesty"), and further in the letter he expresses hope (or predicts) for the revival of the monarchy and the return of the former tsar to the Russian throne. And then he writes:
"Suppose it is possible to admit the possibility that the country will wish to return to a state of law-abiding and order. In such a case, it is necessary that persons who can then form a center capable of uniting all who strive not for temporary power, but for progressive development and gradual evolution of the Russian people, were not deterred by the memory that, at a time when their ideals had temporarily receded, they made no effort, even if, if necessary, exceptional, to ensure the safety and personal freedom, and possibly the lives of those people, the majority of which at one time sincerely and faithfully served their country, although they were guided by the laws, perhaps outdated, but nevertheless legally valid.
And here is how General M.V., who replaced Gurko as Chief of Staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, behaved a day after the abdication. Alekseev at a meeting with Nikolai in Mogilev:
“Alekseev felt awkward and embarrassed in front of the Sovereign. His conscience was disturbed by the stubborn silence of the Tsar. During a report on the latest events in Petrograd, he could not stand it and told him: “Your Majesty, I acted these days, guided by my love for the Motherland and the desire to protect and to protect the army from collapse. Russia is seriously ill; to save it, it was necessary to make sacrifices ... "The sovereign looked at him intently and did not answer. "(My bold type - B.R.)
[Pozdnyshev S. D. Crucify Him. Paris: 1952]:
As you can see, M.V. Alekseev and V.I. Gurko talk about the sacrifice made by Nicholas II for the sake of saving Russia (to avoid a split in the army and in society). Of course, from the side of the conspirators (especially from Alekseev), such words look very doubtful - but there is no doubt in their sincerity. They had no need to write or talk about the self-sacrifice of the king after the victory of the conspirators.
***
Many of the retinue were frightened a week later, on March 9, on the train from Mogilev to Tsarskoye Selo - when they learned that Nikolai Alexandrovich was traveling on the train “as if arrested” (as Alekseev put it before boarding the train in Mogilev). And that the day before in Tsarskoye Selo Kornilov arrested Alexandra Feodorovna and all those who voluntarily stayed with her in the Alexander Palace.
The victorious conspirators were also afraid of Nikolai on March 8 - they did not even dare to publish in the newspapers his last order for the army and navy, which he announced at parting with the troops at Headquarters [Sokolov N.A. The assassination of the royal family. - M., 1991]. Although this Order called for submission to the Provisional Government, the victorious conspirators feared that its publication would be followed by a wave of sympathy for Nicholas. And they had reason to be afraid of it. At parting with the troops, according to eyewitnesses, the atmosphere was such that it seemed that if Nikolai had even said a word against the Provisional Government and the conspirators, everyone in the Headquarters hall would immediately take his side, and bloodshed would begin. But he did not say - because he did not want a split in the army and unrest in Russia.
Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich describes Nikolai's farewell to the ranks of the headquarters in the following way:
“By eleven o’clock the hall is full: generals, staff and chief officers and retinues. Nicky enters, calm, restrained, with something like a smile on his lips. He thanks the headquarters and asks everyone to continue work “with the same zeal and sacrifice "". He asks everyone to forget the enmity, to serve Russia faithfully and to lead our army to victory. Then he pronounces his farewell words in short military phrases, avoiding pathetic words. His modesty makes a huge impression on those present. We shout "hurray" like never before they haven't screamed in the last twenty-three years. The old generals are crying. Another moment - and someone will come forward and begin to beg Nicky to change his decision. But in vain: the autocrat of all Russia does not take back his words!"
["Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich. Book of Memoirs". - M, 2008]
But the Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich was among all the Grand Dukes the first liberal and the main critic of Nicholas II.
On March 14 (27), 1917, General Alekseev, in a note to the Provisional Government, summarizes the reaction of the fronts and fleets to the abdication: on the Baltic Fleet "enthusiastically", on the Northern Front "with restraint and calmness", on the Western Front "calmly, seriously, many with regret and chagrin" , on the South-Western "calmly, with a consciousness of the importance of the moment being experienced", on the Romanian and Caucasian fronts, and also on the Black Sea Fleet "a painful impression, admiration for the high patriotism and self-sacrifice of the sovereign, expressed in the act of renunciation." [Multatuli, Conclusion to the book ] .
As can be seen, Nikolai Aleksandrovich was right in foreseeing a split in the army in the event of his death and the inevitable rumors (and information) about a deliberate murder in this case. He renounced to avoid a split in the army, on the fronts.
All this refutes the common misconception that Nicholas II "showed cowardice" when he abdicated on March 2 (15), 1917. Many witnesses of those days then recalled the sovereign's self-control. [The abdication of Nicholas II. Memoirs of eyewitnesses and documents]. General of the Retinue Dubensky called it stoicism, and the enemy of the sovereign Guchkov - emotional stupidity (as far as I remember). But those who saw Nikolai Alexandrovich in those days also closely recalled that around his eyes his skin had become completely brown, with white folds of wrinkles. The aide-de-camp Mordvinov (who remained faithful to the Oath) also recalled that the literal royal train, which came to Pskov in all the splendor of the interior and exterior trim of the car plating, seemed to suddenly “age” in those few hours - the new paint on the plating of the cars cracked, burst and peeled off whole stripes. The same was noted by Colonel Pronin, who served at the General Staff and recalling that when the emperor was brought to Headquarters in Mogilev on March 4, he, Pronin, looking at the car, which was three steps away from him, “was struck by the large number of some scratches and blemishes. The painting seemed to crack in places and fell off in large layers - “like traces of small fragments of shells that fell into it,” a thought flashed through. [Pronin V.M., Colonel of the General Staff. The last days of the Royal Headquarters. Belgrade, 1930].
... After a dramatic farewell to the troops in Mogilev and a tragic farewell to his mother on the platform of the Mogilev railway station, Nikolai leaves for Petrograd (Tsarskoye Selo). Let us now recall the words of Maria Feodorovna (from her letter to the Grand Duchess Olga Konstantinova on March 11 (24), 1917):
“The heart is filled with grief and despair. Imagine what terrible, indescribable times we have yet to go through. I am grateful to God that I was with him during these 5 terrible days in Mogilev, when he was so alone and abandoned by everyone. He was like a real martyr, bowing before the inevitable. Only twice, when we were alone, he could not stand it - I alone know how he suffered and what despair was in his soul! After all, he made a sacrifice in the name of saving his country. It's the only thing he could do, and he did it!"
"Diaries of Empress Maria Feodorovna" (M., Vagrius, 2006, pp. 11-12)
***

Someone (and maybe many) will say that the tsar's sacrifice was in vain: Russia still did not escape the catastrophe of October 1917, the civil war and millions and millions of victims, and the royal family itself died. However, who could have foreseen this on March 2, 1917, when there was less than a month left before the common offensive with the Entente allies, the fronts were strong and no one doubted the imminent victory over the enemy. It had to be the monk-seer Abel, or Seraphim of Sarov, in order to predict the coming catastrophe and "the reign of a man with an ax" ... Well, that's another topic.

Regarding whether Nicholas II was the best ruler of Russia in the entire twentieth century and still, I will give, for example, the following data:
Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences V.P. Polevanov, examining the purchasing power of the average wages of workers in Tsarist Russia (in 1913) and in the USSR, came to the conclusion that the level of 1913, after the failure in the Civil War, reached its maximum at the end of the NEP (in 1927), but then steadily decreased, and in 1940, the purchasing power of the average wage in the USSR was already 1.5 times lower than in 1913, reaching an absolute minimum in 1947 (2.5 times lower than in 1913). The 1913 level was only reached again in the 1950s. Comparing the calorie content of a worker's diet before 1917 and in the USSR, the American researcher Elizabeth Breiner came to the conclusion that the level of nutrition in calories before the 1917 revolution was again achieved in the USSR only in the late 50s and early 60s. At the same time (by the end of the 1950s, under N. Khrushchev), the pension law was also passed (Stalin's pensions for most people were beggarly), and mass housing construction began - and until the beginning of the 1960s, the living conditions of Soviet workers were much worse than the workers in tsarist Russia before 1917.

See my articles for more details.

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.

In Soviet (and by inertia, in today's) textbooks, this was presented as an indisputable fact. True, without hard evidence. “But there is evidence that the Abdication Manifesto is the fake of the century,” says historian Pyotr Multatuli.

Train hijack

Peter Multatuli:- On March 4, 1917, almost all newspapers published a Manifesto on the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne in favor of his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. However, no one saw the original until ... until 1928, when it was discovered in the archives of the Academy of Sciences in Leningrad. It was a text typed on a typewriter, where the signature of Nicholas II was made in pencil (!). The title of emperor and the personal imperial seal are missing. This very document is still considered the original of the manifesto and is stored in the State Archives of the Russian Federation! It is clear that documents of state importance were never signed by the sovereign with a pencil. In 2006, researcher Andrey Razumov actually proved that the "pencil signature" was taken from the Order of Nicholas II on the army and navy of 1915. "Translated" using a special technology. The manifesto also bears the signature of the Minister of the Imperial Court, Count Frederiks. This signature is also written in pencil and outlined in pen. And when Fredericks was interrogated by the Extraordinary Investigative Commission of the Provisional Government, he stated: "I was not at that moment next to the emperor." This interrogation is documented.

"AiF": - What happened in reality?

P. M.:- By February 1917, a conspiracy to overthrow Nicholas II had been prepared for a year already. This was done by the top of the State Duma (its chairman Rodzianko, the leader of the Cadets Milyukov, the industrialist Konovalov, the representative of the revolutionary wing of the Duma Kerensky), the leadership of the military-industrial committees (Guchkov) and representatives of the Stavka (generals Alekseev, Ruzsky, Brusilov). They were driven to the coup by the presumptuous notion that they could govern Russia better than the tsar. The conspirators were supported by the ruling circles of some Western countries. The forces seeking to abolish the monarchy took over. This required an abdication in favor of a candidate who, on the one hand, seemed to have the right to the throne, and on the other hand, if desired, this right could be challenged. Such was the emperor's brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. After he married the twice-divorced Natalia Wulfert in 1912, his offspring lost their rights to the throne. And Michael himself - the right to become the ruler of the state in the event of the death of Nicholas II. Could Nicholas II voluntarily transfer the throne into the hands of such a person? Of course not! According to the current law, the emperor could not abdicate at all!

"AiF": - How then did the conspirators achieve renunciation?

P. M.:- The chief of staff, General Alekseev, lured the tsar from Petrograd to Headquarters so that the train would be captured on the way. Contrary to the established notion, Nicholas II was imprisoned not on March 8, 1917 in Mogilev, but on the night of February 28 in Malaya Vishera. The imperial train could not pass to Tosno and further to Tsarskoye Selo, not because the "revolutionary troops" blocked the railway tracks, as we were long lied to, but because in Malaya Vishera the train was forcibly sent by the conspirators to the city of Dno, and then to Pskov . On February 28, Nicholas II was completely blocked. At the same time, in Petrograd, in the apartment of Prince Putyatin on Millionnaya Street, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich was blockaded. In Pskov, the royal train was taken under tight control by the active conspirator Adjutant General Ruzsky, commander-in-chief of the armies of the Northern Front. No one could get to the emperor without his permission. It was in such conditions that the so-called “abdication” was “signed” by the sovereign. According to the published memoirs of the conspirators, the sovereign went into the office, and then returned with several "quarters" (forms for telegrams), on which the text of the manifesto was printed. can you imagine an emperor typing like a typist? It is said that the emperor himself drafted the manifesto. In fact, the document was written by Ruzsky and Rodzianko a few days before the events. The emperor did not even see him. The emperor's signature was forged. After "writing" the abdication manifesto on March 8, 1917, the emperor was officially arrested. The conspirators were afraid that if the sovereign got out of control, he would immediately speak and refute his abdication. The emperor was under strict house arrest until his death.

Cross for Russia

"AiF": - But there are diaries of Nicholas II, in which he admits that he abdicated.

P. M.:- As for the diaries, there are serious fears that the Bolsheviks introduced fakes into them. Anna Vyrubova, a friend of the Empress, wrote in her memoirs published abroad in the 1920s that the tsar, when he was brought to the Alexander Palace, told her: “These events in Pskov shocked me so much that I could not keep my diary all these days. ". The question arises: who led them then? In addition, from the diaries of Nicholas II, it turns out that he did not know either the time of his departure from Pskov to Headquarters or his arrival in Mogilev, since the time of departure and arrival indicated in the diary does not coincide with the time indicated in the documents of the Headquarters.

AiF: Why didn't the emperor try to escape?

P. M.:- Nicholas II was an Orthodox person. When he, who refused to sign any papers with a renunciation, found out that, despite this, the manifesto had nevertheless been published on his behalf, he took it as the will of God and did not fight for power. He and his family bore their cross of martyrdom for Russia.