To whom did Nicholas give the throne 2. Emperor Nicholas II abdicated the throne. From the memoirs of Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich
Generally between brothers for a long time Very tense relations remained, and all because of Mikhail’s love for the twice-divorced Natalya Sheremetyevskaya. The prince promised Nicholas II not to marry the young woman even after she had a son from him. Despite this word, in the fall of 1912, Mikhail Alexandrovich secretly married Sheremetyevskaya in a Serbian church. When Nicholas II found out about this, he wrote indignantly in his diary: “The only brother, and he broke his word!” By decree of the emperor, Grand Duke Mikhail was deprived of his salary and dismissed from military service.
Nevertheless, at the crucial moment, all grievances were forgotten: Nicholas II did not want the autocracy in Russia to be put an end to. In his manifesto on abdication, he wrote: “Not wanting to part with our beloved son, we pass on our legacy to our brother Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich and bless him to ascend the throne of the Russian state. We command our brother to rule over state affairs in complete and inviolable unity with representatives of the people in legislative institutions on those principles that will be established by them, having taken an inviolable oath to that effect."
Mikhail Alexandrovich was the third member of the Romanov dynasty who had the right to the Russian throne. Moreover, in the event of the death of Nicholas II, he would have been regent of Tsarevich Alexei until he came of age.
The day after the abdication of Nicholas II, March 3, early morning on Millionnaya Street, where Mikhail was at that time, a bell rang. Alexander Kerensky called, he asked the Grand Duke to receive members of the Provisional Government and the Provisional Committee State Duma. Mikhail agreed; he was not aware of the final version of the renunciation manifesto in his favor. He thought that he would be offered a regency, which he was ready to accept.
At 6 o'clock in the morning we were awakened by a telephone call. The new Minister of Justice Kerensky told me that the Council of Ministers in its entirety would come to me in an hour. In fact, they only arrived at 9 ½...">
At 6 o'clock in the morning we were awakened by a telephone call. New minister Justice Kerensky told me that the Council of Ministers in its entirety would come to me in an hour. In fact, they only arrived at 9 ½...
Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich">Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich
contentThe delegation presented Mikhail Alexandrovich with two points of view on the current situation: the first was the opinion of the majority, which considered it impossible for Mikhail to ascend the throne, the second was the opinion of the minority, which wanted his accession to the throne. The majority opinion was stated by the former Chairman of the State Duma, Mikhail Rodzianko, who two months earlier declared to Nicholas II: “All of Russia with one voice demands a change of government...”.
Rodzianko informed Mikhail that if he agreed to ascend the throne, his reign would last only a few hours and end in civil war. And Pavel Milyukov spoke for the minority: “The provisional government is one, without a monarch... is a fragile boat that can sink in the ocean of popular unrest even before the convening of the Constituent Assembly.”
I was amazed that my opponents, instead of principled considerations, turned to intimidating the Grand Duke. It was all so petty due to the importance of the moment...">
I was amazed that my opponents, instead of principled considerations, turned to intimidating the Grand Duke. All this was so petty due to the importance of the moment...
Pavel Milyukov, deputyProvisional Government
">Pavel Milyukov, deputy
Provisional Government
contentKerensky also persuaded Mikhail to renounce the throne. He argued that if the Grand Duke did not listen to advice, then no one could vouch for his life. Mikhail's wife Natalya and their son were in danger.
Mikhail hesitated; he retired for 30 minutes to talk with Miliukov and Guchkov. After the conversation, he stated that his " final choice leaned towards the opinion defended by the chairman of the State Duma." Kerensky shook his hand and said that he was a noble man for not clinging to the throne.
According to historian Alexander Shubin, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich could not have acted differently.
In those conditions, a person willing to take very serious risks could assume power. After all, the Republicans already controlled the capital, and a number of other centers of Russia. Mikhail Alexandrovich was a completely different type of person: he was not going to take risks. If he had firmly decided to defend his rights and prerogatives, then, in all likelihood, a civil war would have broken out in the country if any military units had supported him. But we were already talking about a constitutional monarchy, and for many recent monarchists the game was not worth the candle. Even the right one political figure Rodzianko - and he persuaded Mikhail to renounce, because he saw himself as something like a president.
To draw up a manifesto of abdication, lawyers were immediately called to the princess’s house.
“A heavy burden has been placed on me by the will of my brother, who handed over to me the imperial All-Russian throne in a time of unprecedented war and popular unrest.
Inspired by the common thought with all the people that the good of our Motherland is above all, I made a firm decision to accept the supreme power only if such is the will of our people, who must establish a form of government and new fundamental principles by popular vote through their representatives in the Constituent Assembly. laws of the Russian state.
Therefore, calling on God’s blessing, I ask the citizens of the Russian state to submit to the Provisional Government, which arose at the initiative of the State Duma and was invested with full power, until the Constituent Assembly, convened as soon as possible on the basis of universal, direct, equal and secret suffrage, by its decision on form of government will express the will of the people."
But from the moment Nicholas II abdicated the throne for himself and his son until the signing of the manifesto by Mikhail, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich was Emperor of All Russia.
For a day, Mikhail was formally the emperor, says Shubin. - Nicholas II became tsar immediately after Alexander III died, and only then there were legitimation procedures, including coronation after a year and a half of rule. We can say that the reign of the Romanov dynasty began and ended with the reign of Mikhail.
The terrible news that could only be imagined has reached us - the news of the abdication of the sovereign from the throne. Then the second sad news came - the abdication of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich... All the old centuries-old foundations collapsed one after another">
The terrible news that could only be imagined has reached us - the news of the abdication of the sovereign from the throne. Then the second sad news came - the abdication of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich... All the old centuries-old foundations collapsed one after another
Matilda Kshesinskaya">Matilda Kshesinskaya
contentThe next day, Mikhail left Petrograd for Gatchina and no longer took part in political life countries. He tried to emigrate to Great Britain, but the Provisional Government, the Petrograd Council of Soldiers' and Workers' Deputies and British officials did not allow this.
(edited by V.V. Boyko-Velikiy, RIC named after St. Basil the Great Moscow, 2015)
CHAPTER 7. Royal Gethsemane. Overthrow of the autocratic system in Russia. Abdication of the Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II from the throne in order to transfer it to his brother Mikhail.
What happened on March 2/15, 1917 in Pskov is still referred to in history as the abdication of Nicholas II from the throne. Until now, historical science and public consciousness perceive as an axiom that Emperor Nicholas II voluntarily, but under the pressure of circumstances, put his signature on the manifesto announcing that he was relinquishing supreme power.
Meanwhile, Russian history has never known such a fact as the abdication of a crowned monarch from the throne. There is a known case of renunciation of the throne by the Heir Tsarevich Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich, brother of Emperor Alexander I, made several years before the death of the Reigning Sovereign. However, the act of this refusal was written by Konstantin Pavlovich in his own hand, after which on August 16, 1823, a manifesto of Emperor Alexander I was drawn up on the transfer of the right to the throne to Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich. This manifesto was classified as secret and placed for storage in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. Three copies of the manifesto, certified by Alexander I, were sent to the Synod, Senate and State Council. After the death of Emperor Alexander I, the first thing to do was to open the package with copies. The secret of the will was known to the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna and Prince A.N. Golitsyn, Count A.A. Arakcheev and Moscow Archbishop Filaret, who compiled the text of the manifesto.
As we can see, the decision to renounce the throne of the Grand Duke was certified by numerous witnesses and approved by the Emperor’s manifesto. At the same time, we were talking about the renunciation of the throne not by the reigning monarch, but by the heir to the throne.
As for the Reigning Monarch, then The Basic Laws of the Russian Empire did not at all provide for the very possibility of his abdication(Theoretically, such a basis could only have been the Tsar’s tonsure as a monk.) It is even more impossible to talk about any renunciation of the Tsar, made under moral influence, in conditions of deprivation of freedom of action.
In this regard, the words of Comrade Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince N.D., are noteworthy. Zhevakhov, which he said in March 1917 when refusing to swear allegiance to the Provisional Government: “The abdication of the Sovereign is invalid, because it was not an act of good will of the Sovereign, but violence. In addition to state laws, we also have Divine laws, and we know that, according to the rules of the Holy Apostles, even the forced resignation of the episcopal rank is invalid: all the more invalid is this usurpation of the sacred rights of the Monarch by a gang of criminals.”
Bishop Arseny (Zhadanovsky), who suffered martyrdom at the Butovo training ground, said that “according to church canonical rules, the forcible deprivation of a bishop of his see is invalid, even if it occurred “at the handwriting” of the expelled. And this is understandable: every paper has a formal meaning, anything written under threat has no value - violence remains violence.”
Thus, even if Emperor Nicholas II signed, under threat or pressure, a certain document that was in no way a manifesto of renunciation either in form or in essence, then this would not mean at all that he really abdicates the throne.
On the part of the Sovereign, there would be no voluntary renunciation, but an act which, if it applied to the bishop, according to the third rule of St. Cyril of Alexandria, has the following assessment: “He gave the handwriting of the renunciation, as he says, not of his own free will, but out of need, out of fear, and out of threats from some. But besides this, it is not in accordance with church decrees that some clergy present manuscripts of renunciation.” In addition, Emperor Nicholas II, even following the official version, did not abolish the Monarchy, but transferred the throne to his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich.
The abdication of Emperor Nicholas II, thus, did not acquire the force of a Russian legislative act, since the manifesto acquires the force of law only if published, which can only be done by the Reigning Emperor (that is, the appearance of the text of the abdication in the press does not automatically legitimize it), but by Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich has never been like that - not for a single minute. Thus, the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II, even if he signed the well-known text, is legally void.
The abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne. Falsification of abdication documents
The conspiracy plan, which provided for the abdication of the Emperor, was conceived long before the February Revolution. One of its main developers was A.I. Guchkov. After the February events, he reported: “The Emperor must leave the throne. Something in this direction was being done even before the coup, with the help of other forces. The very idea of renunciation was so close and related to me that from the first moment, when this vacillation and then the collapse of power became clear, my friends and I considered this solution to be exactly what should be done.”
Guchkov said that the events of February 1917 led him “to the conviction that it is necessary, at all costs, to achieve the abdication of the Sovereign. I insisted that Duma Chairman Rodzianko take on this task."
Thus, it is clear that the initiatives of M.V. Rodzianko’s trip to Bologoi, his plans to arrest the Emperor and demands for his abdication were the initiatives and plans of A.I. Guchkova.
The fact that the renunciation was planned in advance was also said by A.I.’s companion. Guchkova on a trip to Pskov V.V. Shulgin. After the coup, he told cadet E.A. Efimovsky: “The question of renunciation was a foregone conclusion. It would have happened regardless of whether Shulgin was present or not. Shulgin feared that the Emperor might be killed. And he went to the Dno station with the goal of “creating a shield” so that the murder would not happen.”
But the abdication of the Emperor was not only part of Guchkov’s plans. It was no less part of Kerensky’s plans. This does not mean, of course, that there were no disagreements between the two coup leaders. But all this did not interfere with their most active mutual cooperation. Therefore S.P. Melgunov was absolutely right when he asserted that the preparation and organization of the February Revolution of 1917 was led by two Masonic groups. At the head of one of them (military) was A.I. Guchkov, the other (civilian) was headed by A.F. Kerensky.
A.I. Guchkov was closely associated with military circles and played a leading role in organizing the army's inaction in suppressing the unrest in Petrograd. Chief of the Petrograd military guard, Quartermaster General of the General Staff, Major General M.I. Zankevich, fulfilling the terms of the agreement with Guchkov, took steps that were aimed at weakening the defense of the Admiralty and Winter Palace area. On March 2, Zankevich presented himself everywhere as a person acting on the orders of M.V. Rodzianko.
On the other hand, A.F. Kerensky had great connections in Masonic and revolutionary circles.
At A.I. Guchkov had appropriate agreements with the commanders of some regiments on the line of conduct in the event of spontaneous soldier uprisings.
February 28 A.I. Guchkov went to campaign for military personnel in the barracks of the Life Guards Pavlovsky Regiment, and on March 1 and 2 he carried out campaigning in other units. Participated by A.I. Guchkov and in the capture of the Main Artillery Directorate.
Thus, A.I. Guchkov in every possible way contributed not to the palace coup, which he spoke about earlier, but to the revolution. The very revolution that A.F. so strived for. Kerensky.
The cooperation of Guchkov and Kerensky was clearly manifested in the seizure of the Imperial train on March 1, 1917. Both Guchkov and Kerensky needed the seizure of the train and the abdication of the Sovereign. There is no doubt that after the Imperial train was sent to Pskov, Kerensky and Guchkov acted in complete agreement regarding the Sovereign.
Already on the afternoon of March 2, the manifesto with the abdication of the Sovereign was spoken openly in different places of the Empire. Let us remember that at this time, even according to Ruzsky, the Emperor had not yet made any decision.
At 15 o'clock in the Catherine Hall of the Tauride Palace P.N. Miliukov spoke of abdication as a decided matter: “The old despot, who brought Russia to complete ruin, will voluntarily renounce the throne, or will be deposed. Power will pass to the regent, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. Alexey will be the heir."
At 5 p.m. 23 min. March 2 General V.N. Klembovsky confidently stated: “There is only one outcome - abdication in favor of the Heir under the regency of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. His Majesty has not yet made a decision, but, apparently, it is inevitable."
At 19:00 on March 1, the Imperial train arrived in Pskov. The situation around him was not typical for the Tsar’s usual meetings. A.A. Mordvinov wrote that the platform “was almost unlit and completely deserted. Neither the military nor the civilian authorities (with the exception, it seems, of the governor), who always gathered long ago and in large numbers to meet the Emperor, were present.”
General D.N. wrote the same thing. Dubensky: “There will probably be no official meetings, and there will be no honor guard in sight.”
Chief of Staff of the Northern Front, General Yu.N. Danilov adds a number of important details to previous memories. He writes that “by the time the Tsar’s train arrived, the station was cordoned off, and no one was allowed into its premises.”
Deputy Head of the Commissioner for the Northern Front of the All-Russian Zemstvo Union, Prince S.E. Trubetskoy arrived at the Pskov train station on the evening of March 1 to meet with the Tsar. When the officer on duty asked “Where is the Emperor’s train?”, he “showed me the way, but warned me that in order to enter the train itself, special permission was required. I went to the train. The parking of the Tsar's train on unsightly sidings covered with snow made a depressing impression. I don’t know why, this train, guarded by sentries, did not seem like a Tsar’s residence with a guard posted, but suggested a vague idea of arrest.”
The events that took place in Pskov on the Imperial train on March 1-3 remain unsolved to this day.
According to the official version, Emperor Nicholas II, who had previously categorically refused any attempts to convince him of the need for a responsible ministry, suddenly approved and signed three manifestos in Pskov within 24 hours. One of these manifestos radically changed political system country (introduced a responsible ministry), and the other two successively transferred the Russian throne, first to the young Tsarevich, and then to Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich.
After the Imperial train was placed on a siding, the commander-in-chief of the armies of the Northern Front, General N.V., arrived in the Imperial carriage. Ruzsky, his chief of staff, General Yu.N. Danilov and two or three more officers. According to the recollections of members of his retinue, General Ruzsky began to demand radical concessions from Nicholas II as soon as he entered the carriage and was received by the Emperor. V.N. Vo-eikov, during interrogation at the VChSK, stated, in contrast to his memories, that “all the talk about the Responsible Ministry took place after arriving in Pskov.”
The generals began to actively put pressure on Emperor Nicholas II even before his arrival in Pskov. On the afternoon of March 1, when the Emperor was at Dno station, Adjutant General M.V. Alekseev sent him a telegram. Having reported about the unrest in Moscow, Alekseev wrote to the Tsar that the unrest would spread throughout Russia, a revolution would take place, which would mark the shameful end of the war. Alekseev assured that the restoration of order is impossible “if Your Imperial Majesty does not follow an act that contributes to general calm.” Otherwise, Alekseev declared, “power will pass into the hands of extreme elements tomorrow.” At the end of the telegram, Alekseev begged the Tsar “for the sake of saving Russia and the dynasty, put at the head of Russia a person whom Russia would trust, and instruct him to form a cabinet.”
The entire tone and argumentation of this telegram to M.V. Alekseev are completely consistent with the syllable and his arguments by M.V. Rodzianko. This telegram to M.V. Alekseev was supposed to send to Tsarskoe Selo, but did not do so, allegedly because there was no communication. In fact, they decided to delay sending the telegram, since they knew that the Emperor had to be delivered to Pskov.
Colonel V.L. Baranovsky, in his conversation with the assistant chief of the intelligence department of the Northern Front headquarters, Colonel V.E. Medio-Cretan via direct wire on March 1 at 15:00. 58 min. noted: “The Chief of Staff asks to convey this telegram to the Commander-in-Chief and asks him to present this telegram to the Sovereign Emperor when His Majesty passes through Pskov.”
As a result of behind-the-scenes negotiations with Rodzianko on the evening of March 1, Alekseev’s telegram underwent significant changes. In fact, it was a manifesto for the introduction of a responsible ministry headed by Rodzianko.
General M.V. Alekseev and Grand Duke Sergei Mikhailovich, who was at Headquarters, authorized the assistant chief of staff of the Northern Front, General V.N. Klembovsky “to report to His Majesty on the absolute necessity of taking those measures that are indicated in the telegram of General Alekseev.”
Full support for the request set out in Alekseev’s telegram came from Tiflis and from Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich.
Pressure on the Tsar with the demand to grant a responsible ministry was continued in Pskov by General N.V. Ruzsky. When meeting with the Tsar, Ruzsky asked whether Nicholas II had received his telegram about the responsible ministry. We were talking about Ruzsky’s telegram, which he sent to the Emperor on February 27 at Headquarters. Nicholas II replied that he had received it and was awaiting Rodzianko's arrival.
Ruzsky, in a conversation with Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich a year after the events, explained that Emperor Nicholas II agreed to give a responsible ministry after the commander-in-chief gave him a telegram from General Alekseev with a draft manifesto.
However, in the response telegram drawn up by the Tsar there was no mention of any granting of a responsible ministry. Ruzsky said that when they finally brought him a telegram from the Emperor, it turned out “that there was not a word about a responsible ministry.” The only thing Emperor Nicholas II agreed to was to instruct Rodzianko to form a government, choosing ministers at his own discretion, except for the ministers of military, naval and internal affairs. At the same time, Rodzianko himself had to remain responsible to the Emperor, and not to the Duma. In essence, the telegram of Nicholas II with the instruction of Rodzianko to head a government in which the appointment of chief ministers would remain with the Tsar, and Rodzianko himself would be responsible to the Monarch, turned the responsible ministry into an ordinary office.
To all of Ruzsky’s objections about the need for a responsible ministry, Emperor Nicholas II replied that he “considers himself not entitled to transfer the entire matter of governing Russia into the hands of people who today, being in power, can cause the greatest harm to the Motherland, and tomorrow they will wash their hands of leaving with the cabinet.” resign". “I am responsible before God and Russia for everything that happens and has happened,” said the Emperor; “whether the ministers will be responsible before the Duma and the State Council is indifferent.”
According to General N.V. Ruzsky, the telegram from M.V. was decisive for the Sovereign. Alekseeva. Having familiarized himself with it, Nicholas II agreed to a responsible ministry, saying that “he made a decision, because both Ruzsky and Alekseev, with whom he had spoken a lot on this topic before, were of the same opinion, and he, the Sovereign, knows that they rarely agree on something completely.”
Having allegedly received consent from the Tsar, Ruzsky went to the telegraph office to talk via direct wire with M.V. Rodzianko. N.V. Ruzsky told M.V. Rodzianko that the Tsar agreed to a responsible ministry and asked the Chairman of the Duma whether it was possible to send a manifesto with this message for its “publication”. However, the text of the “manifesto” transmitted by Ruzsky was in fact a draft version, largely repeating the text of General Alekseev’s telegram. Of course, such a text could not be transmitted by the Emperor.
In response to M.V. Rodzianko told General N.V. Ruzsky that the situation has changed, “one of the most terrible revolutions has come, which will not be so easy to overcome.” In this regard, a “formidable demand for abdication in favor of his son arose during the regency of Mikhail Alexandrovich.”
Ruzsky asked: “Is it necessary to issue a manifesto?” Rodzianko gave, as always, an evasive answer: “I really don’t know how to answer you. Everything depends on events that fly by at breakneck speed.”
Despite this ambiguity, Ruzsky understood the answer clearly: there is no need to send a manifesto. From this moment, intensive preparations begin for the preparation of a new manifesto on renunciation.
At the end of the conversation N.V. Ruzsky asked M.V. Rodzianko, can he report to the Emperor? about this conversation. And I received the answer: “I have nothing against this, and I even ask about it.”
Thus, Rodzianko decided whether to report anything to the Emperor or not. At the same time, the opinion of the Tsar, his instructions and orders were not taken into account at all. For Ruzsky, there were other bosses, and first of all, he was M.V. himself. Rodzianko.
It was General M.V. Alekseev, Chief of Staff of the Northern Front, General Yu.N. Danilov sent a telegram on the morning of March 2, in which he reported on the conversation between Ruzsky and Rodzianko. At the end of the telegram, Danilov wrote: “The Chairman of the State Duma recognized the contents of the manifesto as belated. Since the commander in chief will be able to report to the Sovereign about the above conversation only at 10 o’clock, he believes that it would be more careful not to release the manifesto until further instructions from His Majesty.”
Already at 9 o'clock in the morning General A.S. Lukomsky on behalf of M.V. Alekseev called General Yu.N. via direct line. Danilova. Alekseev, in a harsh manner, discarding the “loyal” tone, pointed out to Danilov the need to demand abdication from the Emperor, threatening otherwise an internecine war and paralysis of the front, which would lead Russia to defeat.
Yu.N. Danilov expressed the opinion that it would not be easy to convince the Emperor to agree to a new manifesto. It was decided to wait for the results of Ruzsky’s conversation with the Tsar. In anticipation of this result, Alekseev sent out circular telegrams to the commanders-in-chief of the fronts A.E. Everta, A.A. Brusilov and V.V. Sakharov, in which he asked them to express their attitude towards the possible abdication of the Sovereign.
Before General Alekseev had time to ask the opinion of the commanders-in-chief, they immediately, without hesitation, answered that abdication was necessary, and as soon as possible. Here, for example, is the answer of General A.A. Brusilova: “You can’t hesitate. Time is running out. I completely agree with you. I will immediately telegraph my most humble request to the Sovereign Emperor through the Commander-in-Chief. I completely share all your views. There can’t be two opinions here.”
The answers of all the commanders were approximately the same in meaning. Such a reaction on their part could have happened if they knew in advance about the upcoming telegram from General Alekseev with a question about abdication. Just like they knew in advance the answers to this question.
On the evening of March 2, generals N.V. came to the Tsar’s carriage with telegrams from the commanders-in-chief. Ruzsky, Yu.N. Danilov and S.S. Savich. They continued to put pressure on the Tsar, convincing him that the situation was hopeless and the only way out was renunciation.
According to the recollections of the above-mentioned generals, during this pressure and, most importantly, telegrams from the commanders-in-chief, Emperor Nicholas II decided to abdicate the throne in favor of his son Tsesarevich.
Ruzsky, in his stories to different people, was confused about the form in which the Emperor expressed his consent to abdication. The general claimed that it was telegram, That act of renunciation That several drafts. Thus, from all the memories we see that the Emperor drew up a telegram (telegrams, drafts, act), but not a manifesto on abdication.
Meanwhile, it is known for sure that a draft of such a manifesto has been prepared. “This manifesto,” wrote General D.N. Dubensky, - was developed at Headquarters, and its author was the master of ceremonies of the Supreme Court, the director of the political office under the Supreme Commander Basili, and this act was edited by Adjutant General Alekseev.”
The same is confirmed by General Danilov: “During this period of time, a draft Manifesto was received from Mogilev from General Alekseev, in case the Sovereign decided to abdicate in favor of Tsarevich Alexei. The draft of this Manifesto, as far as I know, was drawn up by the Director of the Diplomatic Chancellery under the Supreme Commander-in-Chief N.A. They were based on the general instructions of General Alekseev."
Dubensky wrote: “When we returned a day later to Mogilev, they told me that Basili, having come to the headquarters dining room on the morning of March 2, said that he had not slept all night and worked, drawing up a manifesto of abdication on the instructions of General Alekseev Emperor Nicholas II from the throne. And when they pointed out to him that this was too serious a historical act to be drawn up hastily, Basili replied that there was no time to hesitate.”
However, from the memoirs of N.A. himself. Basili makes it clear that his work was not at all hard labor: “Alekseev asked me to sketch out an act of renunciation. “Put your whole heart into it,” he said. I went to my office and an hour later returned with the text.”
On the evening of March 2, General Alekseev sent a draft manifesto by telegraph to General Danilov, providing him with the following telegram: “I am sending a draft manifesto in case the Sovereign Emperor deigns to make a decision and approve the presented manifesto. Adjutant General Alekseev."
Immediately following this message was the text of the draft manifesto: “In the days of the great struggle against an external enemy, who had been striving to enslave our homeland for almost three years, the Lord God was pleased to send down a new ordeal to Russia. The internal popular unrest that has begun threatens to have a disastrous effect on the further conduct of the stubborn war. The fate of Russia, the honor of our heroic army, the good of the people, the entire future of our dear Fatherland require bringing the war, at all costs, to a victorious end. The cruel enemy is straining his last strength, and the hour is already approaching when our valiant army, together with our glorious allies, will be able to finally break the enemy. In these decisive days in the life of Russia, WE considered it a duty of conscience to facilitate for OUR people the close unity and rallying of all the forces of the people for the speedy achievement of victory and, in agreement with the State Duma, WE recognized it as good to renounce the Throne of the Russian State and lay down the Supreme Power . In accordance with the procedure established by the Basic Laws, WE pass on our heritage to our Dear Son, OUR Sovereign, Heir, Tsarevich and Grand Duke ALEXEY NIKOLAEVICH and bless HIM for his accession to the Throne of the Russian State. We entrust OUR Brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, with the duties of Ruler of the Empire for the period until OUR Son comes of age. We command OUR Son, as well as during His minority, the Ruler of the Empire, to rule over state affairs in complete and inviolable unity with the representatives of the people in legislative institutions, on those principles that will be established by them, having taken an inviolable oath. In the name of our beloved homeland, we call on all the faithful sons of the Fatherland to fulfill their duty to it by obedience to the Tsar in difficult times of national trials and to help HIM, together with the representatives of the people, lead the Russian State onto the path of victory, prosperity and strength. May the Lord God help Russia."
This text was almost entirely taken from a telegram from General M.V. Alekseev with a draft manifesto on a responsible ministry. Only minor additions were made and the theme of renunciation was introduced. Colonel of the Operations Department of Headquarters V.M. Pronin cites diary entries for March 1 in his book. From them it becomes obvious that the authors of the manifesto on the responsible ministry and the abdication of the throne are the same persons: “22.40. Just returned from the editorial office of Mogilevskie Izvestia.” The Qvar-Tirmeister-General ordered me to obtain, at all costs, a sample of the Highest Manifesto. In the indicated edition, together with its secretary, I found No. for 1914 with the text of the Highest Manifesto on the declaration of war. At this time, a draft Manifesto on the granting of a responsible ministry had already been drawn up. They compiled his gene. Alekseev, gen. Lukomsky, Chamberlain Vysoch. Dvora N.A. Basili and Grand Duke Sergei Mikhailovich. The text of this Manifesto with the corresponding note from General Alekseev was sent to the Emperor at 10 p.m. 20 minutes." .
However, the “manifesto” did not reach the Emperor at all. In his telegram to Alekseev on March 2 at 20 o’clock. 35 min. General Danilov reported: “The telegram about General Kornilov has been sent for delivery to the Sovereign Emperor. The draft manifesto was sent to the Glavkosev carriage. There are fears that it would be belated, since there is private information that such a manifesto was already published in Petrograd by order of the Provisional Government."
It is strange that the telegram with the proposal to appoint General L.G. Kornilov for the post of head of the Petrograd Military District is sent to the Sovereign, and for some reason the manifesto of abdication is sent to Ruzsky! Stunning is Danilov’s assumption that a top secret manifesto, which even the Emperor had not seen, could be published in Petrograd by order of the rebels! In fact, this is a direct recognition that the question of abdication in no way depended on the Sovereign Emperor.
Thus, on March 2, no new manifesto on abdication was drawn up at Headquarters; its basis was prepared in advance and the necessary changes were made to this basis.
On a copy of the draft manifesto owned by N.A. Basil, there are amendments made by the hand of General Alekseev.
Therefore, we can draw an unambiguous conclusion: Emperor Nicholas II had nothing to do with the authorship of the manifesto on abdication of the throne in favor of the Heir and never signed it.
According to Ruzsky, the signing of the manifesto by the Sovereign did not take place, since the headquarters of the Northern Front received news of A.I.’s imminent arrival in Pskov. Guchkov and V.V. Shulgina. N.V. Ruzsky and Yu.N. Danilov tried to explain the delay in signing the manifesto by the desire of Nicholas II to meet first with A.I. Guchkov. However, apparently, this decision was made by the commander in chief.
Headquarters were also confident in the inevitability of abdication. At 5 p.m. 23 min. On March 2, in a conversation over a direct wire between General Klembovsky and the chief commander of the Odessa Military District, Infantry General M.I. Ebelov Klembovsky confidently stated that there was only one outcome: “abdication in favor of the Heir under the regency of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich.”
It is quite possible that the arrival of A.I. Guchkov in Pskov and the emergence after his arrival of the third manifesto of abdication, this time in favor of the Tsar’s brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, were associated with the conspiracy of A.I. Guchkova and N.V. Ruzsky, bypassing M.V. Alekseeva. Alekseev apparently believed that by abdicating in favor of the Tsarevich the issue would be resolved. Moreover, it was assumed that the abdicated Emperor would be sent to Tsarskoe Selo and there he would announce the transfer of the throne to his son. Back at 9 pm on March 2, State Duma deputy Cadet Yu.M. Lebedev said in Luga that “in a few hours, Duma members Guchkov and Shulgin, who are entrusted with negotiating with the Sovereign, will leave Petrograd for Pskov, and the result of these negotiations will be the arrival of the Sovereign in Tsarskoye Selo, where a number of important state acts will be issued.”
Apparently, M.V. Alekseev hoped to play a leading role under the new government (hence his authorship of the manifesto). However, events did not go as Alekseev expected. The “Alekseevsky” manifesto was sent to Petrograd via Pskov, from where no information about his further fate was received by Headquarters. Moreover, it became known that no announcement about the manifesto would be made without the additional permission of General N.V. Ruzsky. This could mean that for some reason Ruzsky decided to replay the situation. What's happening in Pskov, M.V. Alekseev didn’t know. By order of Alekseev, General Klembovsky contacted Pskov and “requested” “to orient the top, in what situation the issue is.” Alekseev was especially worried about the message that the letter trains were leaving in the direction of Dvinsk.
Soon, General Alekseev received a response telegram from the headquarters of the Northern Front, in which it was reported that the issue of sending trains and their further route would be resolved “at the end of the conversation with Guchkov.”
At 00 o'clock. 30 min. On March 3, Colonel Boldyrev reported to Headquarters: “The manifesto has been signed. The transfer is delayed by the removal of a duplicate, which will be handed over to Deputy Guchkov, signed by the Sovereign, after which the transfer will continue.”
The text of the so-called manifesto almost completely repeated the previous version of the manifesto in favor of the Tsarevich, developed at Headquarters under the leadership of M.V. Alekseeva. The only differences were in the name of the one to whom the throne was transferred. However, there is no certainty that M.V. Alekseev was given this text.
The famous manifesto, which for almost a hundred years now has been the main and, in essence, the only “evidence” of the abdication of the throne on March 2, 1917 of Emperor Nicholas II, was first “discovered” in the USSR in 1929 in Leningrad by a special commission on cleaning the apparatus of the Academy of Sciences. All employees of institutions of the USSR Academy of Sciences, whose Presidium was located in Leningrad until 1934, were required to undergo a background check and a procedure for discussing suitability for the position held. In this “purge”, the Academy of Sciences suffered significant personnel losses: due to their social background (nobles, clergy, etc.), the most qualified employees were fired, and new people were taken in their place, whose not only loyalty, but loyalty to Soviet power was no longer in doubt. As a result of the purge, 38 people were dismissed from the Academy of Sciences in 1929 alone.
During this check, “documents of historical importance” were discovered, which were allegedly illegally kept by employees of the apparatus. The newspaper “Trud” dated November 6, 1929 wrote: “Materials from the Police Department, the gendarme corps, and the Tsar’s secret police were discovered at the Academy of Sciences. Academician Oldenburg has been removed from his duties as Secretary of the Academy."
The commission’s conclusion stated: “Some of these documents are of such current importance that they could, in the hands of Soviet power play a big role in the fight against the enemies of the October Revolution, both within the country and abroad. Among these documents is the original about the abdication of Nicholas II and Michael from the throne."
It was the “find” of the Imperial “manifesto” that became the main “evidence” for the OGPU in accusing academicians, primarily the historian S.F. Platonov, in a conspiracy to overthrow Soviet power and restore the Monarchy.
How did these important documents end up in the Academy of Sciences? This becomes clear from the message in the “Bulletin of the Provisional Government” made in March 1917. “By order of the Minister of the Provisional Government Kerensky, Academician Kotlyarevsky was instructed to remove from the police department all the papers and documents that he finds necessary and deliver them to the Academy of Sciences.” .
As the biographer of academician S.F. writes. Oldenburg B.S. Kaganovich: “In fact, the government authorities knew about the storage of documents of modern times in the Academy of Sciences, which got there for the most part in the chaos of 1917-1920, when they were threatened with physical death, and did not see this as a danger to the regime ".
On October 29, 1929, the commission drew up a document that described the “manifesto.” The document stated: “The document was typed. Below, with right side There is a signature “Nikolai”, depicted in chemical pencil. At the bottom, on the left side, there is a handwritten number “2”, then a typewritten word “Martha”, then a handwritten number “15”, after which there is a typewritten word “hour”. After this there is an erasure, but the handwritten number “3” is clearly visible, then the word “min” follows, and then the typewritten “1917”. Below this is the signature “Minister of the Imperial Household, Adjutant General Fredericks.” Fredericks' signature depicted written from a cleaned place» .
The examination of the found “denials” took place under the leadership of P.E. Shchego-lev, the same one who participated in the creation of the fake “diaries” of Vyrubova and Rasputin. Strictly speaking, there is no need to talk about any kind of examination, since the signatures of Emperor Nicholas II and Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich were only verified with the originals. The results of the reconciliation were reported to the commission: “Having verified the signatures on the mentioned two documents with the undisputed signatures “Nicholas II” and “Mikhail”, presented by N.Ya. Kostesheva, from the documents stored in Leningrad in the Center Archive, came to the conclusion that both the first and second documents have original signatures, and therefore are original. Signed: P. Shchegolev."
Erasures in the document, the brand of the typewriter, the correspondence of its font to the 1917 font - nothing interested the commission.
Thus, from the depths of the “academic” case falsified by the Bolsheviks, from the conclusion of the falsifier Shchegolev, a document was born, on the basis of which the opinion that Emperor Nicholas II abdicated the throne was firmly entrenched in the minds of the people.
The order of execution of the Highest Manifestos and the Pskov “Manifesto”
A large number of samples of originals and drafts of manifestos in the archives of Russia allows us to conclude that, mainly under Emperor Nicholas II, draft manifestos were compiled on a typewriter. At the top, even on the project, was a cap with the title of the Emperor: “By the Grace of God We are Nicholas II...” and so on. This was followed by the text, and then there was always the following postscript, which was then also necessarily transferred to the original: “Given in the city of N, on such and such a day, in such and such a month, in the summer of the birth of Christ such and such, in Our reign is such and such.” Next came the following obligatory phrase, which was also then transferred to the original: “On the original, His Imperial Majesty’s Own hand is signed by NICHOLAS.” Moreover, in the project the name of the Sovereign was put by the designer of the manifesto, and in the original, naturally, by the Emperor himself. At the very end of the project, the name of its compiler was obligatory. For example, “the project was drawn up by State Secretary Stolypin.”
The Tsar did not put his signature on the draft manifestos. The name “NIKO-LAI” was written in the project by its compiler, who put his signature at the end. Therefore, if the March “manifesto” was a project, then at the end there should have been an inscription: “The project was compiled by Alekseev,” or “The project was compiled by Chamberlain Basili.”
The project was approved by Emperor Nicholas II, who put the corresponding resolution on the draft. For example, on the draft manifesto about his marriage to Grand Duchess Alexandra Feodorovna, Nicholas II wrote: “I approve. For publication."
When the project was approved by the Sovereign, they began to compile the original. The text of the original manifesto was necessarily copied by hand. Only in this form did the manifesto receive legal force. In the office of the Ministry of the Imperial Court there were special scribes who had a special, especially beautiful handwriting. It was called “rondo”, and the persons who owned it were accordingly called “rondists”. Only they were used for copying especially important papers: rescripts, charters and manifestos. Of course, no blots or erasures were allowed in such documents. Examples of the Highest Manifesto are the manifestos on the beginning of the war with Japan in 1904 or on the granting of the State Duma on October 17, 1905.
After the manifesto was copied by the rondists, the Emperor put his signature. The signature was covered with a special varnish. Further, according to Art. 26 of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire: “The decrees and commands of the GOVERNOR EMPEROR, in the order of supreme administration or issued directly by Him, are sealed by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers or the underlying Minister or the Chief Administrator of a separate part and promulgated by the Governing Senate.”
Thus, the manifesto came into legal force at the moment of its promulgation in the Senate. The personal seal of the Emperor was placed on the original manifesto. In addition, the printed version of the manifesto included the date and place where the manifesto was printed. For example, in the printed version of the manifesto of Emperor Nicholas II on his accession to the throne it is written: “Printed in St. Petersburg under the Senate on October 22, 1894.”
The “Manifesto” of renunciation was typed, not written by a rondist. Here one can anticipate the objection that it was impossible to find a rondist in Pskov. However, it is not. The retinue carriage, headed by K.A., always accompanied the Sovereign. Naryshkin. It is impossible to imagine that during the Sovereign’s trips to Headquarters during the war, in this retinue carriage there were not those who could compile, according to all the rules, the Highest Manifesto or the Imperial Decree - it is impossible! Especially during the troubled times of late 1916 - early 1917. Everything was there: the necessary forms and the necessary clerks.
But even if we assume that there was no rondist in Pskov on March 2, the Emperor himself had to write the text by hand, so that no one would doubt that he was really abdicating the throne.
But let us again assume that the Emperor decided to sign the typewritten text. Why didn’t those who printed this text put the obligatory postscript at the end: “Given in the city of Pskov, on the 2nd day of March, in the year after the Nativity of Christ One Thousand Nineteen Hundred and Seventeen, in Our Twenty-third Reign. On the genuine His Imperial Majesty’s Own hand signed NICHOLAS”? Drawing this postscript would take a few seconds, but at the same time the formality required by law for drawing up the most important state document would be observed. This formality would emphasize that the manifesto was signed by Emperor Nicholas II, and not by the unknown “Nicholas”.
Instead, in the “manifesto” there appear completely unusual designations: “G. Pskov, March 2, 15.00. 5 minutes. 1917." There are no such designations in any manifesto or its draft.
What prevented the drafters of the “manifesto” from observing this simple but so important formality? What prevented the Emperor, a most experienced politician, from forcing this formality to be included in the “manifesto”?
"Bid. To the Chief of Staff. In the days of the great struggle with an external enemy, who had been striving to enslave our homeland for almost three years, the Lord God was pleased to send Russia a new and difficult test. The outbreak of internal popular unrest threatens to have a disastrous effect on the further conduct of the stubborn war.
The fate of Russia, the honor of our heroic army, the good of the people, the entire future of our dear Fatherland require bringing the war to a victorious end at all costs. The cruel enemy is straining his last strength, and the hour is already approaching when our valiant army, together with our glorious allies, will be able to finally break the enemy. In these decisive days in the life of Russia, WE considered it a duty of conscience to facilitate for OUR people the close unity and rallying of all the forces of the people for the speedy achievement of victory and, in agreement with the State Duma, WE recognized it as good to renounce the Throne of the Russian State and lay down the Supreme Power . Not wanting to part with OUR beloved Son, WE pass on our legacy to OUR Brother Grand Duke MIKHAIL ALEXANDROVICH and bless HIM for his accession to the Throne of the Russian State. We command OUR Brother to rule over state affairs in complete and inviolable unity with the representatives of the people in legislative institutions, on those principles that will be established by them, having taken an inviolable oath to that effect. In the name of our beloved homeland, we call on all the faithful sons of the Fatherland to fulfill their duty to him by obedience to the Tsar in difficult times of national trials and to help HIM, together with the representatives of the people, lead the Russian State onto the path of victory, prosperity and strength. May the Lord God help Russia. G. Pskov, March 2, 15 o'clock. 5 minutes. 1917" .
We see that the text of this manifesto is an almost complete repetition of the draft manifesto on the responsible ministry and the draft manifesto on the abdication in favor of the Heir Alexei Nikolaevich, with the difference that the name of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich is introduced into this text.
Thus, we know the authors of the text of the manifesto: they were General Alekseev, Basili and Grand Duke Sergei Mikhailovich. The date of its original writing was March 1, 1917, the day on which the draft manifesto for a responsible ministry was drawn up. The day of his first edit was the night of March 2, when the renunciation manifesto was drawn up. But when and by whom was the third version of this manifesto drawn up, which transferred the throne to Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich?
In our opinion, on the basis of this text, a false manifesto was prepared in Petrograd, and the signature of Emperor Nicholas II and Count Fredericks was forged. Next, space was left for the date and time, which were entered later.
It was inconvenient to make such a forgery at Headquarters: it was necessary to look for samples of the signature of the Sovereign and Fredericks, and carry out long, painstaking work. It should be noted that the riots and pogroms in those February days in Petrograd were strictly controlled. They smashed only the one whom the conspirators needed to smash, and arrested only the one who was profitable to arrest. Thus, the counterintelligence department, the premises of the State Housing Administration, and police stations were destroyed, but the military command institutions, in particular the General Staff, were completely untouched.
Meanwhile, long before the coup, Guchkov’s entourage included a large number of officers and even generals of the General Staff. Naturally, during the days of the February Revolution, these connections were fully utilized by Guchkov. According to the recollections of many eyewitnesses, Guchkov was literally surrounded by General Staff officers. Apparently, these officers played an important role in maintaining Guchkov’s connection with Headquarters and the headquarters of the Northern Front. Among his closest supporters was Lieutenant General of the General Staff D.V. Filatiev. After the February Revolution, he became an assistant to Minister of War Guchkov.
Under the conditions of the General Staff, producing a false manifesto was not such a difficult task. Like any highest military body, the Russian General Staff had its own code-breakers and code-breakers, and had specialists in identifying forged handwritings, as well as in forging documents.
The special role that General Staff officers played in Operation Abdication is indicated by a conversation over a direct wire between the staff officer for assignments at the headquarters of the Commander-in-Chief of the armies of the Northern Front, V.V. Stupin and Lieutenant Colonel of the General Staff at Headquarters B.N. Sergeevsky, which occurred at 11 p.m. March 2, 1917 At this time, Guchkov and Shulgin had already arrived in Pskov. In the conversation, Stupin informs Sergeevsky that Alekseev is sending him to look for Adjutant General Ivanov in the outskirts of Petrograd. Stupin expresses his misunderstanding of this task. He goes on to say: “The expected resolution of all issues will begin any minute now. Is my trip necessary under these conditions? I’m asking about this privately and asking you to inquire with the heads of the operations department about the need for me to leave Pskov, especially since with the current work here it is undesirable to lose an officer of the General Staff.”
In this regard, the title with which the text of the manifesto begins is very interesting: “Bet. To the Chief of Staff." It is usually believed that General Alekseev is meant. However, when Guchkov left the Imperial carriage, at about 1 am on March 3 he sent the following telegram to Petrograd: “Petrograd. To the Chief of the General Staff. Encrypted by Colonel Mediocritsky. We ask you to convey to the Chairman of the Duma Rodzianko: “The Emperor agreed to abdicate the throne in favor of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich with the obligation for him to take the oath to the constitution.”
So, the addressee appears again: “Chief of Staff.” It is clear that this is not about Alekseev. The latter was usually called “Nashtaverh” in telegrams and official documents.
We can find numerous examples of this in telegraph correspondence during the German war and in the correspondence of February-March 1917. In a telegram from General Danilov to General Klembovsky dated March 1, 1917: “Glavkosev asks to orient him urgently, where is Nashtaverkh from.. ." etc.; in a telegram from General Lukomsky to General Danilov dated March 2, 1917: “Nashtaverh asks to ask for the Highest instruction...”; in a telegram from General Boldyrev to General Lukomsky: “the chief of staff instructed me to report to the top....”
However, the Sovereign, in his personally written telegrams, addressed Alekseev as follows: “To the Chief of Staff of the Supreme High Command. Bid" .
At the same time, the text of the telegram was written by the Sovereign on a telegraph quarter (it was on this that, according to Shulgin, the text of the “manifesto” about renunciation was printed). The place of departure, date, time and surname of the officer who sent the telegram were indicated at the top. Moreover, the words “To the Chief of Staff V.G.” “quarters” were written on the left, and the word “Stavka” was written on the right. The Emperor's handwriting was covered with a special varnish.
Therefore, it is obvious that the telegram about the “manifesto” was sent to some other person, and not to General M.V. Alekseev.
This title of the “manifesto” (“To the Chief of Staff”) has always worried many researchers who did not understand and do not understand why Emperor Nicholas II suddenly sent the most important act of the Reign to General M.V. Alekseev? In fact, this headline is the most important evidence of the fabrication of the renunciation manifesto. And A.I. himself was the first to let it slip. Guchkov during the interrogation of the VCHSK in the summer of 1917. Commission member Ivanov, interrogating Guchkov, asked: “How can one explain that the abdication was addressed, it seems, to the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief?” To which Guchkov replied: “No, the act of renunciation was nameless. But when this act was encrypted, it was supposed to be sent to the following addresses: to the address of the Chairman of the State Duma Rodzianko, and then to the addresses of the commanders-in-chief of the fronts for promulgation among the troops.” Ivanov asks Guchkov again: “So you got it in your hands without asking”? Guchkov replies: “No appeal.”
These answers give Guchkov away completely. Firstly, he does not say a word that he sent the encrypted manifesto to the Chief of the General Staff in Petrograd, and not directly to the Chairman of the State Duma. And secondly, and this is the main thing, Guchkov’s denial of the heading “To the Chief of Staff” on the manifesto means that he, Guchkov, did not even see this manifesto! Since this heading is not on the encrypted text of the telegram, but on the “original” of the manifesto, under which is the “personal” signature of the Sovereign! A few years later, another “eyewitness”, Yu.V. Lomonosov will describe how he saw the manifesto for the first time on the morning of March 3, when Guchkov “brought” it to Petrograd: “everyone’s eyes fixed on the piece of paper I placed on the table. "Bid. To the Chief of Staff."
Special mention should be made about this addressee - “Chief of the General Staff” (in other versions - Chief of Staff, Chief of the General Staff). His name appears frequently in revolutionary and Masonic correspondence of the early twentieth century.
And by this name we mean, of course, not the real current Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Army.
For example, on May 20, 1914, the security department intercepted a strange letter from Lausanne from one of the leaders of the revolutionary movement. The letter was sent to the All-Russian Higher General base, His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief." This letter, written to a like-minded person, described in detail the coming revolution in Russia. It ended with the following words: “As for your Emperor, his exile will be assured.”
So, Guchkov sends a notice of the abdication of the Sovereign to the Chief of the General Staff in Petrograd and at the same time reports that the encrypted text of the manifesto is sent immediately to the same Chief of the General Staff. At the same time, nothing is sent to Alekseev!
Alekseev, in a conversation with Rodzianko on March 3, said that “This Manifesto was telegraphed to me from Pskov at about two o’clock in the morning.”
However, there is no indication that M.V. Alekseev received the text of the manifesto about abdication in favor of Mikhail Alexandrovich. For until March 4, the commanders-in-chief did not know the contents of this text, although, according to Alekseev, he managed to send it to some of them.
Most likely, Alekseev only knew what A.I. reported. Guchkov: “The Emperor agreed to abdicate the throne in favor of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich.”
(To be continued)
The title of Chapter 7 was given by the publisher (see the commentary for this chapter for more details).
Zhevakhov N.D. Memories. T. 2. pp. 432-433.
Arseny, bishop. Memories. M., 1995.
Rules like those of our Holy Father Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. Canonical message to Domnus, Patriarch of Antioch // Book of the Rules of the Holy Apostles, Holy Councils of the Ecumenical and Local, and the Holy Fathers. Holy Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 1992. P. 392.
GARF. F. 601. Op. 1. D. 2100-a. L. 11.
GARF. F. 601. Op. 1 (extra). D. 2101-a. L. 5.
L. 27.
RGVIA. F. 2003. Op. 1. D. 1753 (1).
RGVIA. F. 2003. Op. 1. D. 1753 (1).
RGVIA. F. 2003. Op. 1. D. 1826. (Nicholas II’s own telegrams to Headquarters. 1915).
The fall of the tsarist regime. L., 1926. T. 6. P. 270.
GARF. F. 102 DP OO. 1905. Part 12.2 (2). L. 206.
RGVIA. F. 2003. Op. 1 (extra). D. 1754.
The Tsarist period of our history has been slandered no less than the Soviet period. Recently I... As we can see, people under tsarist rule did not live at all the way they imagine it to us. The same thing applies to the “abdication” of the king from the throne. I bring to your attention a detailed analysis that proves that it actually did not exist. This fact immediately changes the idea of Nicholas II as a traitor and a rag. This man remained faithful to Russia to the end and accepted martyrdom for her sake.
Andrey Razumov. Emperor's signature
A few comments on the “Manifesto on the abdication of Nicholas II”
The official version of the abdication is spelled out in detail. Numerous memoirs of eyewitnesses, the smoke of newspaper reports and the meager lines of the Emperor's diary - fragments of a mosaic formed the overall picture; the testimony of the Duma conspirators was intertwined in a bizarre pattern with the testimony of the Suite conspirators. According to their generalized version, on February 28, the Tsar left Headquarters for Tsarskoe Selo, but was stopped on his way by reports of unrest in Lyuban and Tosno. Having turned the trains around, the Emperor ordered them to bypass the rioting section through the station. Dno and Pskov to Tsarskoe. But in Pskov, Nicholas II was given telegrams from the commanders with pleas for renunciation, after which the Tsar renounced, signing two corresponding manifestos.
This is the official version. The ends of the intrigue are hidden securely, the facts of betrayal are carefully obscured. It’s as if there was no perjury at all - after all, the Emperor himself abdicated.
However, the fact of the conspiracy is not particularly hidden even by its participants. But what was the conspiracy, if there is a signed renunciation, if power, voluntarily or forced, but OWNLY was transferred to the conspirators? I will try to find an answer to this question.
Unfortunately, one cannot count on the help of people faithful to the Tsar - among the eyewitnesses around Him there were no faithful to the Tsar. “There is treason and cowardice and deceit all around!” It's nothing. We will be helped by “eyewitnesses” of a different kind, who were silent for a long time among the people who lied to us, and who brought to us their secrets and betrayals. These are sheets of copies of the “renunciation” that have turned yellow in the archives.
Here they are: 
Let's take a closer look at these papers. A leisurely analysis of them will tell an inquisitive person a lot. For example, all researchers are struck by the fact that the Sovereign’s signatures were made in pencil. Surprised historians write that during the 23 years of his reign, this was the only time the Emperor put a pencil signature on a document. Fully sharing their surprise, let us step a little further and check the authenticity of the signatures of the Tsar and Fredericks, evaluate the structure of the text of the “renunciation” and identify its authors, count the letters in the text and clarify the number of known copies of the “renunciations”.
Who composed the Tsar’s “renunciation”?
The Emperor himself. So, at least, it follows from the testimony. According to them, the Emperor was offered “outlines” of renunciations, which He did not use.
This is exactly what eyewitness Shulgin writes: “The Emperor answered. After the excited words of A.I. (Guchkova - R.) His voice sounded calm, simple and precise. Only the accent was a little foreign - guards: - I decided to abdicate the throne... The Emperor stood up... Everyone stood up... Guchkov handed the Emperor a “sketch” (abdication - R.). The Emperor took it and left. After some time, the Emperor entered again. He handed Guchkov the paper, saying: “Here is the text... It was two or three quarters - the kind that were obviously used at Headquarters for telegraph forms.” But the text was written on a typewriter. The text was written by those amazing words, who now know everything... How pitiful the sketch we brought seemed to me. The Emperor brought it too and put it on the table. There was nothing to add to the text of the renunciation...” Shulgin V.V. "Days". (All ellipses are the author's. R.)
Another witness echoes him: “The description of the meeting of Guchkov and Shulgin with the Emperor on March 2, made by Shulgin, shortly after the deputies returned to Petrograd, was compiled quite correctly.” (Gen. D.N. DUBENSKY. “How the revolution took place in Russia.”)
The third witness, Colonel Mordvinov, although he refused, in his own words, to participate in the meeting of the Tsar with the Duma members, for some reason also began to ardently assure us of the veracity of Shulgin’s story: “Shulgin’s story, published in newspapers, which I subsequently read, is a lot resumed in my memory. With a few exceptions (Shulgin is silent about the certificate in the basic laws), he is generally correct and truthfully paints a picture of the reception of members of the Duma.” (Col. A. A. MORDVINOV. “The Last Days of the Emperor.”)
Let's take his word for it. It's my own fault - they didn't pull their tongue.
Let me summarize. Thus, the Emperor, according to the testimony of three witnesses, having familiarized himself with the “outline” of the renunciation kindly prepared for Him by Guchkov and Shulgin, rejected it as “pathetic” and, going out somewhere, composed his own version. Who typed with his own hand or dictated to an unknown typist “in those amazing words that everyone now knows.” Then he went out and signed. That's what the witnesses say.
Now let's look at the documents.
Telegram from Adjutant General Alekseev to the Tsar, No. 1865, dated March 1, 1917. According to the Soviet historian Shchegolev, reported to Nicholas II by General Ruzsky on March 1/14 in Pskov at 11 p.m.
“To His Imperial Majesty. The ever-growing danger of the spread of anarchy throughout the country, the further disintegration of the army and the impossibility of continuing the war in the current situation urgently requires the immediate issuance of the highest act that can still calm minds, which is only possible by recognizing the responsible ministry and entrusting its drafting to the Chairman of the State Duma.
Incoming information gives reason to hope that the Duma leaders, led by Rodzianko, can still stop the general collapse and that work can begin with them, but the loss of every hour reduces the last chances of preserving and restoring order and contributes to the seizure of power by extreme left-wing elements. In view of this, I earnestly beg your Imperial Majesty to deign to immediately publish the following manifesto from headquarters:
“We announce to all our faithful subjects: Grozny and the cruel enemy is straining his last strength to fight our homeland. The decisive hour is near. The fate of Russia, the honor of our heroic army, the well-being of the people, the entire future of our dear fatherland requires bringing the war to a victorious end at all costs. Striving harder rally all the people's forces to achieve victory as quickly as possible, I recognized the need to hold accountable representatives of the people ministry, entrusting its formation to the Chairman of the State Duma, Rodzianko, from persons enjoying the confidence of all of Russia. I hope that everything faithful sons of Russia, closely united around the throne and popular representation, together they will help the valiant army complete its great feat. In the name of our beloved homeland, I call on all Russian people to fulfill their sacred duty to it, in order to demonstrate again that Russia is as indestructible as always, and that no machinations of enemies will defeat it. May God help us." 1865. Adjutant General Alekseev. March 1, 1917"
Let’s compare the text of Alekseev’s telegram, reported to the Tsar on the first of March, and the text of the “renunciation”, independently invented by the Tsar on the second of March. I have highlighted the matches between the two texts in red.
Headquarters for the Chief of Staff. During the days of the great struggle with an external enemy, who had been striving to enslave our Motherland for almost three years, the Lord God was pleased to send Russia a new ordeal. The outbreak of internal popular unrest threatens to have a disastrous effect on the further conduct of the stubborn war. The fate of Russia, the honor of our heroic army, the good of the people, the entire future of our dear Fatherland demand that the war be brought to a victorious end at all costs. The cruel enemy is straining his last strength, and already the hour is near when our valiant army, together with our glorious allies, will be able to finally crush the enemy. In these decisive days in the life of Russia, we considered it a duty of conscience to make it easier for our people close unity and rallying of all people's forces to achieve victory as quickly as possible and in agreement with the State Duma, we recognized it as good to abdicate the throne of the Russian state and relinquish supreme power. Not wanting to part with our beloved son, we pass on our legacy to our brother Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich and bless him to ascend the throne of the Russian state. We command our brother to rule over state affairs in complete and inviolable unity with the representatives of the people in legislative institutions on those principles that will be established by them, taking an inviolable oath to that effect. In the name of our beloved Motherland, we call on all the faithful sons of the Fatherland to fulfill their holy duty to him by obedience to the Tsar in difficult times of national trials and to help him along with representatives of the people lead the Russian state onto the path of victory, prosperity and glory. May the Lord God help Russia. Nikolai.
I can imagine how, not having found his own words for such an insignificant document - the abdication of the Throne - the Emperor selectively, but painstakingly, slightly changing other people's letters, words and expressions, carefully rewrote the text of Alekseev's telegram. Oh yes, I almost forgot. Reprints, of course. Although, perhaps, not himself either. We should have covered our tracks more carefully, gentlemen, conspirators. Such telegrams immediately sting. And telegraph operators are hanged. But who then composed the text of the “renunciation”?
Who prepared the text of the telegram of Adjutant General Alekseev to the Tsar, No. 1865, dated March 1, 1917? Let's turn to the memoirs of eyewitnesses.
“During this period of time, a draft Manifesto was received from Mogilev from General Alekseev, in case the Emperor decided to abdicate in favor of Tsarevich Alexy. The draft of this Manifesto, as far as I know, was drawn up by the Director of the Diplomatic Chancellery under the Supreme Commander-in-Chief N.A. Basili, according to the general instructions of General Alekseev." (Yu. N. Danilov. My memories of Emperor Nicholas II and Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich .)
“A manifesto was drawn up at Headquarters, which was to be published. This manifesto was developed at Headquarters and its author was the master of ceremonies of the highest court, the director of the political office under the Supreme Commander Basili, and this act was edited by Adjutant General Alekseev. When we returned a day later to Mogilev, they told me that Basili, having come to the headquarters dining room on the morning of March 2, said that he had not slept all night and worked, drawing up a manifesto on the abdication of the Throne of Emperor Nicholas II on the instructions of General Alekseev. And when it was pointed out to him (Colonel Nemchenko relayed this to me in Rome on May 7, 1920) that this was too serious a historical act to be drawn up so hastily, Basili replied that there was no time to hesitate and to consult there was no one with him and that at night he had to go several times from his office to General Alekseev, who finally established the text of the manifesto and handed it over to Adjutant General Ruzsky in Pskov for presentation to the Sovereign Emperor.” (Gen. D.N. DUBENSKY. How the revolution took place in Russia.)
Regiment. A. A. Mordvinov: “In the draft manifesto, somehow proactively received from Headquarters and compiled, as I later learned, on the instructions of General Alekseev, Lukomsky and Basili, some changes were required.”
“Upon receipt of the above telegram from the Northern Headquarters. French,” recalls Lieutenant Colonel Pronin, “Gen. Lukomsky hastily invited Mr. Basili; After some time, a draft manifesto on the Emperor’s abdication of the Throne in favor of the Son was drawn up and transferred to Pskov” (Sergei Fomin. Abdication.)
“Obviously, the manifesto was beautiful if it made such an impression on the listeners, but only the main text of it was not touched by the hand of the Monarch. The text of the manifesto was compiled at Headquarters, on the instructions of Alekseev, by Chamberlain Basili with the direct participation of the chief of staff himself and Lukomsky and was sent to the Tsar at 7:40 am in case the Tsar “deigns to make a decision.” History played a bit of a joke on the memoirist, who too deliberately and immoderately exposed his monarchist feelings. The manifesto made a completely different impression on General Selivachev at the front. On March 3, he wrote in his diary: “From the style of the manifesto, it is absolutely clear that it was dictated to the Emperor from the first to the last word.” The data we have presented essentially leaves no room for doubt. Only familiarization with the original, which is inaccessible to us, could resolve the issue unconditionally.” (S.P. Melgunov - March days of 1917.)
“General Alekseev instructed General Lukomsky and the master of ceremonies N.A. Basili to draw up a draft manifesto on abdication and handed it over to Danilov at 17:40 with a telegram: “I am communicating the draft of the drafted manifesto in case the Sovereign Emperor deigned to make a decision and approve stated manifesto. 2nd of March. 1896. Adjutant General Alekseev.” Such was the energy and thoughtfulness of Headquarters in the matter of the abdication of the Sovereign Emperor.” (A.I. Spiridovich - Great War and the February Revolution of 1914 -1917)
“Late in the evening of March 1/14, General Ruzsky sent a telegram that the Sovereign ordered the drafting of a manifesto on the abdication of the throne in favor of the Heir with the appointment of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich as regent. The Emperor ordered the draft manifesto to be transmitted via direct wire to General Ruzsky. I reported to General Alekseev about the order received, and he instructed me, together with the head of the diplomatic unit at Headquarters, Mr. Basili, to urgently draw up a draft manifesto. I called Mr. Basili, and he and I, armed with the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire, began to draw up a draft manifesto. Then the draft was reported to General Alekseev and transferred via direct wire to General Ruzsky.” (A. Lukomsky. Memoirs in 2 volumes (ed. "Kirchner". Berlin. 1922).
Summarizing the memoirs, we can conclude that the text of the “renunciation” was written by Lieutenant General Alexander Sergeevich Lukomsky and an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, head of the diplomatic mission. Headquarters office Nikolai Aleksandrovich Basili, under the general editorship of Chief of Staff Alekseev
2. Structure of the text of “renunciation”. Two or three quarters.
According to eyewitness Shulgin, the original was typewritten: “They were two or three quarters - the kind that were apparently used at Headquarters for telegraph forms.” The signature was made in pencil. Shulgin's message is very interesting, but raises a number of questions. For example, the question immediately arises: how did the Emperor sign this amazing original of several telegraph quarters - each sheet separately, or did he put one common signature at the end? How was the information placed on these quarters? The original “renunciation” from GARF does not give us an answer to these questions. Contrary to the statements of Shulgin, Mordvinova and gen. Danilov, it does not consist of telegraph forms, but is reprinted from them onto a new sheet. The addressee has also been preserved: “Headquarters to the Chief of Staff.”
Let’s try to place the text of the “renunciation” on three Shulgin quarters ourselves. Since the text in the original is printed without paragraphs, first we will divide the “renunciation” into semantic blocks:
1st quarter: 13 lines with a header.
Headquarters. To the Chief of Staff. During the days of the great struggle with an external enemy, who had been striving to enslave our Motherland for almost three years, the Lord God was pleased to send Russia a new ordeal. The outbreak of internal popular unrest threatens to have a disastrous effect on the further conduct of the stubborn war. The fate of Russia, the honor of our heroic army, the good of the people, the entire future of our dear Fatherland demand that the war be brought to a victorious end at all costs. The cruel enemy is straining his last strength, and the hour is already approaching when our valiant army, together with our glorious allies, will be able to finally break the enemy.”
2nd quarter: 13 lines.
“In these decisive days in the life of Russia, WE considered it a duty of conscience to facilitate for OUR people the close unity and rallying of all the people’s forces for the speedy achievement of victory and, in agreement with the State Duma, WE recognized it as good to renounce the Throne of the Russian State and lay down the Supreme Power. Not wanting to part with OUR beloved Son, WE pass on our legacy to OUR Brother Grand Duke MIKHAIL ALEXANDROVICH and bless Him for his accession to the Throne of the Russian State. We command OUR Brother to rule over state affairs in complete and inviolable unity with the representatives of the people in legislative institutions on those principles that will be established by them, taking an inviolable oath to that effect.”
3rd quarter: ending, signatures, 7 lines.
“In the name of our beloved Motherland, we call on all the faithful sons of the Fatherland to fulfill their sacred duty to him by obedience to the Tsar in difficult times of national trials and to help him, together with the representatives of the people, lead the Russian state onto the path of victory, prosperity and glory. May the Lord God help Russia.”
As a result of this breakdown of the text, two conclusions can be drawn.
1. The first and third parts are homogeneous in meaning and form the basis of the Tsar’s order “to faithful sons Fatherland to obedience to the Sovereign” in difficult times of trial.
2. The middle part of the “renunciation” is contained in three sentences (!), which are actually the renunciation. Without entering into an obvious contradiction with the content of the first and third parts, it nevertheless does not have an obvious semantic connection with them.
It is quite possible that Shulgin’s hesitation around “two or three quarters” has a deeper meaning than is commonly believed. According to general practice, the signature is placed at the end of the telegram. Isn't the middle part of the "renunciation" a later investment?
If everything happened exactly as eyewitnesses describe, and the Tsar signed the “renunciation” in the form of a general telegram consisting of several forms at the end of the document, the conspirators could delete one of the forms or insert a new telegraph sheet with changed text there.
If this assumption is correct, the middle part of the “renunciation” should fit perfectly on a standard telegraph form. Not having at hand the originals of the telegram signed by the Sovereign, let us compare the size of the middle part of the “renunciation” with the telegram forms of those days at our disposal.
3. The middle part of the “renunciation”. "Headquarters for the Chief of Staff."
Let's take a standard telegram form and count all the characters on it, including spaces, commas and periods:
Telegram from M.V. Alekseev to Emperor Nicholas II about the progress of the uprising in Moscow. Received at Headquarters on March 1, 1917. Civil Aviation of the Russian Federation. F.601. Op.1. D.2094
Let's compare...
In these decisive days in the life of Russia, WE considered it a duty of conscience to facilitate for OUR people the close unity and consolidation of all national forces for the speedy achievement of victory and, in agreement with the State Duma, WE recognized it as good to abdicate the throne of the Russian state and lay down the supreme power. Not wanting to part with OUR beloved Son, WE pass on OUR legacy to OUR brother Grand Duke MIKHAIL ALEXANDROVICH and bless Him for his accession to the Throne of the Russian State. We command OUR Brother to rule over state affairs in complete and inviolable unity with the representatives of the people in legislative institutions on the principles that will be established by them, having taken an inviolable oath.
728 characters. We got an absolute match in the number of characters. Thus, all our assumptions have a strict justification. As you can see, the middle part of the “renunciation” has the exact size of a telegraph form, or the “quarter” described above. Thanks to Shulgin for the tip. Whether he left us this milestone, a sign, by accident, or whether in his irrepressible talkativeness he decided to remind the conspirators at headquarters and the Retinue about the striking episode of the coup they carried out, it does not matter now.
Something else is important. If you remove the three sentences that contain “renunciation” (!!!), everything falls into place. This means that the conspirators considered the option of investing—replacing or “stuffing”—an extra “quarter” into the Tsar’s call “to the faithful sons of the Fatherland to obey the Sovereign,” that is, the usual forgery, with the subsequent neutralization of Nicholas II.
Then, to simplify matters, a generalized version of “three quarters” was used, to which the usurpers instead of the words: “Headquarters to the Chief of Staff.” involuntarily I had to stick on a hat: “Manifesto. We, by the Grace of God, Nicholas II...”, as was actually accepted in the Imperial manifestos.
In this case, it is unclear how the Sovereign’s signatures ended up on the common sheet, if the conspirators themselves claim that Nicholas II signed the “renunciation” printed on telegraph forms. It will be all the more interesting to carefully study these signatures. Let's look at them carefully.
4. Signatures of Nicholas II.
Here are the signatures that appear under the “renunciations.”
First copy renunciation. 15:00 March 2, 1917. 
Second copy renunciation. 15 hours 05 minutes March 2, 1917.
Let's try to put them on top of each other. 
When applying the signatures, a very characteristic feature emerged - two autographs from two different sheets of “renunciation” absolutely coincided.
There may be the following explanations for this. It can be assumed that over the years of his reign, the Sovereign either developed an exceptionally stable signature with uniquely similar strokes, or the signatures were applied by someone else as a carbon copy, or through glass. As stated earlier, the “Sovereign’s signatures” were made in pencil. This fact, in the context of what has been said, explains a lot and no longer causes the surprise that researchers experience when looking at the only pencil signature of the Tsar in history on a state document.
To check both versions of the signatures, let us turn to other known signatures of the Sovereign, the belonging of which to the hand of the Monarch is beyond doubt.
5. Signatures of the Tsar: ending.
To identify the signatures of the Tsar, we will use two documents available to us with known dating. These are:
1. “Order of Nicholas II for the army and navy on assuming the responsibilities of Commander-in-Chief” dated August 23, 1915
The signature from the “Order of Nicholas II on the Army and Navy on Assuming the Duties of Commander-in-Chief” dated August 23, 1915 looks like this: 
Autograph of Nicholas II dated February 9, 1916. 
Let's try to combine them. 
When comparing the signatures, we see that, with the exception of the strokes, they are generally the same. However, there is no need to talk about the unique stability of strokes. It remains to check whether the signatures on the “renunciations” correspond to the real signatures of the Tsar.
The real signature of the Tsar from the “Order for the Army...” is superimposed on the real signature of the Tsar from the Autograph and on two signatures from the “renunciations”. Judge for yourself. 
6. The third script of the “renunciation”.
How many times have we been told that the “renunciation” was signed in TWO copies! How many liars-eyewitnesses wrote their memoirs, explaining why such a number of “denials” were made! The third authentic copy of the “renunciation”, published earlier than the first two, looks like this: 
A facsimile of this “renunciation” was published in 1919 in New York by Mr. Lomonosov, Bublikov’s assistant, in the book of memoirs “Memoirs of the Russian Revolution”, on page 54. Make sure that this is the third copy and not a copy from the first two, easily, by comparing the “signatures of the Sovereign”. You can even see by eye that they are different. The latter has pronounced differences from the first two.
So, a third script appeared, completely unknown to anyone. It is absolutely impossible to explain his appearance within the framework of the official version of the renunciation. And nothing can be done about it.
7. Fredericks' signature.
“All those present, with the exception of the elderly gr. Fredericks, described the situation in which the formal abdication of the reigning Monarch took place.” (S. P. Melgunov March Days of 1917.)
“A document-note is read out, on which Fredericks’ hand is marked: received from Sukhomlinov on February 17, 16.
Fredericks: ...I can tell you that the similarity is similar to my handwriting. But for me to write such a thing, I can swear that I would not do it. I would swear I didn't write this, but I can't swear.
Investigator: Does it just look like your handwriting or is it your handwriting?
Fredericks: I say: it looks like I didn’t write it. I could swear I didn't write.
Investigator: Are you ready to swear that you didn’t write?
Fredericks: And there is an unconditional similarity.”
Interrogation of Fredericks on June 2, 1917 (S. P. Melgunov. The fate of Emperor Nicholas II after abdication.)
Finishing the analysis of the appearance of the “renunciations”, it is necessary to dwell on the last signature in these documents - the attesting (countersigning) signature of Fredericks. The inscription reads: "Minister of the Imperial Household Adjutant General Count Fredericks"
I was surprised by the similarity of the countersignature inscriptions of Count Fredericks on all three “renunciations”, and I superimposed the three inscriptions on each other. Moreover, he did not superimpose word upon word, but superimposed the ENTIRE INSCRIPTION, ALL SEVEN WORDS AT ONCE, in two lines, with spaces, intervals and strokes. Three autographs on three different documents matched to the letter. Judge for yourself.
There is no difference not even between the letters, but BETWEEN THE POSITION OF ALL SEVEN WORDS IN ALL THREE DOCUMENTS. It is impossible to achieve such an effect without copying on glass. It is characteristic that on all three documents in the words: “15 o’clock.” - the numbers “5” are different. They were indeed listed separately. That is, these are really different papers. I made and left the zigzags connecting the red words on purpose: with their help I overlaid the text not by words, but as a whole. An absolute coincidence in the handwriting of seven words in three documents is impossible.
This is what an eyewitness lies about this: “These manifestos were finally rewritten at about one in the morning, how they were brought from the Sovereign in the compartment to Count Fredericks and with what despair the poor old man, coping with difficulty, signed them with a trembling hand for a very long time.” (Col. A. A. Mordvinov. Abdication of Nicholas II. P. 119.)
Let’s compare with the description of the “renunciation” document made by specialists of the Civil Aviation of the Russian Federation: “in the lower left corner there is a certification inscription in black ink over a pencil by V.B. Fredericks: Minister of the Imperial Household, General Adjutant Count Fredericks."
“In black ink over a pencil”... Yes, yes, this is exactly how I always imagined the certification of the Tsar’s documents. Poor old Fredericks, in despair, certifies the three “renunciations” in pencil, and then, with horror, apparently realizing what he has done, with a trembling hand, he traces the certifying signatures with a pen.
OK. Stop joking. They've been making fun of us for too long.
So, Fredericks' three signatures are copies of the same signature, made from some fourth document. What kind of document this is, where it is now and whether it is alive at all remains to be found out. All these are little things and technical details. The main thing is that Fredericks’ signatures on the “renunciations” are cheaply forged copies. This has been proven.
That's it, my friends. Their game is over.
8. Conclusions.
1. The text of the renunciation was not compiled by the Emperor. The draft of the abdication was written and sent to Pskov from Headquarters on March 1 in the form of a telegram from Alekseev, Lukomsky and Basili, and then someone modified it to a combination of words familiar to us.
2. The text of the renunciation was not handwritten by the Emperor. All known copies of the renunciation were typewritten. Shulgin, Mordvinov and Gen. talk about this. Danilov. Head of the Field Office, Gen. Naryshkin writes more slyly in the “protocol of abdication”: the Sovereign ordered “to rewrite it,” which, however, also indicates that the text of the abdication was not written down by the Sovereign personally.
3. Three eyewitnesses: Mordvinov, Shulgin and Danilov, directly indicate that the text was printed on telegraph forms, despite the fact that the military campaign office of the Sovereign kept any forms, including, of course, the forms of the Tsar’s Manifestos. At the same time, Danilov writes about TWO telegraph forms, and Shulgin writes about three.
4. From the text of the renunciation it is clear that it was composed in a special way: according to the meaning and number of lines, it is divided into three paragraphs, or “three quarters”, described by Shulgin. The middle part of the “renunciation”, in terms of the number of characters, absolutely coincides with the size of the telegraph form. This means that the conspirators envisaged the option of forgery: “stuffing” or replacing the middle quarter in the telegram signed by the Sovereign, with the subsequent neutralization of Sovereign Nicholas II.
5. The signatures on the renunciations (or abdication?) of the Sovereign from the Throne stored in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, as well as their facsimiles in the Bolshevik publications known to us, are forged.
6. According to the description of the abdication document by the State Archives of the Russian Federation, the certification (countersigning) inscription of the Minister of the Imperial Household, Count Fredericks, on the abdication was also made in pencil and then circled with a pen. The original signature of Fredericks is missing on the document of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
The Autocrat All-Russian Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II never composed a renunciation, did not write it by hand and did not sign it. The document was also not certified by Fredericks. Thus, the Sovereign has nothing to do with his own renunciation.
I wanted to write this article after another program about the last Nikolai Romanov Russian Emperor, when he was again accused of softness due to his abdication. Is it really still not clear what kind of action he committed? Only a person with a strong spirit can do this. Yes, now everything has turned upside down, and the actions of rulers and elected representatives of the people look much more natural - to stay in power at any cost, and no moral principles have no power. There are many examples, take today’s Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein, or our State Emergency Committee, or the governments of the USA, France, Great Britain, who at any cost want to implement their plans, without any hesitation, by bombing Yugoslavia and the Middle East. It’s a pity that they didn’t watch our film “White Sun of the Desert,” where Comrade Sukhov said the famous phrase: “The East is a delicate matter.” And they so rudely impose their interests on these countries, living according to the million-year-old principles - “an eye for an eye.” The rulers of these countries will never forgive such interference, even to the point of using nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad promised to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, and the same could happen to Europe. All these heroes are certainly not soft-hearted.
And Nicholas II made this decision precisely to prevent bloodshed and the outbreak of a civil war. There are always people dissatisfied with the authorities and blame them for any problems. There is always an opposition that uses this dissatisfaction to its advantage. And there are always those who are ready to sacrifice their lives for the sovereign. Of course, at one time there was a provocation known as “Bloody Sunday” on January 9, 1905. was a success for the opposition and undermined the power of the sovereign. Later it became clear that priest Gapon, an absolutely immoral person, had long been planning a social action that could shake the foundations and cause unrest in the country.
The Russian people loved their tsar, and therefore the idea of going to him and asking him for “truth and protection” was quite natural, and already in December 1904 it was widely discussed at meetings. At the beginning of January 1905, a strike broke out at the largest enterprise in St. Petersburg, the Putilov plant, caused by the dismissal of several workers. The strike quickly began to spread, and workers from other enterprises began to join it. This event accelerated the course of affairs, and the workers almost unanimously decided to go to the Tsar with a petition. But the workers for the most part were not familiar with the full list of demands; it was compiled by a small “group of commissioners” chaired by Gapon. The workers only knew that they were going to the tsar to ask for “help for the working people.” Meanwhile, along with economic points, the petition contained a number of political demands, some of which affected the fundamentals of government and were openly provocative.
Gapon lied to the authorities, posing as law abiding citizen, lied to people, assuring them that their interests and aspirations were closest to him in the world, lied to God, talking about peace and love, but in his soul worshiping terror and violence. He was a master at acting. The military and police authorities showed their helplessness and, instead of isolating a dozen organizers, relied on the “word of Gapon,” who assured them that the procession would not take place. The Emperor knew nothing about the impending action and was at that moment in Tsarskoye Selo, and the idea of presenting him with a petition in the Winter Palace was obviously impossible. And he was informed about these events at the last moment. Officials finally realized that Gapon was playing a double game and on January 8 decided to send large contingents of troops into the capital and blockade the city center; in the end, thousands of people finally broke through to the Winter Palace. Shooting was opened in different places of the city, and there were numerous casualties. Two days later, signed by the Minister of Internal Affairs P. N. Durnov and the Minister of Finance V. N. Kokotsov, a government message was published stating that during the events of January 9, 96 people were killed and 333 were injured. The enemies of the throne and the Dynasty overestimated the number of victims many times over and spoke (and still write) about “thousands of those killed.” 
Bloody Sunday happened. There were many to blame and many victims. The Tsar, who was in Tsarskoye Selo, learned about what had happened and was bitterly worried. He fired the chief of the St. Petersburg police and the minister of internal affairs. But this satisfied few people. The negative psychological impact of the January 9 event was enormous. Those who dreamed of destruction were the winners. Radicals of all stripes in their merciless political game received such a “trump card” that they could not even dream of.
On the other hand, during the period of abdication, there were many devoted subjects, and the Guards Regiment stood ready, as soon as the command was given. At that time they tried to make him extreme. The Emperor was upset. “What a shame! During the war, when Russia strains all its strength to achieve victory over the damned Teutons, there are people who betray their duty. And what has it come to: soldiers of HIS army are taking part in outrageous anti-government protests, an army preparing for a decisive offensive against the enemy! Of course, it’s difficult for many people right now. It's clear. But the successful end of the war is the sacred duty of every truly Russian. The blessing of the Lord is on our side, and victory is near! And suddenly these outrageous riots. They please only external and internal enemies!”
There was another option. Lieutenant General Ruzsky urged him to accept the following formula: the sovereign reigns, and the government governs. But Nikolai Alexandrovich objected that this formula was incomprehensible to him, that he had to get a different upbringing and be reborn, that he “does not hold on to power, but only cannot make a decision against his conscience and, having abdicated responsibility for the course of affairs before people, cannot abdicate responsibility before God”.
And yet, in order to avoid bloodshed, he took this step. And most importantly, the emperor was guided with your conscience, which is almost absent among the current ones. And certainly none of the real rulers and officials is guided by it. After all, if a person is guided by his conscience, then he has only one choice, but when people are guided by their carnal mind, any action and even a crime can be justified.
And after his renunciation, he showed the highest restraint, self-sacrifice and humility. "Which hard times we are worried! How inexpressibly bitter it is to realize the abnormal situation in which we all find ourselves. He always protected not just autocratic power, but Russia, and where is the confidence that a change of government will give peace and happiness to the people? But God was pleased to send this new test, and we must humbly submit to His holy will! In the name of peace and prosperity, we must agree to the Duma's demand. There are so few faithful, reliable people you can rely on, and no one to ask for advice."
But self-sacrifice is the highest love for humanity. And today, the highest love is manifested by the shameless use of the most advanced technical achievements to destroy all living things.
All situations that people find themselves in are necessary to learn important lessons. And the most important lesson is to learn to make decisions, guided by the voice of your heart, where a particle of God lives, and not by the carnal evil mind, which, alas, is used by all the politicians of our world. After all, a person in whose heart God resides will never allow himself to harm another person.
So who did Nicholas II become when he knew about the death that lay ahead for him and his children? After all, he could have saved his life and fled abroad. He died? No, he did not become a dead man, he became an Ascended Master. “I consciously took upon myself this cross, this crucifixion. The hardest thing was to overcome the resistance of the part of me that tried to save the children at any cost. But I sacrificed my children. Just like Abraham was ready to sacrifice his son. Until the last moment, I hoped that the Lord would take away the hand of fate, if not from me, then from my children. But no. Something terrible happened.
The holy innocents were martyred. And this moment served as a signal for the most evil forces of darkness to crawl out of the corners and rush to power. All the darkness came out. Everything that used to try to maintain decency and hide in the corners came out. It was an orgy of evil spirits. And this bacchanalia continues to this day. I could resist. I could save my family, and we could all stay alive. But what is the point of my life without Russia? I chose the path of giving up the fight. Non-violence. I chose the path of Christ and allowed myself and my entire family to be crucified. I became an Ascended Master, I achieved my ascension. And if my life were to repeat itself again, I would again choose the crucifixion for myself and for my family. You know that Jesus, by his martyrdom, took upon himself the karma of humanity. He suffered for the sins of people. All saints at all times took upon themselves the sins of humanity, part of the planetary karma, in order to lighten the load, and so that humanity could straighten up and look at Heaven.”
Who are today's “living” people? Those in whose hands all power is concentrated in almost all countries, both financial and political, but who do not have God in their hearts. They died long ago, their Higher Self does not work, the connection with it is interrupted. And after the death of the physical body, there will be nothing more to evolve, they will become larvae. So is it worth relying on these living dead flickering on TV screens, who use the limitations of human consciousness to assert their power through the introduction of laws, rules and religious dogmas that are inconvenient for people?
“Stop looking to the West. Stop taking samples that are not only not useful, but also harmful. Very soon the peoples of all globe will listen with surprise and look closely at the changes that are taking place in Russia. Changes in this country will not come from the authorities, not from politicians and economists, changes in this country will come from the hearts of the people, and these changes will be impossible not to notice.” Mother Maria.
And if you see hope in someone, if you see that they have not yet completely dried up, if you still hope for them, then learn not to have any negative feelings against them. They are dead and do not know love. Send them, the president of the country, your love. Pray that their hearts will open so that they will be able to receive Divine wisdom into their hearts.
When writing the article, materials from the book “Nicholas II” by Alexander Bokhanov from the ZhZL series (1997) were used.
Remember that even if you suffer a visible defeat on the physical plane, you win gigantic victories on the subtle plane. You are immortal. And, sacrificing his physical body, you only affirm Life. You affirm the principles of Good and Light on this planet.
IN Lately A number of publications have appeared in which the authors question the fact of Emperor Nicholas II’s abdication of the throne. For example, Andrei Razumov, having made an interesting analysis, came to the conclusion: “The Autocrat of All Russian Sovereign, Emperor Nicholas II, never composed a renunciation, did not write it by hand and did not sign it. The document was also not certified by Fredericks. Thus, the Sovereign has nothing to do with his own abdication.” Peter Multatuli shares the same opinion: “It is absolutely clear that neither from a legal, nor from a moral, nor from a religious point of view there was any abdication of the throne on the part of the Tsar. The events in February-March 1917 were nothing more than the overthrow of Emperor Nicholas II from his ancestral throne; illegal, committed by criminal means, against the will and desire of the Autocrat, deprivation of his power.”
I will not bore our dear readers with a selection of such versions, but I will say that, despite the external attractiveness of these statements for the Russian heart, filled with monarchical feelings, they still remain only a hypothesis, but not an impeccably proven conclusion, and upon closer examination they do not stand up no criticism. The main reason for this thesis lies in simple questions unresolved by supporters of the above point of view. If Nikolai Aleksandrovich Romanov was not really involved in the abdication, then why is this not known from reliable historical sources? Where are the testimonies of contemporaries and eyewitnesses of those revolutionary events? Why is there no recognition of the Tsar himself? After all, for almost 1.5 years after the loss of political power until his death, he undoubtedly had relations with outside world, even under the Bolsheviks, being essentially in captivity, being a courageous and cold-blooded man, he could clearly report a monstrous deception and an unheard-of crime. Moreover, “subsequently,” as his aide-de-camp Colonel A. A. Mordvinov wrote, “while in distant Siberia, the sovereign, according to the testimony of close people, did not cease to worry about doubts associated with his abdication. He could not help but be tormented by the consciousness that his departure, caused by the “sincere” insistence of people “ardently loving their homeland,” did not serve for the benefit, but only to the detriment of their sacredly revered Russia.”
In my opinion, if in fact there had been an illegitimate forcible seizure of power or a forgery, and not a voluntary abdication (albeit under pressure), then this fact would have become public knowledge to the Russian and world public already in the first months after March 1917. The true the background of such a large-scale event of world-historical significance as the destruction of the Russian Autocracy was a priori impossible to hide at that time. In any case, if available large quantity witnesses, there would be a “leak” of information. And, finally, why is it only a century later that the question of the authenticity of the Emperor’s abdication is raised? Who benefits from rewriting Russian history?
Let's try to calmly figure this out by turning to documents that prove the fact of the voluntary abdication of Tsar Nicholas II from the throne. I ask the patient reader to forgive me in advance for the fact that the narrative will be conducted rather dryly and pedantically with extensive quotes, since working with sources does not tolerate the freedom of a free artist, modern (flawed) journalistic flight of thought and irresponsible polemical fervor.
So, first let’s give the floor to the Emperor himself, as the main acting person. This is what he wrote in his diary on March 2, 1917: “In the morning Ruzsky came and read his long conversation on the phone with Rodzianko. According to him, the situation in Petrograd is such that now the ministry from the Duma is powerless to do anything, since the Social Democratic Party, represented by the working committee, is fighting it. My renunciation is needed. Ruzsky conveyed this conversation to headquarters, and Alekseev to all commanders in chief. By 2 ½ o'clock answers came from everyone. The point is that in the name of saving Russia and keeping the army at the front calm, you need to decide to take this step. I agreed(hereinafter, with the exception of Lenin’s quotes, italics are mine - A.V.). A draft manifesto was sent from Headquarters. In the evening, Guchkov and Shulgin arrived from Petrograd, with whom I spoke, and handed them the signed and revised manifesto. At one o'clock in the morning I left Pskov with a heavy feeling of what I had experienced. There is treason and cowardice and deceit all around!” .
Somewhat earlier, in those tragic days, the Emperor sent telegrams to the Chairman of the State Duma Rodzianko and the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, General Alekseev, with the following content: “To the Chairman of the State Duma. Petrograd. There is no sacrifice that I would not make in the name of the real good and for the salvation of my dear Mother Russia. Therefore I'm ready to abdicate the Throne in favor of my son so that he would remain with me until he came of age, during the regency of my brother Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. Nikolay"; “Upside down. Bid. In the name of the good, tranquility and salvation of beloved Russia I'm ready to abdicate the Throne in favor of my son. I ask everyone to serve him faithfully and without hypocrisy. Nikolay."
Further. The Russian Imperial House, undoubtedly interested in the historical truth and possessing the necessary information, confirms the abdication: “March 2/15, 1917 Nicholas II, forced by the participants in the conspiracy to renounce the throne “for the sake of saving Russia,” signed a renunciation for himself and for his son - Heir Tsarevich Alexy Nikolaevich, in favor of his brother - Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich."
The memoirs of direct participants in the bourgeois-democratic revolution of February-March 1917 (both those who remained loyal to the monarch and those who became traitors) seem to be very valuable, who confidently declared precisely the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II, for example, one of the leaders of the Constitutional Democratic Party and the Minister of Foreign Affairs Affairs in the 1st Cabinet of the Provisional Government P. N. Milyukov, Lieutenant General A. I. Denikin, Lieutenant General A. S. Lukomsky, member of the Provisional Committee of the State Duma and member of the Main Land Committee of the Provisional Government S. I. Shidlovsky, Chairman of the Council of Soldiers' Deputies N.V. Voronovich, Adjutant General N.V. Ruzsky, Adjutant General N.V. Ruzsky, State Duma Deputy V.V. Shulgin, Chairman of the III State Duma and member of the State Council Russian Empire A. I. Guchkov, General S. S. Savvich, mentor of the Heir to Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich Romanov P. Gilliard and others.
Thus, the son-in-law of Count V.B. Fredericks (let us pay attention to the family connection in terms of the authenticity of the certification of the signature of Nicholas II by the Minister of the Imperial Court), the last palace commandant of the Emperor, Major General V.N. Voeikov, recalled: “Having listened carefully to him (Guchkov - approx. A.V.), the Sovereign, to his question of what he would consider desirable, received Guchkov’s answer: “The abdication of Your Imperial Majesty from the throne in favor of the Heir Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich.” At these words, Ruzsky, standing up, said: “Alexander Ivanovich, this has already been done.” The Emperor, pretending that he had not heard Ruzsky’s words, asked, turning to Guchkov and Shulgin: “Do you think that with My renunciation I will bring peace?” To this Guchkov and Shulgin answered the Emperor in the affirmative. Then the Emperor told them: “At three o’clock in the afternoon I decided to abdicate the Throne in favor of His Son Alexei Nikolaevich; but now, on reflection, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot part with him; and hand over the Throne My brother - Mikhail Alexandrovich." To this Guchkov and Shulgin said: “But we are not prepared for this issue. Let us think." The Emperor replied: “Think,” and left the saloon car. At the door He turned to me with the words: “And Guchkov was completely decent in his demeanor; I was preparing to see something completely different from him... Have you noticed Ruzsky’s behavior?” The expression on the Emperor’s face showed me better than words what impression His adjutant general made on Him. The Emperor called General Naryshkin and ordered him to rewrite the renunciation that He had already written with an amendment about the transfer of the Throne to His Majesty's Brother - Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich... After some time, the Manifesto was typed. The Emperor signed it in his office and said to me: “Why didn’t you come in?” I replied: “I have nothing to do there.” “No, come in,” said the Emperor. Thus, having followed the Sovereign into the salon carriage, I was present at that difficult moment when Emperor Nicholas II presented His Manifesto of abdication to the commissars of the State Duma, who, in His erroneous opinion, were representatives of the Russian people. Right The Emperor proposed to the Minister of the Court(Count Fredericks - approx. A.V.) fasten it. The manifesto read as follows: “In the days of the great struggle with an external enemy, who had been striving to enslave our Motherland for almost three years, the Lord God was pleased to send down a new difficult test for Russia. The outbreak of internal popular unrest threatens to have a disastrous effect on the further conduct of the stubborn war. The fate of Russia, the honor of our heroic army, the good of the people, the entire future of our dear Fatherland demand that the war be brought to a victorious end at all costs. The cruel enemy is straining his last strength, and the moment is already approaching when our valiant army, together with our glorious allies, will be able to finally break the enemy. In these decisive days in the life of Russia, We considered it a duty of conscience to facilitate close unity and rallying of all the people's forces for our people to achieve victory as quickly as possible and in agreement with the State Duma We recognized it as good to renounce the Throne of the Russian State and relinquish the Supreme Power. Not wanting to part with Our beloved Son, We pass on Our Heritage to our brother Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, blessing him for his accession to the Throne of the Russian State. We command our brother to rule over state affairs in complete and inviolable unity with the representatives of the people in legislative institutions on those principles that will be established by them, taking an inviolable oath to the beloved Motherland. We call on all the faithful Sons of the Fatherland to fulfill their holy duty to Him by obedience to the Tsar in difficult times of national trials and to help Him, together with the representatives of the people, lead the Russian State onto the path of victory, prosperity and glory. May the Lord God help Russia. Nikolai. March 2nd, 15:00, 1917. City of Pskov. Secured by: Minister of the Imperial Household, Adjutant General Count Fredericks.” .
Professor S.S. Oldenburg wrote: “Guchkov brought with him a draft manifesto; Gen. also sent his project from Headquarters. Alekseev. “The Emperor left... After a while He entered again. He handed Guchkov the paper, saying: “Here is the text”... “How pitiful the sketch we brought seemed to me,” recalls Shulgin... Representatives of the Duma could neither object nor argue, although the transfer of power to Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich was unexpected for them. The Emperor declared his will: All that remained was to obey. (“We had to take what they give,” Guchkov later explained). It was twelve o'clock at night; but the manifesto was marked: “3 o’clock in the afternoon” - the hour when the Emperor first decided to abdicate.”
In addition, there is no hesitation in assessing the legality of the abdication of Nicholas II in the “Act on the refusal of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich from the perception of supreme power and on his recognition of the full power of the Provisional Government, which arose at the initiative of the State Duma” dated March 3, 1917: “ A heavy burden has been placed on Me by the will of My brother, who handed over to Me the Imperial All-Russian throne in a time of unprecedented war and popular unrest. Inspired by the common thought with all the people that the good of our Motherland is above all, I made a firm decision to assume supreme power only if such is the will of our great people, who must, by popular vote through their representatives in the Constituent Assembly, establish a form of government and new basic laws of the Russian State. Therefore, calling on God’s blessing, I ask all citizens of the Russian State to submit to the Provisional Government, which arose at the initiative of the State Duma and was invested with full power, until the Constituent Assembly is convened as soon as possible, on the basis of universal, direct, equal and secret suffrage with his decision on the form of government will express the will of the people.”
The presence of royal will in the final determination of the content of the Abdication Manifesto also confirms the following circumstance. On March 3, 1917, a conversation took place via direct wire between the Commander-in-Chief of the armies of the Northern Front, General N.V. Ruzsky, with the Chairman (Provisional Committee) of the State Duma M.V. Rodzianko and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire and the Provisional Government, Prince G.E. Lvov and the chief headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief General M.V. Alekseev with M.V. Rodzianko. The latter asked the military that the manifesto on the abdication and transfer of power to Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich should not be published until he reported this. “The fact is that with great difficulty it was possible to keep the revolutionary movement more or less within decent limits, but the situation has not yet come to its senses and a civil war is very possible. They would have reconciled with the regency of the Grand Duke and the accession of the heir to the Tsarevich, perhaps, but his accession as emperor is absolutely unacceptable.” After a conversation with M.V. Rodzianko, General M.V. Alekseev sent a telegram addressed to the commanders-in-chief of the Northern, Western, South Western and Romanian Fronts: “The Chairman of the State Duma, calling me to the office, said that the events in Petrograd have not calmed down, the situation is alarming, it is unclear why he persistently asks not to put into circulation the manifesto signed on March 2, already announced by the commander-in-chief, and to delay the publication this manifesto. The reason for this insistence was more clearly and definitely stated by the Chairman of the Duma in a conversation on the staff with the Commander-in-Chief of the Northern Front; a copy of this conversation has just been communicated to me. With the regency of the Grand Duke and the accession of the heir to the Tsarevich, says Rodzianko, perhaps they would have made peace, but the candidacy of the Grand Duke as emperor is not acceptable to anyone and a civil war is possible.”
Indirectly, the Tsar’s independence in making the decision to abdicate was pointed out by Empress Alexandra Feodorovna’s maid of honor A.A. Vyrubova (Taneeva): “The Tsar sat down next to me and began to tell me. Emperor Nicholas II was, of course, as a person, accessible to all human weaknesses and sorrows, but in this difficult moment of deep resentment and humiliation, I still could not convince myself that his enemies would triumph; I couldn’t believe that the sovereign, the most generous and honest of the entire Romanov family, would be condemned to become an innocent victim of his relatives and subjects. But the tsar, with a completely calm expression in his eyes, confirmed all this, adding that “if all of Russia on its knees asked him to return to the throne, he would never return.” Tears sounded in his voice when he spoke about his friends and family, whom he trusted most and who turned out to be accomplices in his overthrow from the throne. He showed me telegrams from Brusilov, Alekseev and other generals, members of his family, including Nikolai Nikolaevich: everyone asked His Majesty on his knees, to save Russia, to abdicate the throne. But renounce in favor of whom? In favor of the weak and indifferent Duma! No, for their own benefit, so that, taking advantage of the name and royal prestige of Alexei Nikolaevich, the regency they had chosen would rule and enrich themselves!.. But at least the sovereign did not allow this! “I won’t give them my son,” he said with emotion. “Let them choose someone else, for example Mikhail, if he considers himself strong enough!” .
I believe that an irrefutable argument in favor of the fact that Nicholas II voluntarily abdicated the Throne, and the Provisional Government considered itself legitimate, is the recognition of such a liberal figure as A.F. Kerensky: “Is it true that we could and did not want to save the life of the royal family in a timely manner?” sending her abroad in general and to England in particular? - This question interested many people, was discussed in the foreign press, and I consider it timely to now explain why, at the end of the summer of 1917, Nicholas II and his family ended up not in England, but in Tobolsk. Despite all the gossip and insinuations, the Provisional Government was not only brave, but also decided at the very beginning of March to send royal family abroad. On March 7, at a meeting of the Moscow Council, I myself, responding to furious cries: “Death to the Tsar, execute the Tsar,” said: “This will never happen while we are in power. The Provisional Government took responsibility for the personal safety of the Tsar and his family. We will fulfill this commitment to the end. The king and his family will be sent abroad to England. I will take him to Murmansk myself.” This statement of mine caused an explosion of indignation in some Soviet circles in both capitals. Before I had time to return to Petrograd, in the dead of night, armed, with an armored car, as it later turned out, the self-proclaimed Soviet delegation burst into the Tsarskoye Selo Palace and demanded that the Tsar be presented to them, with the obvious goal of taking him away. She failed to do this... From now on, cases similar to the one described did not happen again. However, recognizing the stay of the former royal family near the capital itself and in Russia in general as unsecured from any accidents in the event of any possible political upheavals and changes, the Provisional Government was preoccupied with preparing the departure of the inhabitants of the Alexander Palace abroad and conducted corresponding diplomatic negotiations with the London cabinet. However, already in the summer, when leaving the royal family in Tsarskoye Selo became completely impossible, we, the Provisional Government, received a categorical official statement that until the end of the war, the entry of the former monarch and his family into the British Empire was impossible. I affirm that if there had not been this refusal, the Provisional Government would not only have “dared”, but also would have safely taken Nicholas II and his family out of Russia, just as we took him to the safest place in Russia at that time - to Tobolsk . There is no doubt that if the Kornilov rebellion or the October revolution had caught the tsar in Tsarskoe, he would have died no less horribly, but almost a year earlier.”
From the above words, it becomes clear that if there had been a violent abdication of the Autocrat from state power or through falsification of documents, the Provisional Government would have been extremely interested in the speedy liquidation of the Emperor and his family, so that the main witnesses to the crime would not exist. But everything happened exactly the opposite.
A number of eyewitnesses say that Tsar Nicholas II and his family, whom he loved endlessly, did not want to leave Russia at all (see the above-mentioned sources). If a mortal threat really loomed over the royal family, then the Emperor, being an extremely intelligent and informed person, would certainly have done everything in his power to leave the country. But he did not strive for this. Therefore, in addition to sacrificial love for the Motherland and the Russian people, Nikolai Alexandrovich was not afraid for the lives of his loved ones and did not see the source of danger in the Provisional Government.
In this regard, the words of V.I. Lenin from his work “Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution” sound noteworthy: “The new bourgeois government of Lvov and Co. tried and began to negotiate with the Romanovs on the restoration of the monarchy in Russia. This government, under the guise of revolutionary phrases, appoints supporters of the old order to command positions.”
It should be said that the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church reacted positively to the overthrow of the monarchy. Thus, at the meeting of the Holy Synod on March 4, Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev presided and the new synodal chief prosecutor V.N. Lvov was present, announcing the granting of freedom to the Russian Orthodox Church from state tutelage, which had a detrimental effect on church and public life. The members of the synod (with the exception of Metropolitan Pitirim, who was absent) expressed sincere joy at the advent of a new era in the life of the church. At the same time, on the initiative of the Chief Prosecutor, the royal chair was taken from the synod meeting room to the archives, which in the eyes of the hierarchs was “a symbol of Caesar-papism in the Russian Church,” that is, a symbol of “the enslavement of the church by the state. The next day, March 5, the synod ordered that in all churches of the Petrograd diocese the longevity of the reigning house “from now on should not be proclaimed.”
Then, on March 6, the Decree of the Holy Synod N 1207 “On promulgation in Orthodox churches acts of March 2 and 3, 1917,” which, in particular, said: “The Most Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, having heard the act of abdication of the Sovereign Emperor Nicholas, which took place on March 2, 1917II for himself and for his son from the Throne of the Russian State and about the abdication of the Supreme Power, and the act on March 3, 1917 on the refusal of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich from the perception of the Supreme Power until the establishment of a form of government and new fundamental laws of the Russian State in the Constituent Assembly, ORDERED : The said acts are to be taken into account and implemented and announced in all Orthodox churches, in urban churches - on the first day after receiving the text of these acts, and in rural ones - on the first Sunday or holiday, after the Divine Liturgy, with a prayer to the Lord God for the pacification of passions , with the proclamation of many years to the God-protected Russian Power and its Blessed Provisional Government. On what to send circular decrees to the relevant institutions and individuals for execution by the ecclesiastical department.”
Further. Professor M.A. Babkin writes: “On March 9, the synod addressed a message “To the faithful children of the Orthodox Russian Church regarding the events currently being experienced.” It contained a call to trust the Provisional Government. God’s blessing was called upon for the “works and undertakings” of the new government, and the rulers were prayerfully asked for “strength, strength and wisdom.” The message began like this: “The will of God has been done. Russia has embarked on the path of a new state life. May the Lord bless our great Motherland with happiness and glory on its new path.” Thus, the highest body of church government actually recognized the coup d'etat as legitimate and officially proclaimed the beginning of a new state life in Russia, and declared the revolutionary events as the accomplished “will of God.” The message was signed by the bishops of the “royal” composition of the Holy Synod, even those who had a reputation as monarchists and Black Hundreds: for example, Metropolitan of Kiev Vladimir (Epiphany) and Metropolitan of Moscow Macarius (Parvitsky-Nevsky). Their agreement with the coup that took place can be regarded as a renunciation of their former monarchical beliefs. This message was characterized by the professor of the Petrograd Theological Academy B.V. Titlinov as “a message that blessed the new free Russia,” and by General A.I. Denikin as “authorizing the coup that had taken place.” On the pages of the socialist newspaper, it was regarded as “the solemn recognition by the synod of the new government... Among the various factors that influenced the fate of the monarchy at the beginning of the February Revolution, one of the decisive ones was the nature of the attitude of the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church to the institution of tsarist power. The very power of the emperor, as God’s anointed, had a spiritual basis precisely in Orthodoxy. Therefore, we can say with a great degree of confidence that if the Holy Synod had taken protective measures against the monarchy in the fateful February-March days of 1917 for the tsar and the country, then political events both in the capital and locally would have followed a different scenario. The members of the Holy Synod, from the first days of March 1917, setting a course for the establishment of republican rule in Russia, in a certain sense, showed political myopia. Having met the revolutionary authorities halfway and supported the overthrow of the monarchy, they could not correctly foresee further development political events and stop the spread of the revolution. The February “study” turned out to be only an “overture” of October.”
Important for clarifying our position on a given topic is the word of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, spoken to the pilgrims in the Kazan Cathedral in Moscow during the solemn patriarchal service of the Liturgy on the occasion of the temple feast of July 8 (21), 1918, in which the High Hierarch clearly speaks about the abdication of Nicholas II: “On a few days ago a terrible thing happened: he was shot former sovereign Nikolai Alexandrovich, according to the resolution of the Ural Regional Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, and our highest government - the Executive Committee approved this and recognized it as legal. But our Christian conscience, guided by the Word of God, cannot agree with this. We must, in obedience to the teaching of the Word of God, condemn this deed, otherwise the blood of the executed man will fall on us, and not only on those who committed it. We will not evaluate and judge the affairs of the former sovereign here: an impartial trial of him belongs to history, and he now faces the impartial court of God, but we know that he, abdicating the throne, did this with the good of Russia in mind and out of love for her. He could, after renunciation, have found security and a relatively quiet life abroad, but he did not do this, wanting to suffer with Russia. He did nothing to improve his situation and resignedly resigned himself to fate...”
The character of the February bourgeois-democratic revolution was brilliantly revealed by V.I. Lenin: “In Tsarist Russia, where the disorganization was the most monstrous and where the proletariat was the most revolutionary (not thanks to its special qualities, but thanks to the living traditions of the “fifth year”) - a revolutionary crisis broke out before anything else. This crisis was accelerated by a series of severe defeats that were inflicted on Russia and its allies. Defeats shook the entire old government mechanism and the entire old order, embittered them against it. All classes of the population, hardened the army, exterminated on a huge scale its old commanding staff, of a calloused noble and especially rotten bureaucratic character, and replaced it with young, fresh, predominantly bourgeois, raznochinsky, petty-bourgeois. People who were downright servile to the bourgeoisie or simply spineless people who shouted and screamed against “defeatism” are now confronted with the fact of a historical connection between the defeat of the most backward and most barbaric tsarist monarchy and started revolutionary fire. But if defeats at the beginning of the war played the role of a negative factor that accelerated the explosion, then connection Anglo-French finance capital, Anglo-French imperialism with the Octobrist-Cadet capital of Russia was a factor that accelerated this crisis by directly organizing a conspiracy against Nikolai Romanov. This aspect of the matter, which is extremely important, is hushed up for obvious reasons by the Anglo-French press and maliciously emphasized by the German press. We Marxists must soberly look the truth in the eye, not embarrassed either by the lies, official, sugary diplomatic lies of the diplomats and ministers of the first warring group of imperialists, or by the winking and snickering of their financial and military competitors of the other warring group. The entire course of events of the February-March revolution shows clearly that the British and French embassies with their agents and “connections” have long made the most desperate efforts to prevent the separate peace of Nicholas II (and let us hope and achieve this - the latter) with “separate” agreements. Wilhelm II, directly organized the conspiracy together with the Octobrists and cadets, together with part of the generals and officers of the army and the St. Petersburg garrison, especially for offsets Nikolai Romanov. Let's not create illusions for ourselves. Let us not fall into the mistake of those who are now ready to sing, like some “Okists” or “Mensheviks”, vacillating between Gvozdevism-Potresovism and internationalism, which too often strays into petty-bourgeois pacifism - to sing of the “agreement” of the workers’ party with the Cadets, “support” first second, etc. These people, for the sake of their old learned (and not at all Marxist) doctrine, throw a flair on the conspiracy of the Anglo-French imperialists with the Guchkovs and Milyukovs with the aim of removing the “chief warrior” Nikolai Romanov and replacing him warriors more energetic, fresher, more capable. If the revolution won so quickly and so - in appearance, at first superficial glance - radically, it was only because, due to the extremely original historical situation merged together, and merged wonderfully “harmoniously”, completely different flows, completely heterogeneous class interests, completely opposite political and social aspirations. Namely: a conspiracy of the Anglo-French imperialists who pushed Miliukov and Guchkov and Co. to seize power in the interests of continuing the imperialist war, in the interests of even more ardent and persistent pursuit of it, in the interests beating new millions workers and peasants of Russia to obtain Constantinople... Guchkov, Syria... French, Mesopotamia... English capitalists, etc.... Abandoned by his troops, the tsar had to surrender: he signed an abdication of the throne both for himself and for your son. He proposed to transfer the throne to his brother Mikhail."
Now let's turn to Soviet historical science. Thus, in the fundamental work “History of the Communist Party Soviet Union“The reasons are clearly shown and the driving forces of the February-March revolution of 1917 are clearly named: “Two years of war were enough to break the forces of tsarist Russia. In 1916, famine began in the cities. There was not enough money to wage the war. Tsarism was forced to enter into foreign loans worth almost 8 billion rubles, which increased its dependence on British and French imperialism. There is a looming threat of loss of national independence. The landowners and bourgeoisie sought support against their people from foreign imperialists. The task of saving the country from ruin and from the threat of turning it into a semi-colony of foreign imperialists fell on the shoulders of the proletariat... Alarmed by the approach of revolution and in order to prevent it, tsarism sharply intensified repression. To free its hands to fight the revolution, the tsarist government began secret negotiations with Germany on a separate peace. The preparations for peace with Germany caused alarm among the Entente imperialists and the Russian imperialists. The Entente was afraid of losing the help of the Russian army, and the Russian bourgeoisie was frightened by the cessation of the flow of profits into its pocket and the collapse of its imperialist plans. The Russian bourgeoisie, supported by the Anglo-French and American imperialists, decided to prevent the revolution by changing the tsar. It was supposed to arrest Nicholas II, force him to abdicate in favor of his young son, and install Grand Duke Mikhail, the tsar’s brother, as regent (ruler)... At the very first news of the victory of the revolution in the capital, the State Duma elected a Provisional Committee, which was entrusted with the “installation order" in the city. The Committee did not at all think of taking power into its own hands. They sent a delegation to the front to Nicholas II to persuade him to renounce the throne in favor of his son. This demand was supported by the commanders of all fronts, who told Nicholas II that they did not vouch for the army. The king signed the manifesto, in which he renounced power both for himself and for his son in favor of his brother Mikhail. The bourgeoisie's attempt to preserve the monarchy failed. The question of power was not resolved within the walls of the State Duma: it was decided by the rebel workers and soldiers. When a member of the Provisional Committee of the State Duma, Cadet Miliukov, at one of the rallies spoke out in favor of preserving the monarchy, a storm of indignation swept the people. The bourgeoisie decided to take power into its own hands in order to prevent the revolution from deepening."
Modern Russian academic science does not refute the Soviet point of view regarding the abdication of Nicholas II from the royal throne, but agrees with it [for example: 3, p. 20; 15, p. 352; 10, p. 235]. The fact of Nicholas II’s abdication is confirmed in their works by individual researchers, for example, M. V. Nazarov, Archpriest V. Tsypin, Professor M. V. Shkarovsky and others.
Thus, O. A. Platonov writes: “At night after a conversation with Ruzsky The Sovereign decides to renounce the Throne in favor of his son during the regency of his brother Mikhail Alexandrovich. But he apparently still hopes for the army... March 2 at 3 pm The Emperor signs the abdication of the Throne in favor of his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, and in the evening writes in his diary: “There is treason and cowardice and deception all around.” Why did the Emperor make this fatal decision? He, deceived and betrayed by his entourage, accepted him in the hope (he later spoke about this in the Tobolsk exile) that those who wished to remove him would be able to bring the war to a happy end and save Russia. He was afraid that his resistance would not serve as a reason for civil war in the presence of the enemy, and did not want the blood of at least one Russian to be shed for him. He sacrificed himself for the sake of Russia. But the forces that insisted on the departure of the Tsar did not want either victory or the salvation of Russia; they needed chaos and the death of the country. They were ready to sow them for foreign gold. That's why the Tsar’s sacrifice turned out to be in vain for Russia and, moreover, disastrous, for the state itself became a victim of treason. The sudden and rapid abdication of the Sovereign from the Throne shook the very idea of the Russian monarchy» .
In addition, it represents a great scientific interest the work of a foreign author - V. S. Kobylin “Emperor Nicholas II and Adjutant General M. V. Alekseev”, which convincingly, based on a wide range of documents and facts, shows the tragedy of the Tsar associated with his abdication of the throne.
To understand what happened in that distant time, the voice of the Church, which received freedom in post-Soviet times, is significant. Thus, at the Anniversary Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2000, in the report of Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsky and Kolomna, Chairman of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints, it was said: “As external factors that took place in the political life of Russia and led to the signing of the Act of Abdication, it should be highlighted first of all, the sharp aggravation of the socio-political situation in Petrograd in February 1917, the inability of the government to control the situation in the capital, the widespread conviction among wide sections of society of the need for strict constitutional restrictions on monarchical power, the urgent demand of the Chairman of the State Duma M.V. Rodzianko, the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from power in the name of preventing internal political chaos in the conditions of Russia's large-scale war, the almost unanimous support provided by the highest representatives of the Russian generals to the demand of the Chairman of the State Duma. It should also be noted that The act of abdication was adopted by Emperor Nicholas II under the pressure of dramatically changing political circumstances in an extremely short period of time. The Commission expresses the opinion that the very fact of the abdication of the throne of Emperor Nicholas II, directly related to his personal qualities, is generally an expression of the then prevailing historical situation in Russia. He made this decision only in the hope that those who wanted to remove him would still be able to bring the war to a victorious end and not destroy Russia. He was afraid then that his refusal to sign the renunciation would lead to civil war in front of the enemy. The Tsar did not want even a drop of Russian blood to be shed because of him.”
At the same time, Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Ladoga John (Snychev) made a strict spiritual, moral and political assessment of the act of Tsar Nicholas II in question in the early 1990s. in a conversation with the editor-in-chief of the newspaper “Inform-600 Seconds” (the words of the bishop are in italics - A.V.):
“We all Orthodox Christians read the prophecies of our holy elders. I don’t remember who exactly, but one of them said that if the Russian Orthodox Church does not glorify the martyr Tsar, then the salvation of Russia will be impossible. Even patriots treat the very personality of Nicholas II differently, and many do not accept him. But no matter how you perceive the tsar himself, his actions cannot be denied that he accepted the crown of martyrdom along with all of Russia, and if you like, his way of the cross and his end were an anticipation of the way of the cross and the death of autocratic Russia. He and his family were martyrs, which is why this glorification is needed.
- In my opinion, this is not quite the correct view. There is a whole host of saints in the Orthodox Church, and it is difficult to believe that our salvation depends only on the glorification of Nicholas II. Well, then: we have no other martyrs and no one to pray for our salvation?
Of course have. But still: does our Church recognize or not recognize the last king as a saint?
- We are currently considering the issue of his canonization. But you need to very carefully and carefully study all aspects of the life of the last Russian emperor. After all, he was anointed as king by the world in order to fulfill his duty to the Fatherland together with the people. In this case, was his abdication legal?
Do you think that he showed cowardice then?
- Yes, I think so. Let's say he felt that he had lost the trust of the people. Let's say there was treason - treason by the intelligentsia, military treason. But you are the king! And if the commander cheats on you, remove him. We must show firmness in the fight for the Russian state!
Yes, this, of course, was a weakness.
- Unacceptable weakness. They say: what could he do if the betrayal had already happened? But our hierarchs, in particular Metropolitan Veniamin (Fedchenko), a participant in these events, clearly express the opinion: yes, this was weakness on the part of the tsar. If you are going to suffer to the end, then on the throne. And he stepped down from power and essentially handed it over to the Provisional Government. And who composed it? Masons.
- Yes, enemies. This is how the door to revolution opened. The research of one of the members of the canonization commission, of which I am also a member, indicates that in the last days of the Emperor’s life, one of the priests of Yekaterinburg had access to him. And this priest claims that in a conversation with him the king once said: “Obviously, I was mistaken.” That is, he admitted that he made a mistake by leaving the throne. And the martyrdom itself, which he accepted, is actually an atoning sacrifice for this mistake.
Yes, the question is very difficult.
- But on the other hand, whether he is a king or not, the Lord will, of course, reward him for his suffering and the suffering of his neighbors. It is only doubtful that Russia will not be able to revive precisely because of the fate of the last tsar» .
Thus, an analysis of the sources and literature involved, memories, testimonies and opinions of authors and persons belonging to different generations, political and ideological trends and classes, gives the right to say that Nicholas II voluntarily abdicated the royal throne (under the strong influence of external and internal socio-political circumstances), which was his personal tragic mistake and turned into a disaster for the Fatherland. All subsequent events after March 1917, the entire post-revolutionary history of Russia and the Russian people confirm this bitter conclusion.
Literature
1. Acts of His Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, later documents and correspondence on the canonical succession of the highest church authority. 1917-1943: Sat. at 2 o'clock / Comp. M. E. Gubonin. - M.: Orthodox St. Tikhon's Theological Institute, 1994. - 1064 p.
2. Babkin M. A. Priesthood and Kingdom (Russia, beginning of the 20th century - 1918). Research and materials / M. A. Babkin. - M.: Indrik, 2011. - 920 p., ill.
3. Barsenkov A. S., Vdovin A. I. History of Russia. 1917-2009 / A. S. Barsenkov, A. I. Vdovin. - 3rd ed., expanded. and processed - M.: Aspect Press, 2010. - 846 p.
4. Voeikov V.N. With the Tsar and without the Tsar. Memoirs / V. N. Voeikov. - Reprint. - M.: Rodnik, 1994. - 272 p.
5. Gilliard P. Emperor Nicholas II and his family. (Peterhof, September 1905 - Ekaterinburg, May 1918) / Preface. S. D. Sazonova. - Reprint. - M.: NPO "MADA", 1991. - 288 p.
6. John (Snychev), Metropolitan. Cathedral Rus'. Essays on Christian statehood / John (Snychev). - St. Petersburg: Tsarskoe Delo, 1995. - 249 p.
7. History Communist Party Soviet Union. - 5th ed., add. - M.: Publishing House of Political Literature, 1976. - 782 p.
8. Kobylin V. Anatomy of betrayal. Emperor Nicholas II and Adjutant General M.V. Alekseev / Ed. L. E. Bolotina. - St. Petersburg: Tsarskoe Delo, 1997. - 494 p.
9. Lenin V.I. Complete. collection op. - 5th ed. - T. 31 (March-April 1917) / V. I. Lenin. - M.: Publishing House of Political Literature, 1969. - 672 p.
10. Munchaev Sh. M., Ustinov V. M. History of Russia. Textbook for universities / Sh. M. Munchaev, V. M. Ustinov. - M.: INFRA Publishing Group: NORMA, 1997. - 592 pp..
11. Nazarov M.V. To the Leader of the Third Rome. Towards the knowledge of the Russian idea in pre-apocalyptic times / M. V. Nazarov. - M.: Russian Idea, 2004. - 992 p.
12. Nicholas II Alexandrovich Passion-Bearer, saint (1894-1917) // Russian Imperial House. Official site. [ Electronic resource]: http://goo.gl/vSbvWc (access date: 11/19/2013).
13. Nicholas II. A renunciation that never happened // Politikus.ru. [Electronic resource]: http://b23.ru/09kw (access date: 11/19/2013).
14. Oldenburg S.S. The reign of Emperor Nicholas II / Preface. Y. K. Meyer. - Reprint. - St. Petersburg: Petropol, 1991. - 672 p.
15. Orlov A. S., Georgiev V. A., Georgieva N. G., Sivokhina T. A. History of Russia from ancient times to the present day. Textbook / A. S. Orlov, V. A. Georgiev [and others]. - M.: Prospekt, 1999. - 544 p.
16. Abdication of Nicholas II. Memoirs of eyewitnesses, documents / Intro. Art. L. Kitaeva, M. Koltsova. - M.: TERRA - Book Club, 1998. - 336 p.
17. Peter Multatuli. Emperor Nicholas II: whose abdication never happened // Revival of the Power. Independent analytical site. [Electronic resource]: http://u.to/i-gNBQ (access date: 11/19/2013).
18. Platonov O. A. Crown of Thorns of Russia. History of the Russian people in the 20th century: in 2 volumes / O. A. Platonov. - T. 1. - M.: Rodnik, 1997. - 896 p.
19. Russian clergy and the overthrow of the monarchy in 1917. (Materials and archival documents on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church) / Compiled by author. preface and comm. M. A. Babkin. - 2nd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Indrik, 2008. - 632 p., ill.
20. The country is dying today. Memories of the February Revolution of 1917 - M.: Book, 1991. - 480 p.
21. Reader on the history of Russia from ancient times to the present day. Tutorial/ Auto-stat. A. S. Orlov, V. A. Georgiev [and others]. - M.: Prospekt, 1999. - 592 p.
22. Tsypin V., prot. History of the Russian Orthodox Church. Synodal and modern periods (1700-2005) / V. Tsypin. - 4th ed. - M.: Publishing house Sretensky Monastery, 2010. - 816 p.
23. Shkarovsky M.V. Russian Orthodox Church in the 20th century / M.V. Shkarovsky. - M.: Veche: Lepta, 2010. - 480 p., ill.
24. Anniversary Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church. (August 13-16, 2000 Materials). - M.: Publishing house. Council of the Moscow Patriarchate: Charitable Foundation "Christmas-2000", 2001. - 480 p.
