Nicholas II Orthodoxy. To understand Tsar Nicholas II correctly, one must be Orthodox. - What would be the fate of the Ottoman Empire
Violent activity to protect the good name of Emperor Nicholas II from the director Alexei Uchitel with his film "Matilda", which was developed by Orthodox activists, part of the clergy and even State Duma deputies headed by Natalia Poklonskaya, created an illusion in the public that to be Orthodox and belong to the latter the Russian emperor is impossible without trembling. However, in the Russian Orthodox Church there have been and remain different opinions about his holiness.
Recall that Nicholas II, his wife, four daughters, a son and ten servants were canonized as martyrs in 1981 by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, and then, in 2000, the royal family was recognized as holy martyrs and the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. The Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church made this decision only on the second attempt.
The first time this could happen at a council in 1997, but then it turned out that several bishops, as well as some of the clergy and laity, were opposed to the recognition of Nicholas II.
Last Judgment
After the fall of the USSR, church life in Russia was on the rise, and in addition to the restoration of churches and the opening of monasteries, the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate was faced with the task of “healing” the schism with the White emigres and their descendants by uniting with the ROCOR.
The fact that the canonization of the royal family and other victims of the Bolsheviks in 2000 eliminated one of the contradictions between the two Churches was announced by the future Patriarch Kirill, who then headed the department of external church relations. Indeed, six years later the Churches were reunited.
“We glorified the royal family precisely as passion-bearers: the basis for this canonization was an innocent death, accepted by Nicholas II with Christian humility, and not political activity, which was rather contradictory. By the way, this cautious decision did not suit many, because someone did not want this canonization at all, while someone demanded the canonization of the sovereign as a great martyr, “ritually tortured by the Jews,” "said a member of the Synodal Commission for Canonization many years later. Holy Archpriest Georgy Mitrofanov.
And he added: “It must be borne in mind that someone is in our calendar, as it turns out on Last Judgment, is not a saint. "
"High traitor"
The most senior opponents of the canonization of the emperor in the church hierarchy in the 1990s were Metropolitans of St. Petersburg and Ladoga John (Snychev) and Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamassky Nikolai (Kutepov).
For Vladyka John, the tsar's worst offense was the abdication of the throne at a critical moment for the country.
“Let's say he felt that he had lost the confidence of the people. Let's say there was treason - betrayal of the intelligentsia, military treason. But you are the king! And if the commander cheats on you, remove him. We must show firmness in the struggle for russian state! Unacceptable weakness. If we are to suffer to the end, then on the throne. And he left power, transferred it, in fact, to the Provisional Government. Who composed it? Freemasons, enemies. This is how the door opened for the revolution, ”he was indignant in one of his interviews.
However, Metropolitan John died in 1995 and was unable to influence the decision of the other bishops.
Metropolitan Nicholas of Nizhny Novgorod - a veteran of the Great Patriotic War who fought at Stalingrad - until the last moment denied Nicholas II sainthood, calling him a "state traitor." Shortly after the Council of 2000, he gave an interview in which he bluntly stated that he had voted against the decision to canonize.
“You see, I didn’t take any steps, because if the icon was already drawn up, where, so to speak, the tsar-father was sitting, why should I speak? So the issue has been resolved. It has been solved without me, solved without you. When all the bishops signed the canonization act, I marked next to my list that I was signing everything except the third point. The third point was the tsar-father, and I did not sign his canonization. He is a state traitor. He, one might say, authorized the collapse of the country. And no one will convince me otherwise. He had to use force, up to and including the deprivation of life, because everything was handed to him, but he considered it necessary to run away under Alexandra Feodorovna's skirt, ”the hierarch was convinced.
As for the Orthodox "foreigners", Vladyka Nicholas spoke very harshly about them. "To run away and bark from there - no big mind is required," he said.
Royal sins
Among the critics of the canonization of the emperor was also the professor of theology of the Moscow Theological Academy, Alexei Osipov, who, despite the absence of a holy dignity, has great authority among some Orthodox believers and bishops: dozens of today's bishops are simply his students. The professor wrote and published a whole article with arguments against canonization.
Thus, Osipov directly pointed out that the tsar and his relatives were canonized by the ROCOR "mainly for political reasons" and after the collapse of the USSR, the same motives prevailed in Russia, and the admirers of Nicholas II without any reason ascribe to the emperor the greatest personal holiness and the role of a redeemer sins of the Russian people, which from the point of view of theology is heresy.
Professor Osipov also reminded of how Rasputin disgraced the royal family and interfered with the work of the Holy Synod, and that the tsar did not abolish "the anti-canonical leadership and administration of the Church by a layman, introduced according to the Protestant model."
Separately, he dwelled on the religiosity of Nicholas II, which, according to Osipov, "had a distinctly expressed character of inter-confessional mysticism."
It is known that Empress Alexandra Feodorovna despised the Russian clergy, calling the members of the Synod "animals", but she welcomed all sorts of magicians at court who conducted spiritualistic seances for the imperial couple, and other charlatans.
“This mysticism left a heavy stamp on the entire emotional mood of the emperor, making him, in the words of Protopresbyter George Shavelsky,“ a fatalist and a slave of his wife. ” Christianity and fatalism are incompatible, ”the professor notes.
Like Metropolitans John and Nicholas, Osipov insisted that by his abdication the emperor "abolished the autocracy in Russia and thereby opened a direct road to the establishment of a revolutionary dictatorship."
“None of the now canonized holy new martyrs of Russia - Patriarch Tikhon, Metropolitan Benjamin of St. Petersburg, Archbishop Thaddeus (Uspensky), Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky), Metropolitan Seraphim (Chichagov), the same Hilarion Troitsky - none of them called the tsar a holy passion-bearer. But they could. Moreover, not the slightest regret was expressed in the decision of the Holy Synod concerning the abdication of the sovereign, ”concludes Alexey Osipov.
"A wise decision"
Opponents of canonization were not only in Russia, but also abroad. Among them is the former prince, Archbishop of San Francisco John (Shakhovskoy). The very first primate of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) - a member of the Holy Synod, a witness of the revolution and one of the most respected hierarchs of his time - did not even think about the canonization of the tsar, considering his tragic death a payment for the "sins of the dynasty," whose representatives "madly proclaimed themselves head Churches". However, the hatred of the Bolsheviks and the desire to emphasize their cruelty for the followers of Metropolitan Anthony turned out to be more important.
Bishop Maximilian of Vologda later told reporters how Metropolitan Nicholas and other opponents of the canonization of the tsar ended up in the minority at the council in 2000.
“Let us recall the 1997 Bishops' Council, at which the question of canonization of the royal martyrs was discussed. Then the materials were already collected and carefully studied. Some bishops said that it was necessary to glorify the sovereign-emperor, others called for the opposite, while most of the bishops took a neutral position. At that time, the decision on the canonization of the royal martyrs could probably lead to division. And His Holiness [Patriarch Alexy II] made a very wise decision. He said that worship should be at the jubilee council. Three years have passed, and when I spoke with those bishops who were against canonization, I saw that their opinion had changed. The vacillating ones stood for canonization, ”the bishop testified.
One way or another, the opponents of the emperor's canonization remained in the minority, and their arguments were consigned to oblivion. Although conciliar decisions are obligatory for all believers and now they cannot afford to openly disagree with the holiness of Nicholas II, judging by the discussions on the Runet around Matilda, complete unanimity on this issue in the ranks of the Orthodox has not been achieved.
Dissent in the ROC
Those who are not ready to admire the last tsar, following the example of Natalia Poklonskaya, point to a special rite of holiness in which he was glorified - "the passion-bearer." Among them is Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev, who told SNEG.TV about the mythologization of the figure of Nicholas II.
“The special rite of holiness in which Nicholas II was glorified - the 'passion-bearer' - is not a martyr, not a second version of Christ, who allegedly took upon himself the sins of the entire Russian people, but a man who, in a situation of arrest, did not become embittered and in a Christian way accept all the sorrows that befell him. I can accept this version, but, unfortunately, our Russian maximalism begins to work further: huge layers of mythology are already beginning to be added to this basis. In my opinion, soon we will have a dogma about the Immaculate Conception of Nicholas II, ”he said.
“The scandals around Matilda show the popular demand that he was a saint not only at the time of his death, but always. However, at the Council of 2000 it was emphasized that his glorification as a passion-bearer does not mean either the canonization of the monarchical kind of government as such, or specifically the way of government of Nicholas II as tsar. That is, holiness is not in the king, but in a man named Nikolai Romanov. Today this is completely forgotten, ”the priest added.
Also, Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev answered the question in the affirmative.
SNEG.TV, was the canonization of the royal family a condition for the reunification of the ROC and ROCOR? “Yes, it was, and in many ways, of course, this canonization was political,” said Kuraev.
Holiness Commission
To understand more clearly who in the Church are called passion-bearers, one should refer to the official explanations from the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints. From 1989 to 2011, it was headed by Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsky and Kolomna, during this time 1866 devotees of piety were numbered among the saints, including 1776 new martyrs and confessors who suffered during the years of Soviet power.
In his report at the Council of Bishops in 2000 - the very one where the question of the royal family was being decided - Vladyka Yuvenaly stated the following: “One of the main arguments of opponents of the canonization of the royal family is the assertion that the death of Emperor Nicholas II and his family members cannot be recognized as a martyr's death for Christ. The commission, on the basis of a thorough examination of the circumstances of the death of the royal family, proposes to carry out its canonization as a holy martyr. In the liturgical and hagiographic literature of the Russian Orthodox Church, the word "passion-bearer" began to be used in relation to those Russian saints who, imitating Christ, endured physical, moral suffering and death at the hands of political opponents with patience. "
“In the history of the Russian Church, such passion-bearers were the holy noble princes Boris and Gleb (1015), Igor of Chernigov (1147), Andrei Bogolyubsky (1174), Mikhail of Tverskoy (1319), Tsarevich Dimitri (1591). All of them, by their feat of passion-bearers, have shown a high example of Christian morality and patience, ”he noted.
The proposal was accepted, and the council decided to recognize the emperor, his wife and children as holy martyrs, despite the fact that the Bishops' Council of the Russian Church Abroad in 1981 had already recognized the entire royal family and even its servants as “full-fledged” martyrs, among whom was the Catholic valet Aloisy Troupe and Lutheran Goflectrice Ekaterina Schneider. The latter did not die with the royal family in Yekaterinburg, but two months later in Perm. History knows no other examples of the canonization of Catholics and Protestants by the Orthodox Church.
Unholy saints
Meanwhile, the canonization of a Christian in the rank of martyr or martyr does not whitewash his entire biography as a whole. So, holy martyr grand Duke Andrei Bogolyubsky in 1169 ordered to storm Kiev - "the mother of Russian cities", after which houses, churches and monasteries were mercilessly plundered and destroyed, which made a terrible impression on his contemporaries.
In the list of holy martyrs, you can also find people like Barbarian Lukansky, who for the first part of his life was engaged in robberies, robberies and murders, and then suddenly believed in God, repented and died in an accident - passing merchants took him in the tall grass for a dangerous animal and shot. And according to the Gospel, the robber crucified on the right hand of Christ was the first to enter paradise, who himself acknowledged the justice of his sentence, but managed to repent within hours before his death.
The stubborn fact that most of the life and the entire reign of Emperor Nicholas, up to abdication and exile, is by no means an example of holiness, was openly recognized at the Council in 2000. “Summing up the study of the state and church activities of the last Russian emperor, the Commission did not find in this activity alone sufficient grounds for his canonization. It seems necessary to emphasize that the canonization of the monarch is in no way connected with the monarchist ideology, and even less does it mean the “canonization” of the monarchical form of government, "Metropolitan Juvenaly concluded then.
Professor Sergei Mironenko on the personality and fatal mistakes of the last Russian emperor
In the year of the 100th anniversary of the revolution, talk about Nicholas II and his role in the tragedy of 1917 does not cease: truth and myths are often mixed in these conversations. Scientific Director of the State Archives of the Russian Federation Sergey Mironenko - about Nicholas II as a person, ruler, family man, passion-bearer.
"Nicky, you're just some kind of Muslim!"
Sergey Vladimirovich, in one of your interviews you called Nicholas II “frozen”. What did you mean? What was the emperor like as a person, as a person?
Nicholas II loved theater, opera and ballet, he loved physical exercise. He had unassuming tastes. He loved to drink a glass or two of vodka. Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich recalled that when they were young, he and Nika once sat on the couch and kicked, who would knock whom off the couch. Or another example - a diary entry during a visit to relatives in Greece about how gloriously she and her cousin Georgie left with oranges. He was already quite an adult young man, but there was something childish in him: to leave with oranges, kick with his feet. An absolutely living person! But all the same, it seems to me, he was some kind of ... not daring, not "eh!" You know, sometimes meat is fresh, but sometimes it is frozen first, and then thawed, you know? In this sense - "frostbitten".
Sergey Mironenko
Photo: DP28
Restrained? Many noted that he very dryly described terrible events in his diary: next to the shooting of the demonstration, and the lunch menu. Or that the emperor remained absolutely calm when receiving heavy news from the front of the Japanese war. What does this indicate?
In the imperial family, keeping a diary was one of the elements of education. The person was taught by the end of the day to write down what happened to him, and thus to give himself an account of how you lived that day. If the diaries of Nicholas II were used for the history of the weather, then it would be a wonderful source. "Morning, so much frost, got up at so and so." Is always! Plus or minus: "sunny, windy" - he always wrote it down.
Similar diaries were kept by his grandfather, Emperor Alexander II. The War Ministry published small commemorative books: each sheet was divided into three days, and so Alexander II managed to write his whole day on such a small sheet all day, from the moment he got up and before he went to bed. Of course, this was only a record of the formal side of life. Basically, Alexander II wrote down who he received, with whom he dined, with whom he dined, where he was, at a show or somewhere else, etc. Rarely, rarely something emotional breaks through. In 1855, when his father, Emperor Nicholas I, was dying, he wrote: “Such and such an hour. The last terrible torment. " This is a different type of diary! And Nikolai's emotional assessments are extremely rare. In general, he, apparently, was an introvert by nature.
- Today one can often see in the press a certain average image of Tsar Nicholas II: a man of noble aspirations, an exemplary family man, but a weak politician. How true is this image?
As for the fact that one image has been established, it is wrong. There are diametrically opposite points of view. For example, Academician Yuri Sergeevich Pivovarov claims that Nicholas II was a major, successful statesman. Well, you yourself know that there are many monarchists who worship Nicholas II.
I think that this is just correct image: he really was a very good person as a person, a wonderful family man and, of course, a deeply religious person. But as a politician, he was absolutely out of place, I would say so.
Coronation of Nicholas II
When Nicholas II came to the throne, he was 26 years old. Why, despite his excellent education, was he not ready to be king? And there is such evidence that he did not want to access the throne, was burdened by this?
Behind me are the diaries of Nicholas II, which we have published: if you read them, everything becomes clear. He was actually a very responsible person, he understood all the burden of responsibility that fell on his shoulders. But, of course, he did not think that his father, Emperor Alexander III, would die at the age of 49, he thought that he still had some time to spare. Nicholas was burdened by the ministers' reports. Although one can relate differently to the Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, I believe he was absolutely right when he wrote about the features characteristic of Nicholas II. For example, he said that Nicholas had the rights of the one who came to him last. Various issues are being discussed, and Nikolai accepts the point of view of the one who came to his office last. Maybe this was not always the case, but this is a certain vector that Alexander Mikhailovich is talking about.
Another feature of it is fatalism. Nicholas believed that since he was born on May 6, the day of Job the Long-suffering, he was written to suffer. Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich told him to this: “Niki (that was the name of Nikolai in the family), you're just some kind of Muslim! We have an Orthodox faith, it gives free will, and your life depends on you, there is no such fatalistic destiny in our faith. " But Nikolai was sure that it was written for him to suffer.
In one of your lectures, you said that he really suffered a lot. Do you think that it was somehow connected with his warehouse, attitude?
You see, each person makes his own destiny. If you think from the very beginning that you were created to suffer, in the end, so it will be in life!
The main misfortune, of course, is that they had a terminally ill child. This cannot be discounted. And it turned out literally right after birth: the crown prince's umbilical cord was bleeding ... This, of course, frightened the family, they hid for a very long time that their child was sick with hemophilia. For example, the sister of Nicholas II, Grand Duchess Xenia, found out about this almost 8 years after the heir was born!
Then, difficult situations in politics - Nikolai was not ready to rule the huge Russian Empire in such a difficult period of time.
About the birth of Tsarevich Alexei
The summer of 1904 was marked by a joyful event, the birth of the unfortunate Tsarevich. Russia had been waiting for an heir for so long, and how many times this hope turned into disappointment that his birth was greeted with enthusiasm, but the joy did not last long. Even in our house discouragement reigned. Uncle and aunt, no doubt, knew that the child was born with hemophilia, a disease that manifests itself in bleeding due to the inability of blood to clot quickly. Of course, the parents quickly learned about the nature of their son's illness. One can imagine what a terrible blow it was for them; from that moment on, the empress's character began to change, from painful experiences and constant anxiety, her health, both physical and mental, was shaken.
- But he was prepared for this from childhood, like any heir!
You see, cook - do not cook, and the personal qualities of a person cannot be discounted. If you read his correspondence with the bride, who later became Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, you will see that he writes to her, how he rode twenty miles and feels good, and she told him about how she was in church, how she prayed. Their correspondence shows everything from the very beginning! Do you know what he called her? He called her "owl" and she called him "calf". Even this one detail gives a clear idea of \u200b\u200btheir relationship.
Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna
Initially, the family was against his marriage to the Princess of Hesse. Can we say that Nicholas II showed character here, some volitional qualities, insisting on his own?
They weren't entirely against it. They wanted to marry him to a French princess - because of the outlined turn in the foreign policy of the Russian Empire from an alliance with Germany, Austria-Hungary to an alliance with France in the early 90s of the XIX century. Alexander III also wanted to strengthen family ties with the French, but Nicholas flatly refused. A little-known fact - Alexander III and his wife Maria Feodorovna, when Alexander was still only heir to the throne, became the successors of Alice of Hesse, the future Empress Alexandra Feodorovna: they were godmother and a young father! So, there were connections anyway. Yes, and Nikolai wanted to marry at any cost.
- But he was still a follower?
Of course he was. You see, you have to distinguish between stubbornness and will. Very often weak-willed people are stubborn. I think that in a certain sense Nikolai was like that too. There are wonderful moments in their correspondence with Alexandra Fyodorovna. Especially during the war, when she writes to him: "Be Peter the Great, be Ivan the Terrible!" And then adds: "I see you smiling." She writes to him “be,” but she herself perfectly understands that he cannot be, in character, the same as his father was.
For Nikolai, his father was always an example. He wanted, of course, to be like him, but he could not.
Dependence on Rasputin led Russia to ruin
- And how strong was the influence of Alexandra Feodorovna on the emperor?
Alexandra Feodorovna had a huge influence on him. And through Alexandra Fedorovna - Rasputin. And, by the way, relations with Rasputin became one of the rather strong catalysts of the revolutionary movement, of general discontent with Nikolai. It was not so much the figure of Rasputin itself that aroused discontent, as the image of a dissolute old man created by the press, who influences political decision-making. Add to this the suspicion that Rasputin is a German agent, fueled by the fact that he was against the war with Germany. Rumors spread that Alexandra Feodorovna was a German spy. In general, everything rolled along a well-known road, which led, in the end, to renunciation ...
Caricature of Rasputin
Pyotr Stolypin
- What other political mistakes have become fatal?
There were many of them. One of them is distrust of prominent statesmen. Nikolai could not save them, he could not! Stolypin's example in this sense is very indicative. Stolypin is truly an outstanding person. Outstanding not only and not so much because he uttered in the Duma the words that everyone is now repeating: "You need great upheavals, but we need a great Russia."
That's not why! But because he understood: the main brake in a peasant country is the community. And he firmly led the line on the destruction of the community, and this contradicted the interests of a fairly wide range of people. After all, when Stolypin arrived in Kiev in 1911 as prime minister, he was already a lame duck. The question of his resignation was resolved. He was killed, but the end of his political career came earlier.
In history, as you know, there is no subjunctive mood. But I really want to dream up. But what if Stolypin had been at the head of the government longer, if he had not been killed, if the situation had developed differently, what would have happened? Would Russia have entered the war with Germany so recklessly, was it worth the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand to get involved in this world war? ..
1908 year. Tsarskoe Selo. Rasputin with the Empress, five children and a governess
Nevertheless, I really want to apply the subjunctive mood. The events taking place in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century seem to be so spontaneous, irreversible - absolute monarchy has outlived its own, and sooner or later what happened would have happened, the personality of the king did not play a decisive role. This is not true?
You know, this question, from my point of view, is useless, because the task of history is not to guess what would have happened if it were, but to explain why it happened this way and not otherwise. This has already happened. But why did it happen? After all, history has many paths, but for some reason it chooses one of the many, why?
Why did it happen that the formerly very friendly, close-knit family of the Romanovs ( ruling house Romanov) was completely split by 1916? Nikolai and his wife were alone, and the whole family - I emphasize, the whole family - was against it! Yes, Rasputin played a role - the family split largely because of him. Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna, sister of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, tried to talk to her about Rasputin, to dissuade her - it was useless! Nicholas's mother, Empress Dowager Maria Feodorovna, tried to speak - it was useless.
In the end, it came to a grand ducal conspiracy. Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich, the beloved cousin of Nicholas II, took part in the murder of Rasputin. Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich wrote to Maria Feodorovna: "The hypnotist has been killed, now it is the turn for the hypnotized, she must disappear."
They all saw that this indecisive policy, this dependence on Rasputin was leading Russia to ruin, but they could not do anything! They thought that they would kill Rasputin, and things would somehow get better, but they did not get better - everything had gone too far. Nikolai believed that relations with Rasputin were a private affair of his family, in which no one had the right to interfere. He did not understand that the emperor could not have a private relationship with Rasputin, that the matter had taken on a political turn. And he badly miscalculated, although he can be understood as a person. Therefore, personality certainly matters a lot!
About Rasputin and his murder
From the memoirs of the Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna
Everything that happened to Russia thanks to the direct or indirect influence of Rasputin, can, in my opinion, be regarded as a vindictive expression of the dark, terrible, all-consuming hatred that has been burning in the soul of the Russian peasant for centuries in relation to the upper classes, who did not try to understand or attract him to your side. Rasputin, in his own way, loved both the empress and the emperor. He felt sorry for them, as they feel sorry for children who made a mistake through the fault of adults. They both liked his seeming sincerity and kindness. His speech - they had never heard anything like it before - attracted them with its simple logic and novelty. The emperor himself strove for closeness with his people. But Rasputin, who had no education and was not used to such an environment, was spoiled by the boundless trust that his high patrons showed him.
Emperor Nicholas II and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief led. Prince Nikolai Nikolaevich during a review of the fortifications of the Przemysl fortress
Is there evidence that Empress Alexandra Feodorovna directly influenced her husband's specific political decisions?
Of course! At one time there was such a book by Kasvinov "23 Steps Down", about the murder of the royal family. So, one of the most serious political mistakes of Nicholas II was the decision to become the most supreme commander in chief in 1915. This was, if you will, the first step to renunciation!
- And only Alexandra Feodorovna supported this decision?
She convinced him! Alexandra Feodorovna was a very strong-willed, very smart and very cunning woman. What was she fighting for? For the future of their son. She was afraid that the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich (commander-in-chief russian army in 1914-1915 - ed.), who was very popular in the army, will deprive Niki of the throne and become emperor himself. Let's leave aside the question of whether this was really so.
But, believing in the desire of Nikolai Nikolaevich to take the Russian throne, the empress began to conduct an intrigue. “In this difficult time of testing, only you can lead the army, you must do it, it is your duty,” she persuaded her husband. And Nikolai succumbed to her persuasion, sent his uncle to command the Caucasian front and took over the command of the Russian army. He did not listen to his mother, who begged him not to take a disastrous step - she just perfectly understood that if he became commander-in-chief, all the failures at the front would be associated with his name; nor the eight ministers who wrote him a petition; nor the Chairman of the State Duma Rodzianko.
The emperor left the capital, lived for months at headquarters, and as a result could not return to the capital, where in his absence the revolution took place.
Emperor Nicholas II and the front commanders at the General Headquarters meeting
Nicholas II at the front
Nicholas II with Generals Alekseev and Pustovoitenko at Headquarters
What kind of person was the empress? You said - strong-willed, smart. But at the same time, she gives the impression of a sad, melancholic, cold, closed person ...
I would not say that she was cold. Read their letters - after all, a person opens up in letters. She is passionate loving woman... A domineering woman who fights for what she sees fit, fights for the throne to be handed over to her son, despite his deadly illness. You can understand her, but, in my opinion, she lacked the breadth of sight.
We will not say why Rasputin acquired such an influence on her. I am deeply convinced that it is not only about the sick Tsarevich Alexei, whom he helped. The fact is, the empress herself needed a person who would support her in this hostile world. She arrived, shy, embarrassed, in front of her was a rather strong Empress Maria Feodorovna, whom the court loved. Maria Feodorovna loves balls, but Alix does not like balls. Petersburg society is accustomed to dancing, accustomed, accustomed to having fun, and the new empress is a completely different person.
Nikolay II with his mother Maria Feodorovna
Nicholas II with his wife
Nicholas II with Alexandra Feodorovna
Gradually, the relationship between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law is getting worse and worse. And in the end it comes to a complete break. Maria Feodorovna in her last diary before the revolution, in 1916, calls Alexandra Feodorovna only “fury”. "This fury" - she can't even write her name ...
Elements of the great crisis that led to the abdication
- Nevertheless, Nikolai and Alexandra were wonderful family, right?
Of course, wonderful family! They sit, read books to each other, their correspondence is wonderful, tender. They love each other, they are spiritually close, physically close, they have wonderful children. Children are different, some of them are more serious, some, like Anastasia, are more mischievous, some secretly smoke.
About the atmosphere in Nikolai's family II and Alexandra Feodorovna
From the memoirs of the Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna
The emperor and his wife were always tender in relations with each other and children, and it was so nice to be in an atmosphere of love and family happiness.
At a costume ball. 1903 g.
But after the assassination of Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich (Governor-General of Moscow, uncle of Nicholas II, spouse of Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna - ed.) in 1905, the family is locked in Tsarskoe Selo, there is not a single big ball, the last big ball takes place in 1903, a fancy-dress ball, where Nikolai is in the costume of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, Alexander is in the costume of the tsarina. And then they become more and more closed.
Alexandra Fyodorovna did not understand much, did not understand the situation in the country. For example, failures in the war ... When they tell you that Russia almost won the First World War, do not believe it. A serious socio-economic crisis was growing in Russia. First of all, it manifested itself in the inability of railways to cope with freight flows. It was impossible to simultaneously deliver food to large cities and carry military supplies to the front. Despite the railway boom that began under Witt in the 1880s, Russia, compared with european countries, the railway network was poorly developed.
The laying ceremony of the Trans-Siberian Railway
- Despite the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway, was this not enough for such a large country?
Absolutely! This was not enough, the railways could not cope. Why am I talking about this? When the food shortages began in Petrograd, in Moscow, what does Alexandra Feodorovna write to her husband? “Our Friend advises (Friend - that's what Alexandra Feodorovna called Rasputin in her correspondence. - Ed.): order to attach one or two wagons with food to each echelon that goes to the front. " To write this means not to be guided at all in what is happening. This is a search for simple solutions, solutions to the problem, the roots of which do not lie in this at all! What is one or two carriages for multimillion-dollar Petrograd and Moscow? ..
Yet it grew!
Prince Felix Yusupov, participant in the conspiracy against Rasputin
Two or three years ago we received the Yusupovs' archive - Viktor Fedorovich Vekselberg bought and donated it to the State Archives. This archive contains letters from the teacher Felix Yusupov in the Corps of Pages, who went with Yusupov to Rakitnoye, where he was exiled after participating in the murder of Rasputin. Two weeks before the revolution, he returned to Petrograd. And he writes to Felix, who is still in Rakitnoye: "Can you imagine that I haven't seen or eaten a piece of meat in two weeks?" No meat! The bakeries are closed because there is no flour. And this is not the result of some malicious conspiracy, as they sometimes write about it, which is complete nonsense and nonsense. And the evidence of the crisis that gripped the country.
The leader of the Cadet Party, Miliukov, speaks in the State Duma - seemingly a remarkable historian, a wonderful person - but what does he say from the Duma rostrum? He throws accusation after accusation to the government, of course, addressing them to Nicholas II, and ends each of his passages with the words: “What is this? Stupidity or treason? " The word "treason" has already been dropped.
It's always easy to blame your failures on someone else. It's not we who are fighting badly, it's treason! Rumors began to circulate that the Empress had laid a direct gold cable from Tsarskoye Selo to Wilhelm's headquarters, that she was selling state secrets. When she arrives at headquarters, the officers are demonstratively silent in her presence. It's like a snowball is growing! The economy, the crisis of the railways, setbacks at the front, the political crisis, Rasputin, the split in the family - all these are elements of a great crisis that ultimately led to the abdication of the emperor and the collapse of the monarchy.
By the way, I am sure that those people who thought about the abdication of Nicholas II, and he himself, did not at all assume that this was the end of the monarchy. Why? Because they had no experience of political struggle, they did not understand that horses do not change on the crossing! Therefore, the commanders of the fronts, as one, wrote to Nikolai that in order to save the Motherland and continue the war, he must abdicate the throne.
On the situation at the beginning of the war
From the memoirs of the Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna
In the beginning, the war was going well. Every day, a crowd of Muscovites staged patriotic demonstrations in the park opposite our house. The people in the front ranks held flags and portraits of the emperor and empress. With bare heads, they sang the national anthem, shouted words of approval and greeting, and quietly dispersed. The people perceived it as entertainment. Enthusiasm took on more and more violent forms, but the authorities did not want to hinder this expression of loyal feelings, people refused to leave the square and disperse. The last gathering turned into rampant drunkenness and ended with the throwing of bottles and stones at our windows. The police were called and lined up along the sidewalk to block access to our house. Excited shouts and dull murmurs of the crowd echoed from the street all night.
About the bomb in the temple and changing moods
From the memoirs of the Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna
On the eve of Easter, when we were in Tsarskoe Selo, a conspiracy was revealed. Two members of a terrorist organization, disguised as singers, tried to get into the choir, which was sung at services in the palace church. Apparently, they planned to carry bombs under their clothes and detonate them in the church during the Easter service. The Emperor, although he knew of the conspiracy, went with his family to church as usual. Many people were arrested that day. Nothing happened, but it was the saddest service I have ever attended.
Abdication of the throne of Emperor Nicholas II.
There are still myths about abdication - that it had no legal force, or that the emperor was forced to abdicate ...
It just surprises me! How can you say such nonsense? You see, the renunciation manifesto was published in all newspapers, in all! And for a year and a half that Nikolai lived after that, he never once said: "No, they forced me, this is not my real renunciation!"
Is the attitude towards the emperor and empress in society also “steps down”: from delight and devotion to ridicule and aggression?
When Rasputin was killed, Nicholas II was at headquarters in Mogilev, and the empress was in the capital. What does she do? Alexandra Feodorovna summons the Petrograd Chief of Police and gives the order to arrest Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich and Yusupov - participants in the murder of Rasputin. This caused an explosion of indignation in the family. Who is she?! What right does she have to give instructions to arrest someone? This proves 100% who rules us - not Nikolai, but Alexandra!
Then the family (mother, grand dukes and grand duchesses) turned to Nicholas with a request not to punish Dmitry Pavlovich. Nikolai put a resolution on the document: “I am surprised by your appeal to me. Nobody is allowed to kill! " A worthy answer? Of course yes! Nobody dictated this to him, he himself, from the depths of his soul, wrote it.
In general, Nicholas II can be respected as a person - he was an honest, decent person. But not too smart and without a strong will.
"I am not sorry for myself, but sorry for the people"
Alexander III and Maria Feodorovna
The famous phrase of Nicholas II after his abdication: "I am not sorry for myself, but sorry for the people." He really rooted for the people, for the country. And how did he know his people?
I'll give you an example from another area. When Maria Fedorovna married Alexander Alexandrovich and when they - then the Tsarevich and Tsarevna - traveled across Russia, she described such a situation in her diary. She, who grew up in a rather poor but democratic Danish royal court, could not understand why her beloved Sasha did not want to communicate with the people. He does not want to leave the ship on which they traveled to the people, does not want to accept bread and salt, he is absolutely not interested in all this.
But she arranged so that he had to get off at one of the points of their route where they landed. He did everything flawlessly: he accepted the elders, bread and salt, charmed everyone. He came back and ... made a wild scandal for her: stamped his feet, broke the lamp. She was terrified! Her dear and beloved Sasha, who is throwing a kerosene lamp on the wooden floor, now everything is on fire! She couldn't understand why? Because the unity of the tsar and the people was like a theater, where everyone played their roles.
Even footage of the chronicle of Nicholas II leaving Kostroma in 1913 has been preserved. People go into the water up to their chests, pull their hands to him, this is the tsar-father ... and after 4 years these same people are singing shameful ditties about the tsar and the queen!
- The fact that, for example, his daughters were sisters of mercy, was that also a theater?
No, I think it was sincere. After all, they were deeply religious people, and, of course, Christianity and mercy are practically synonyms. The girls were really sisters of mercy, Alexandra Fedorovna really assisted in the operations. Some of the daughters liked it, some not very much, but they were no exception among the imperial family, among the house of the Romanovs. They gave their palaces to hospitals - there was a hospital in the Winter Palace, and not only the emperor's family, but also other great princesses. Men fought, and women engaged in mercy. So mercy is not just ostentatious.
Princess Tatiana in the hospital
Alexandra Feodorovna - sister of mercy
Princesses with the wounded in the infirmary of Tsarskoye Selo, winter 1915-16
But in a sense, any court action, any court ceremony is a theater, with its own script, with its own actors etc.
Nikolay II and Alexandra Fedorovna in the hospital for the wounded
From the memoirs of the Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna
The Empress, who spoke Russian very well, walked through the wards and talked for a long time with each patient. I walked behind and not so much listened to the words - she said the same to everyone - as I watched the expressions on their faces. Despite the empress's sincere sympathy for the suffering of the wounded, something prevented her from expressing her true feelings and comforting those to whom she addressed. Although she spoke Russian correctly and almost without an accent, people did not understand her: her words did not find a response in their souls. They looked at her in dismay as she approached and began a conversation. I visited hospitals with the emperor more than once. His visits looked different. The emperor behaved simply and charmingly. With his appearance, a special atmosphere of joy arose. Despite his small stature, he always seemed taller than everyone present and went from bed to bed with extraordinary dignity. After a short conversation with him, the expression of anxious expectation in the eyes of the patients was replaced by joyful animation.
1917 - This year marks the 100th anniversary of the revolution. How, in your opinion, should we talk about it, how should we approach the discussion of this topic? Ipatiev House
How was the decision to canonize them made? "Digging", as you say, weighed. After all, the commission did not immediately declare him a martyr, there were rather big disputes on this score. It was not for nothing that he was canonized as a passion-bearer, as one who gave his life for the Orthodox faith. Not because he was an emperor, not because he was an outstanding statesman, but because he did not renounce Orthodoxy. Until its martyrdom, the royal family constantly invited priests who served mass, even in the Ipatiev House, not to mention Tobolsk. The family of Nicholas II was a deeply religious family.
- But even about canonization there are different opinions.
They were canonized as martyrs - what different opinions can there be?
Some insist that the canonization was hasty and politically motivated. What can I say to this?
From the report of Metropolitan of Krutitsky and Kolomna Juvenaly, p.chairman of the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints at the Bishops' Jubilee Council
… Behind the many sufferings endured by the Royal Family in the last 17 months of their life, which ended with the execution in the basement of the Yekaterinburg Ipatiev House on the night of July 17, 1918, we see people sincerely striving to embody the commandments of the Gospel in their lives. In the sufferings endured by the Royal Family in captivity with meekness, patience and humility, in their martyrdom, the light of Christ's faith conquering evil was revealed, just as it shone in the life and death of millions of Orthodox Christians who endured persecution for Christ in the 20th century. It is precisely in comprehending this feat of the Royal Family that the Commission, in complete unanimity and with the approval of the Holy Synod, finds it possible to glorify in the Cathedral the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia in the face of the Passion-Bearers Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexander, Tsarevich Alexy, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia.
- How do you generally assess the level of discussions about Nicholas II, about the imperial family, about 1917 today?
What is a discussion? How can one discuss with the ignorant? In order to say something, a person must know at least something, if he does not know anything, it is useless to discuss with him. About the royal family and the position of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century for last years so much garbage appeared. But what pleases me is that there are very serious works, for example, studies by Boris Nikolayevich Mironov, Mikhail Abramovich Davydov, who are engaged in economic history. So Boris Nikolayevich Mironov has a wonderful job, where he analyzed the metric data of people who were called up for military service. When a person was called up for service, his height, weight and so on were measured. Mironov was able to establish that in the fifty years that have passed since the liberation of the serfs, the growth of conscripts has increased by 6-7 centimeters!
- That is, they began to eat better?
Of course! Life is better than steel! But what did Soviet historiography talk about? "The aggravation, above the usual, of the needs and calamities of the oppressed classes," "relative impoverishment," "absolute impoverishment," and so on. In fact, as I understand it, if you believe the works that I have named - and I have no reason not to believe them - the revolution did not come from the fact that they began to live worse, but because of how paradoxical it sounds, that it is better began to live! But everyone wanted to live even better. The situation of the people after the reform was extremely difficult, the situation was terrible: the working day was 11 hours, the working conditions were terrible, but in the village they began to eat better, to dress better. There was a protest against the slow forward movement, I wanted it faster.
Sergey Mironenko.
Photo: Alexander Bury / russkiymir.ru
From goodness not looking for good, in other words? Sounds menacing ...
Why?
Because I involuntarily want to draw an analogy with our days: over the past 25 years, people have learned that it is possible to live better ...
They do not seek from goodness, yes. For example, the Narodnaya Volya revolutionaries who killed Alexander II, the liberator tsar, were also unhappy. Although he is the Tsar-Liberator, he is indecisive! He does not want to go further in reforms - he needs to be pushed. If it doesn’t go - you have to kill him, you have to kill those who oppress the people ... You cannot fence yourself off from this. We need to understand why this all happened. I do not advise you to make analogies with today, because analogies are usually wrong.
Usually today they repeat something else: Klyuchevsky's words that history is an overseer who punishes for ignorance of its lessons; that those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat its mistakes ...
Of course, history must be known not only in order not to make the same mistakes. I think the main thing for which you need to know your history is in order to feel like a citizen of your country. Without knowing your own history, you cannot be a citizen, in literally this word.
The future Emperor received a very good education at home. As a child, by the will of his father, Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich, he was brought up in a Spartan spirit. His first teacher, AP Ollengren, recalled the words of Alexander Alexandrovich: “Neither I nor the Grand Duchess want to make them (that is, sons) of greenhouse flowers. They should pray well to God, study, play, and be naughty in moderation. Learn well, do not give habits, ask to the fullest extent of the laws, do not encourage laziness in particular. If anything, please contact me directly, and I know what to do. I repeat that I don't need porcelain. I need normal Russian children. Fight - please. But the prover is the first whip. This is my very first requirement. ”
Apparently, this educational program was conscientiously carried out and in many ways bore fruit. In many ways, but not in all. Passing the course of special home education, Nikolai never showed any zeal or curiosity about his studies. Teachers were forbidden to “ask to the fullest extent possible,” and the student himself did not ask anything, but he was bored immensely. KP Pobedonostsev recalls this boredom. The future Emperor himself writes about this boredom in his diary. To prepare him for this particular field, classes were introduced into his school curriculum. political history... However, politics cast on him, in his own words, "hibernation", and in the future those around him could not avoid the impression that this kind of activity was stoically transferred to him, but deeply alien to his natural inclinations. Many memoirists write about this. Political issues, especially those requiring responsible decisions, disharmoniously invaded his inner world with an annoying foreign body.
Having completed his home education by listening to courses in military and legal sciences, the future Emperor retained a special affection for military service.
The environment in which he felt confident, calm and complacent is primarily a narrow family circleas well as the environment of the military people. The atmosphere of naturalness was given to him by the meetings several times a day of the same persons from the retinue, the convoy, the security officers who did not say anything unpleasant, unexpected, would not lead to the need to immediately resolve a difficult issue and make a responsible decision. Describing the level of the Sovereign's development, S. Yu. Witte wrote that “Emperor Nicholas II in our time has a secondary education of a guards colonel of a good family”.
Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II loved military affairs, and among the military people he felt more free. This inclination, combined with the conviction inculcated in him by his upbringing, to bring into state life the Christian religious and moral principles of his worldview, led to a very peculiar implementation by the Emperor of a military policy that seemed to him especially important.
As early as 1898, he appealed to the governments of Europe with a proposal to convene a conference to discuss the most effective methods of ensuring the preservation of world peace and setting limits on the growth of armaments. As a result of this appeal, the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 were held, the decisions of which are largely valid to this day.
Russia came to war with Japan unprepared. This was exactly what Japan took advantage of by starting the war in January 1904. The society was filled with unjustified optimism, regarding the war as an episode. This episode was not given much importance, and in relation to the Japanese, contemptuous "macaques" never left their lips. At the beginning of the war, the Emperor definitely expresses his opinion that the war will be short-lived, of course, victorious and will not affect the internal situation in the country, which is completely stable. Stopping all other affairs, the Emperor traveled a lot around the country, inspected the troops, participated in the consecration of warships and generously distributed icons and crosses to soldiers and officers. In the war, Russia lost 400 thousand killed, wounded and captured. Material losses were also significant. It should be said that after this war, the Tsar's view on the possibility of involving Russia in new war has undergone a general change.
Before the First World War, the Tsar's mood was split between the desire to keep the peace with all his might and the underestimation of the danger of the coming war. Of course, one cannot trust the letter of the statements of the Minister of War B.A. Sukhomlinov, but to a certain extent, probably, his words reflected reality when at the end of 1912 he said: "The Emperor and I, we believe in the army and we know that only one good thing will come from the war for us." V.N. Kokovtsov, in his memoirs, writes about the influence of the "militant-patriotic" ministers on the Tsar: “This part of the ministers actually had the Tsar on their side. And not because the Emperor was aggressive. In essence, he was deeply peaceful, but he liked the heightened mood of the ministers of a nationalist style. He was satisfied with their laudatory chants on the theme of the boundless devotion of the people to him, his indestructible power, the colossal rise of his welfare, which only needs a wider release of money for productive needs. I also liked the assurances that Germany was only frightening with her preparations and would never dare to engage in armed confrontation with us, and would be all the more compliant the more clearly we let her understand that we were not afraid of her and were boldly walking along our national road. Arguments of this kind were often readily listened to by the Emperor and found a sympathetic response in his soul ”.
Having grieved over the failures of the Russian army in the first year of the war, the Emperor considered it morally necessary to take responsibility for the conduct of the war and took over the supreme command on August 23, 1915. From the very beginning, the emperor viewed his tenure as supreme commander-in-chief as the fulfillment of his moral and state duty to God and the people, providing leading military specialists with broad initiative in solving the entire set of military-strategic and operational-tactical issues. At the same time, the Tsar categorically rejected the objections to his decision of those advisers who believed that the leadership of the army during a period of severe military defeats could shake the Tsar's political authority and contribute to the decline of the prestige of state power in general.
Objectively, the Russo-Japanese War, as well as the First world War, caused internal revolts in the Empire. But the Emperor, suppressed by the course of the war in the east, according to the testimony of people close to him, looked at these riots rather indifferently, not attaching special importance to them, and kept saying that they covered only a small part of the country and could not be of great importance. The sovereign has repeatedly expressed the idea that the work question is close to his heart. And this was manifested in the consistent support and development of social legislation in the direction of protecting and expanding the rights of workers and limiting the privileges of entrepreneurs throughout his reign. By his personal participation in resolving this issue, he wanted to calm down the working environment. The events of January 9, 1905, which occurred as a result of the adventurous activities of priest Georgy Gapon, the incompetent actions of the Minister of Internal Affairs, Prince P.D.Svyatopolk-Mirsky, and a number of senior officials of the St. Petersburg military and police departments, came as a complete surprise to the Tsar, who was absent at that time in the capital. Deeply surviving the tragedy of January 9 and trying to help the families of the victims of this tragedy, the Emperor was presented by the political opposition as the main culprit of the events that took place, which in many respects distorted the public's perception of the Sovereign's attitude to the labor issue.
The use of the events of January 9, 1905 by opposition circles to undermine the moral and political prestige of the Tsar in the eyes russian society can be compared with their similar actions in 1896, when during the coronation celebrations, through the fault of the Moscow police authorities, who did not properly control the placement of people on the Khodynskoye field, a stampede occurred, leading to numerous victims. Meanwhile, distinguished by impartial characteristics in relation to the Tsar S.Yu. Witte described the Khodynka events and the attitude of Emperor Nicholas II to them in the following way: “Usually, after the coronation, a huge celebration is held for the people, and the people are given various gifts from the Emperor, mostly and even almost exclusively edible, that is, the people are fed and treated on behalf of the Sovereign Emperor. Then on this huge square, located outside Moscow, but now near the city itself, all kinds of amusements are made for the people; usually the Emperor comes to see how his people are having fun and treating themselves to them.
On the day when everyone was supposed to arrive there, the Emperor was supposed to arrive by noon ...
Going there, getting into the carriage, I suddenly find out that on the Khodynskoye field, where the festivities should take place, in the morning there was a disaster, a terrible crush of the people, and about two thousand people were killed and maimed. When I arrived at the place, I did not notice anything special, as if no special catastrophe had happened, because in the morning they managed to clean everything up, and there were no visible traces of the catastrophe; nothing was striking, and where there could be any signs of a catastrophe, it was all masked and smoothed out. But of course, all the visitors (for this occasion a huge gazebo was arranged for the visitors) felt and understood that a great misfortune had occurred, and were in this mood.
... Soon the Grand Dukes and the Sovereign Emperor arrived, and, to my surprise, the festivities were not canceled, but continued according to the program ... in general, everything took place, as if there was no catastrophe. Only on the Tsar's face could one notice a certain sadness and a painful expression. It seems to me that if the Tsar had then been left to his own desire, then, in all likelihood, he would have canceled these festivities and would have performed a solemn service on the field instead. But, apparently, the Emperor was given bad advice ... ”.
In 1905, the Tsar, under the pressure of the prevailing circumstances, was forced to agree to the creation of the State Duma with limited legislative rights. After the solemn reception of the Duma in the Winter Palace, the Empress Mother said: "They looked at us as at their enemies, and I could not take my eyes off some types - so much their faces breathed some hatred I do not understand against us all." The Dumas of the first and second convocations did not last long, revealing their extreme opposition to the Autocrat and the Government and their complete inability to realistic legislative creativity. For the Tsar, the Duma was a source of constant irritation and strangled pride.
At the risk of giving a general assessment of how the Emperor made certain governmental decisions, we are faced with great difficulty. The fact is that the testimonies of contemporaries, regardless of their sympathies and antipathies, are very contradictory. Apparently, this ambiguity is objectively due to some traits of the Tsar's character. The Tsar himself testifies about himself: “I love to listen to different opinions and do not immediately reject what they tell me, even if it was very painful for me to hear judgments that break the best dreams of my whole life, but believe me that I will not make a decision with which my conscience is not reconciled ”. It is hardly appropriate to doubt the sincerity of this self-esteem. However, the facts showed that the Emperor's decision-making was often associated with painful emotional experiences filled with deep contradictions. The overwhelming majority of witnesses, close and distant people, one way or another, assert the impression of duality that the Emperor produced. There are many examples of such inconsistency. Thus, having appointed the chairman of the Department of Economy in 1905 by his decree, the Emperor annulled this decree two days later. To smooth over the awkwardness of the situation, he says the following words: “You don't know what it cost me to destroy my signature on the decree ... My late father told me more than once that my signature should never be changed, unless I had the opportunity to see for myself that I was mistaken or acted in a rash and thoughtless manner. With regard to your appointment, I was sure that I was acting not only quite fairly, but also for the benefit of the State, and meanwhile I was forced to refuse and destroy the signature. I will never forget this ... ”. These words were accompanied by gestures intended to reveal an extreme degree of disposition ”.
In January 1914, when the Chairman of the Council of Ministers and the Minister of Finance were dismissed simultaneously, two opposite rescripts appear on the columns of the same official body. One of them declares the dismissal to be a concession to the insistent request of the person being dismissed due to his ill health (in fact, there were no ill health or requests for dismissal). At the same time, the dismissed is elevated to the dignity of the count, thanks for the impeccable service and for the services rendered to the Fatherland; a neighboring rescript appointing a new minister declares the predecessor's performance extremely unsatisfactory. V.N. Kokovtsov recalls the farewell audience that followed these decrees: “The painful moments, when the picture of the whole past, the difficult position of the Tsar among all kinds of influences of irresponsible people, the dependence of sometimes major events on random phenomena appeared before me with such clarity, will never disappear from my memory. The Emperor ... quickly came up to meet me, gave me his hand and, not letting go of his hand, stood silently, looking me straight in the eyes ... I don’t undertake to determine how long this painful silence lasted, but it ended with the fact that The Emperor, still holding my hand, took out a handkerchief from his pocket with his left hand, and tears simply flowed from his eyes. "
This duality and external inconsistency were reflected in the relationship between the Tsar and P.A. Stolypin. Here is the testimony of the Empress Mother, who knew the character of her son well, in the midst of one of the government crises: “If Stolypin insists on his own, then I do not doubt for a moment that the Tsar, after long hesitation, will end up giving in ... He is too proud and he is experiencing the crisis that has arisen together with the Empress, without showing even a sight to those around him that he is worried and is looking for an outcome. And yet, having made the decision that Stolypin demands, the Tsar will deeply and for a long time feel the full weight of the decision he will take under the pressure of circumstances ... I am almost sure that now poor Stolypin will win the case, but for a very short time, and we will soon see him out of work, and this is a great pity both for the Tsar and for all of Russia. " This was said in the spring of 1911. About six months later P.A. Stolypin was killed in Kiev. The circumstances of his death have been described many times, as well as the cold attitude of the Court towards him at that time is known.
The ambiguity that observers note in the behavior of the Sovereign is largely due to a feeling of powerlessness under the onslaught of inexorable circumstances, in particular, due to the dramatic events in family life... The words of the Emperor, uttered by him in reflections on the hopeless situation in the First Duma, are full of latent meaning: “It happens that even the most hopeless illness passes by some miracle, although there are hardly miracles in such matters”.
This passive hope for a miracle, that everything would somehow settle by itself, on the one hand, corresponded to that trait of his character that can be called optimism, but on the other hand, it betrayed a hidden fatalism in him. Six months before the outbreak of World War II, the Emperor, feeling the proximity and inevitability of a catastrophe, said with a detachment: "Everything is God's will."
Giving from a Christian position this or that assessment of a statesman, we must not forget that this assessment should not at all relate to the form of state structure or the function that a particular person has in this state mechanism. It can only be assessed to what extent the statesman in his given function was able to embody in his activity the Christian ideals of good. It is quite natural that in scientific and popular literature we meet polar opposite views on Emperor Nicholas II as a statesman. However, the whole spectrum of different opinions boils down to at least one general statement: the main tendency of the reign of Nicholas II is protection. All biographers also agree that this tendency was instilled in the Emperor by his teacher K.P. Pobedonostsev, in whom "the fiery passion for the autocracy, in whose defense he spoke with talent and fervor, never faded."
To understand the initial views of Nicholas II on state activity, it makes sense to trace the main provisions of K.P. Pobedonostsev on this issue. They were presented in his "Moscow Collection" (1896).
Parliamentary rule is “the great lie of our time,” Pobedonostsev wrote. “History testifies that the most significant, fruitful and lasting measures and transformations for the people came from the central will of the state people, or from a minority, enlightened by a high idea and deep knowledge; on the contrary, with the expansion of the electoral principle, there was a belittling of state thought and a vulgarization of opinion among the mass of voters ”.
The evil of K.P. Pobedonostsev sees in the fact that the elections are not a selection of the best, but only "the most ambitious and impudent." The electoral struggle in multinational states is especially dangerous: “The unlimited monarchy managed to eliminate or reconcile all such demands and impulses - and not by force alone, but by equalizing rights and relations under one power. But democracy cannot cope with them, and the instincts of nationalism serve as a corroding element for it: each tribe from its locality expels representatives - not of the state and popular idea, but representatives of tribal instincts, tribal irritation, tribal hatred - both to the ruling tribe and to others. tribes, and to the institution connecting all parts of the State ”.
“Instead of the unlimited power of the monarch, we get unlimited power of the parliament, with the difference that in the person of the monarch one can imagine the unity of reasonable will; but it does not exist in parliament, because everything here depends on chance, since the will of the parliament is determined by the majority ... Such a state irresistibly leads to anarchy, from which society is saved only by dictatorship, i.e. restoration of a unified will and unified power in government ”.
All these thoughts were familiar and close to the Emperor from his youth. He deeply, in the wake of Pobedonostsev, believed that for the one hundred million Russian people, the Tsar's power was and remains sacred. He always had the idea of \u200b\u200ba good people opposed to a hostile intelligentsia.
At the same time, throughout his reign, the Emperor was forced to reckon with the opinions of such statesmen who, like S.Yu. Witte and P.A. Stolypin recognized the inevitability of the coexistence of the monarchy in Russia with the representative bodies of legislative power. Contrary to his convictions in 1905 to sign the Manifesto of October 17, which really limited the power of the Autocratic Sovereign, the Emperor never tried to repeal this legislative act, and at the same time, the 12-year period of the State Duma in Russia did not convince the Sovereign of the need for statehood for the country. parliamentary type.
Along with the views derived from the traditions, upbringing, and lessons of Pobedonostsev, the Sovereign Emperor owed his convictions regarding the meaning and significance of the autocracy in Russia to the influence of the Empress. Along with the peculiarly understood Orthodoxy in the refraction of an exalted soul, constantly looking for a miracle, Alexandra Feodorovna learned and accepted as a political dogma the belief in the invincibility and invariability of the Russian autocracy, which is inseparable from the existence of Russia and its people. In the unshakable faith in the love of the people, the Tsar must draw his strength and tranquility. Under the influence of Alexandra Feodorovna, who possessed an energetic charge of conviction, the Emperor strengthened his absolutist idea, especially during periods of calm inner life in Russia. Political complications forced him to reckon with them and from time to time take the path of concessions alive real life... Such concessions were unpleasant and organically alien to his reigning wife. In her understanding, the Emperor remained above the law. He has the power to express any desire, for it, as it were, by definition, is always for the benefit of the country and the people. Any condemnation of the Sovereign, any criticism of his actions is unacceptable, for it should be remembered that he is the Anointed One of God. The vagueness of the very concept of Autocracy, its confusion with the concept of Absolutism, almost dogmatization of the need for Tsarist charisma in the Church - all this was not alien to the Tsar himself and to many in the society around him. Not to mention the common people with the semi-folklore idea of \u200b\u200bthe Tsar-Father that existed among them, even among the highest dignitaries one could find moods and views that were more characteristic of the 16th or 18th century than for the 20th century. It is not surprising that with such views on the autocratic power at the Court, one could not do without favoritism. One of the failed protégés of the Empress, Fleet Lieutenant V.V. Mochulsky said that among his military comrades there was a simple idea that one could ask for anything, and that the Tsar and Empress could resolve absolutely everything, if only they wanted it.
Belief in "nationality" was somehow especially connected with faith in autocracy. The understanding of “nationality” at the beginning of the 20th century is illustrated by G. Rasputin's suggestions to the Empress: the Tsar and Tsarina should be closer to the people (obviously, in the person of the “elder”), see him more often and believe him more, because he will not deceive the one he reveres almost equal to God Himself, and will always tell the real truth, not like ministers and officials who do not care about people's tears and needs. The Tsar himself has repeatedly expressed himself in the spirit that there can be no doubt about the great love of the people for him. The people grieve only that they are not close enough and often see him. These words were spoken quite sincerely, in front of the closest people. How far they were from reality will show in the tragic days of the regicide in Yekaterinburg. “To the crowd, to what is commonly called the“ people, ”VN reports about these July days in 1918. Kokovtsov, this news made an impression that I did not expect. On the day the news was published, I never saw the slightest glimmer of pity or compassion anywhere. The news was read loudly, with grins, mockery and the most ruthless comments ... Some senseless hardening, some boast of bloodthirstiness. "
In the words of the same man devoted to the Emperor, the Emperor “believed that he was leading Russia to a bright future, that all trials and tribulations sent down by fate were fleeting and in any case transient, and that even if he personally was destined to endure the greatest difficulties, then The reign of his dearly beloved son will be brighter and more cloudless ... Until the very moment of renunciation, this faith did not leave him. "
If this optimism was indeed one of the contradictory aspects of the Tsar's character, it could brighten up the very inconsolable days of his reign for him. Looking at this time from a distance of almost a century, it is not out of place to ask yourself: who in general could have done more and better under the current historical conditions?
However, no matter how contradictory the nature of the state activities of Emperor Nicholas II seems, its main religious and moral result should be recognized the fact that the reign of this Sovereign was a very significant, albeit historically belated, attempt to bring the ideals of the Orthodox worldview into the state life of Russia. The failure that befell the Tsar on this path became not only his personal tragedy, but also served as the prologue to the greatest historical drama in Russia. It is possible to correlate this tragedy of Emperor Nicholas II as a statesman with the possibility of his canonization as a passion-bearer only in the context of his death, the religious understanding of which should be the basis for discussing the issue of canonization of the Tsar.
- Why are misconceptions about Tsar Nicholas so common? II and harsh criticism against him?
- To correctly understand Tsar Nicholas II, one must be Orthodox. It is not enough to be a secular person or a nominal Orthodox, or semi-Orthodox, or to perceive Orthodoxy as your hobby, while preserving the former - Soviet or Western (which is essentially the same) cultural baggage. We must be consciously Orthodox, Orthodox in essence, culture and worldview.
Tsar Nicholas II acted and reacted in the Orthodox way
In other words, to understand Nicholas II, you need to have the spiritual integrity he had. Tsar Nicholas was deeply and consistently Orthodox in his spiritual, moral, political, economic and social views. His Orthodox soul looked at the world with Orthodox eyes, he acted and reacted in an Orthodox way.
- Why do professional historians treat him so negatively?
- Western historians, like Soviet ones, treat him negatively, because they think in a secular way. Recently I read the book "Crimea" by the British historian Orlando Figes, a specialist in Russia. This is an interesting book about the Crimean War, with many details and facts, written as befits a serious scientist. However, the author, by default, approaches events with purely Western secular standards: if Tsar Nicholas I, who ruled at that time, was not a Westerner, then he had to be a religious fanatic intending to conquer the Ottoman Empire. With his love of detail, Fijes overlooks the most important thing: what the Crimean War was for Russia. He sees with Western eyes only the imperialist goals that he ascribes to Russia. He is prompted to do so by his worldview of the secular man of the West.
Fijes does not understand that the parts of the Ottoman Empire that interested Nicholas I are lands where the Orthodox Christian population has suffered from Islamic oppression for centuries. The Crimean War was not a colonial, imperialist war of Russia with the aim of moving into the territory of the Ottoman Empire and its exploitation, unlike the wars waged by the Western powers to advance into Asia and Africa and their enslavement. In the case of Russia, it was a struggle for freedom from oppression - essentially an anti-colonial and anti-imperialist war. The goal was to free the Orthodox lands and peoples from oppression, and not to conquer someone's empire. As for the accusations of Nicholas I of "religious fanaticism," in the eyes of secularists, any sincere Christian is a religious fanatic! This is due to the fact that there is no spiritual dimension in the minds of these people. They are unable to see beyond their secular cultural environment and do not go beyond the established thinking.
- It turns out that because of their secular worldview, Western historians call Nikolai II "weak" and "incapable"?
The myth of the "weakness" of Nicholas II as a ruler - Western political propaganda, invented at that time and repeated to this day
- Yes. This is Western political propaganda, invented at that time and repeated to this day. Western historians are trained and funded by the Western "establishment" and cannot see wider. Serious post-Soviet historians have already denied these accusations against the tsar, fabricated by the West, which the Soviet communists happily repeated to justify the destruction of the tsarist empire. They write that the tsarevich was "unable" to rule, but the point is that at the very beginning he was simply not ready to become tsar, since his father, Tsar Alexander III, died suddenly and relatively young. But Nikolai quickly learned and became “capable”.
Another favorite accusation of Nicholas II is that he allegedly unleashed wars: the Japanese-Russian war, called the "Russian-Japanese", and the Kaiser's war, called the First World War. It is not true. The tsar was at that time the only world leader who wanted disarmament and did not want war. As for the war against Japanese aggression, it was the Japanese themselves, armed, sponsored and instigated by the United States and Great Britain, who started the Japanese-Russian war. Without warning, they attacked the Russian fleet in Port Arthur, whose name is so consonant with Pearl Harbor. And, as we know, the Austro-Hungarians, urged on by the Kaiser, who were looking for any pretext for starting a war, unleashed.
It was Nicholas II who, in 1899, was the first in world history to call upon the rulers of states for disarmament and world peace.
Let us recall that it was Tsar Nicholas II in The Hague in 1899 that was the first in world history to call upon the rulers of states for disarmament and world peace - he saw that Western Europe was ready to explode like a powder keg. He was a moral and spiritual leader, the only ruler in the world at that time who did not have narrow, nationalist interests. On the contrary, being the anointed of God, he had in his heart the universal task of all Orthodox Christianity - to bring to Christ all mankind created by God. Otherwise, why did he make such sacrifices for Serbia? He was a man of unusually strong will, as, for example, the French President Émile Loubet noted. All the forces of hell rallied to destroy the king. They wouldn't do this if the king was weak.
- You say that Nikolai II is a deeply Orthodox person. But after all, there is very little Russian blood in him, isn't there?
- Forgive me, but this statement contains a nationalist assumption that it is necessary to be of "Russian blood" in order to be considered Orthodox, to belong to universal Christianity. I think that the tsar was one 128th Russian by blood. And what? Nicholas II's sister answered this question perfectly more than fifty years ago. In a 1960 interview with the Greek journalist Jan Vorres, the Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna (1882-1960) said: “Did the British call King George VI German? There was not a drop of English blood in him ... Blood is not the main thing. The main thing is the country in which you grew up, the faith in which you were brought up, the language in which you speak and think. "
- Today some Russians portray Nikolai II "redeemer". Do you agree with that?
- Of course not! There is only one redeemer — the Savior Jesus Christ. However, it can be said that the sacrifice of the tsar, his family, servants and tens of millions of other people killed in Russia by the Soviet regime and the fascists was atoning. Russia was "crucified" for the sins of the world. Indeed, the suffering of the Russian Orthodox in their blood and tears was redemptive. It is also true that all Christians are called to be saved by living in Christ the Redeemer. Interestingly, some pious but not overly educated Russians who call Tsar Nicholas "the redeemer" call Grigory Rasputin a saint.
- Is Nikolai's personality significant? II today? Orthodox Christians make up a small minority among the rest of Christians. Even if Nicholas II is of particular importance for all Orthodox Christians, it will still be little in comparison with all Christians.
- Of course, we Christians are a minority. According to statistics, out of 7 billion Christians living on our planet, only 2.2 billion - that's 32%. And Orthodox Christians make up only 10% of all Christians, that is, Orthodox Christians in the world are only 3.2%, or approximately every 33rd inhabitant of the Earth. But if we look at these statistics from a theological point of view, what do we see? For Orthodox Christians, non-Orthodox Christians are former Orthodox Christians who have fallen away from the Church, unwittingly brought into non-Orthodox by their leaders for a number of political reasons and for the sake of worldly well-being. Catholics can be understood by us as Catholicized Orthodox, and Protestants as Catholics who have been protested. We, unworthy Orthodox Christians, are like a little leaven that leavens the whole dough (see Gal. 5: 9).
Without the Church, light and warmth do not spread from the Holy Spirit to the whole world. Here you are outside the Sun, but you still feel the warmth and light emanating from it - also 90% of Christians outside the Church are still aware of its operation. For example, almost all of them confess the Holy Trinity and Christ as the Son of God. Why? Thanks to the Church for establishing these teachings centuries ago. Such is the grace that is present in the Church and pours out from her. If we understand this, then we will understand the significance for us of the Orthodox emperor, the last spiritual successor of the Emperor Constantine the Great - Tsar Nicholas II. His dethronement and assassination completely changed the course of church history, and the same can be said of his recent glorification.
- If so, why was the king overthrown and killed?
- Christians are always persecuted in the world, just as the Lord told His disciples. Pre-revolutionary Russia lived by the Orthodox faith. However, the belief was rejected by most of the pro-Western ruling elite, the aristocracy and many members of the growing middle class. The revolution was the result of a loss of faith.
Most of the upper class in Russia yearned for power, just as wealthy merchants and the middle class in France wanted power and caused French revolution... Having acquired wealth, they wanted to rise to the next level of the hierarchy of values \u200b\u200b- the level of power. In Russia, this thirst for power, which came from the West, was based on blind worship of the West and hatred of their country. We see this from the very beginning on the example of such figures as A. Kurbsky, Peter I, Catherine II and Westernizers like P. Chaadaev.
The decline of faith also poisoned the "white movement", which was divided due to the lack of a common strengthening faith in the Orthodox kingdom. On the whole, the Russian ruling elite was deprived of Orthodox identity, which was replaced by various surrogates: a bizarre mixture of mysticism, occultism, Freemasonry, socialism and the search for "truth" in esoteric religions. By the way, these surrogates continued to live in the Paris emigration, where various figures distinguished themselves by their adherence to theosophy, anthroposophy, sophianism, name-worshiping and other very bizarre and spiritually dangerous false teachings.
They had so little love for Russia that as a result they broke away from the Russian Church, but still justified themselves! The poet Sergei Bekhteev (1879-1954) said strong words on this subject in his 1922 poem "Come to your senses, to know", comparing the privileged position of emigration in Paris with the position of people in crucified Russia:
And again their hearts are full of intrigue
And again betrayal and lies are on the lips,
And fits life into the chapter of the last book
A vile betrayal of arrogant nobles.
These upper classes (although not all were traitors) were funded by the West from the start. The West believed that as soon as its values \u200b\u200b- parliamentary democracy, republicanism, and constitutional monarchy - were implanted in Russia, it would become another bourgeois Western country. For the same reason, the Russian Church had to be “Protestantized,” that is, spiritually neutralized, deprived of power, which the West tried to do with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and other Local Churches that fell under its rule after 1917, when they lost their patronage of Russia. This was a consequence of the vain idea of \u200b\u200bthe West that his model could become universal. This idea is inherent in the Western elites today, they are trying to impose their model on the whole world called the "new world order".
The king - the anointed of God, the last defender of the Church on earth - had to be removed because he was holding back the West from seizing power in the world
The king - the anointed of God, the last protector of the Church on earth - had to be removed, because he was holding back the West from seizing power in the world. However, in their incompetence, the aristocratic revolutionaries of February 1917 soon lost control of the situation, and after a few months power passed from them to the lower strata - to the criminals Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks, on the other hand, embarked on a course of mass violence and genocide, the "Red Terror" similar to the terror in France five generations earlier, but with much more brutal technologies of the 20th century.
Then the ideological formula of the Orthodox empire was also distorted. Let me remind you that it sounded like this: "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality." But it was maliciously interpreted as follows: "obscurantism, tyranny, nationalism." The godless communists deformed this ideology even more, so that it turned into "centralized communism, totalitarian dictatorship, national bolshevism." And what did the original ideological triad mean? It meant: "(complete, embodied) true Christianity, spiritual independence (from the forces of this world) and love for the people of God." As we said above, this ideology was the spiritual, moral, political, economic and social program of Orthodoxy.
- Social program? But the revolution came about because there were a lot of poor people and there was a merciless exploitation of the poor by super-rich aristocrats, and the tsar was at the head of this aristocracy.
- No, it was the aristocracy who opposed the tsar and the people. The tsar himself generously donated from his riches and taxed the rich with high taxes under the wonderful Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin, who did so much for land reform. Unfortunately, the tsarist social justice program was one of the reasons why the aristocrats hated the tsar. The king and the people were one. Both were betrayed by the pro-Western elite. This is evidenced by the murder of Rasputin, which was a preparation for the revolution. The peasants rightly saw in this the betrayal of the people by the nobility.
- What was the role of the Jews?
- There is such a conspiracy theory that as if some Jews are to blame for everything bad that happened and is happening in Russia (and in the world in general). This is contrary to the words of Christ.
Indeed, most of the Bolsheviks were Jews, but the Jews who participated in the preparation of the Russian revolution were, first of all, apostates, atheists like Karl Marx, and not believing, practicing Jews. The Jews who participated in the revolution worked hand in hand with non-Jewish atheists, for example, with the American banker P. Morgan, as well as with the Russians and many others, and were dependent on them.
Satan does not favor any one particular nation, but uses for his own purposes everyone who is willing to obey him
We know that Britain organized, which was supported by France and financed by the USA, that V. Lenin was sent to Russia and sponsored by the Kaiser, and that the masses who fought in the Red Army were Russians. None of them were Jewish. Some people, captivated by racist myths, simply refuse to face the truth: the revolution was the work of Satan, who is ready to use any nation, any of us - Jews, Russians, non-Russians to achieve his destructive plans ... Satan does not give preference to any one specific nation, but uses for his own purposes everyone who is ready to subordinate his free will to him to establish a "new world order", where he will be the single ruler of fallen humanity.
- There are Russophobes who believe that the Soviet Union was the successor to Tsarist Russia. Is this so, in your opinion?
- Undoubtedly, there is a continuity ... of Western Russophobia! See, for example, the issues of the Times newspaper between 1862 and 2012. You will see 150 years of xenophobia. It is true that many in the West were Russophobes long before the advent of the Soviet Union. In every nation there are such limited-minded people - simply nationalists, who believe that any people, except for their own, should be blackened, whatever it may be. political system and no matter how this system changes. We saw this in the recent war in Iraq. We see this today in the news bulletins, where the people of Syria, Iran and North Korea are accused of all sins. We don't take such prejudices seriously.
Let's return to the issue of continuity. After a period of sheer nightmare that began in 1917, continuity has indeed emerged. This happened after, in June 1941. Stalin realized that he could win the war only with the blessing of the Church, he remembered past victories orthodox Russia, won, for example, under the holy princes and Demetrius Donskoy. I realized that any victory can be achieved only together with his "brothers and sisters", that is, the people, and not with "comrades" and communist ideology. Geography does not change, so in russian history there is continuity.
The Soviet period was a deviation from history, a falling away from the national destiny of Russia, especially in the first bloody period after the revolution ...
We know (and Churchill expressed this very clearly in his book The World Crisis of 1916-1918) that in 1917 Russia was on the eve of victory
What would have happened if the revolution had not happened? We know (and W. Churchill expressed this very clearly in his book "The World Crisis of 1916-1918") that Russia was on the eve of victory in 1917. That is why the revolutionaries then rushed to take action. They had a narrow loophole through which they could operate before the start of the great offensive of 1917.
If there had not been a revolution, Russia would have defeated the Austro-Hungarians, whose multinational and mostly Slavic army was still on the verge of mutiny and collapse. Then Russia would push the Germans back to Berlin, or most likely their Prussian military leaders. In any case, the situation would be similar to 1945, with one important exception. The exception is that the tsarist army in 1917-1918 would have liberated Central and Eastern Europe without conquering it, as happened in 1944-1945. And she would have liberated Berlin, just as she liberated Paris in 1814 - peacefully and nobly, without the mistakes made by the Red Army.
- What would have happened then?
- The liberation of Berlin and, consequently, Germany from Prussian militarism would undoubtedly lead to the disarmament and division of Germany into parts, to its restoration as it was before 1871 - a country of culture, music, poetry and traditions. This would be the end of the Second Reich of O. Bismarck, which was the rebirth of the First Reich of the warlike heretic Charlemagne and led to the Third Reich of A. Hitler.
If Russia won, this would lead to the belittling of the Prussian / German government, and the Kaiser would obviously be sent into exile on some small island, like Napoleon in his time. But there would be no humiliation of the Germanic peoples - the result of the Versailles Treaty, which directly led to the horrors of fascism and World War II. By the way, this also led to the "Fourth Reich" of the current European Union.
- Wouldn't France, Britain and the United States oppose the relations of the victorious Russia with Berlin?
The allies did not want to see Russia as a winner. They wanted to use her only as "cannon fodder"
- France and Britain, bogged down in their blood-soaked trenches or, perhaps, having reached the French and Belgian borders with Germany by that time, could not have prevented this, because a victory over Kaiser Germany would be, first of all, a victory for Russia. And the United States would never have entered the war if Russia had not been withdrawn from it first, thanks in part to US funding of the revolutionaries. That is why the allies did everything to eliminate Russia from the war: they did not want to see Russia as the victor. They wanted to use her only as "cannon fodder" in order to tire Germany and prepare her defeat at the hands of the allies - and they would finish off Germany and seize her without hindrance.
- Would the Russian armies leave Berlin and Eastern Europe shortly after 1918?
- Yes of course. Here is another difference from Stalin, for whom "autocracy" - the second element of the ideology of the Orthodox Empire - was deformed into "totalitarianism", which meant occupation, suppression and enslavement through terror. After the fall of the German and Austro-Hungarian empires, freedom would come for Eastern Europe with the movement of the population to border territories and the establishment of new states without minorities: these would be reunited Poland and the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Transcarpathian Rus, Romania, Hungary and so on. ... A demilitarized zone would be created throughout Eastern and Central Europe.
It would be Eastern Europe with reasonable and secure borders
It would be Eastern Europe with reasonable and secure borders, and it would be possible to avoid the mistake of creating conglomerate states such as the future (now former) Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. By the way, about Yugoslavia: Tsar Nicholas established the Balkan Union back in 1912 to prevent subsequent Balkan wars. Of course, he failed because of the intrigues of the German prince ("king") Ferdinand in Bulgaria and nationalist intrigues in Serbia and Montenegro. We can imagine that after World War I, from which Russia would emerge victorious, such a customs union, established with clear boundaries, could become permanent. This alliance, with the participation of Greece and Romania, could finally establish peace in the Balkans, and Russia would be the guarantor of its freedom.
- What would be the fate of the Ottoman Empire?
- The Allies already in 1916 agreed that Russia would be allowed to liberate Constantinople and control the Black Sea. Russia could have achieved this 60 years earlier, thereby preventing the massacres committed by the Turks in Bulgaria and Asia Minor, if France and Great Britain had not defeated Russia in the Crimean War. (Remember that Tsar Nicholas I was buried with a silver cross depicting "Aghia Sophia" - the Church of the Wisdom of God, "so that in Heaven he would not forget to pray for his brothers in the East"). Christian Europe would free itself from the Ottoman yoke.
The Armenians and Greeks of Asia Minor would also be protected, and the Kurds would have their own state. Moreover, Orthodox Palestine and a large part of today's Syria and Jordan would have passed under the patronage of Russia. There would be none of these constant wars in the Middle East. Perhaps the current position of Iraq and Iran could also have been avoided. The consequences would be colossal. Can we imagine Russia-controlled Jerusalem? Even Napoleon remarked that "the one who rules Palestine rules the whole world." Today, Israel and the United States know this.
- What would be the consequences for Asia?
Saint Nicholas II was destined to "cut a window to Asia"
- Peter I “opened a window to Europe”. Saint Nicholas II was destined to "cut a window to Asia". Despite the fact that the holy king was actively building churches in Western Europe and the Americas, he had little interest in the Catholic-Protestant West, including America and Australia, because the West itself had and remains only a limited interest in the Church. In the West, both then and now, there is little potential for the growth of Orthodoxy. In fact, today only a small part of the world's population lives in the Western world, despite the fact that it covers a large area.
Tsar Nicholas's goal to serve Christ was thus more related to Asia, especially Buddhist Asia. In his Russian Empire lived former Buddhists who converted to Christ, and the king knew that Buddhism, like Confucianism, is not a religion, but a philosophy. Buddhists called him "White Tara" (White King). There were relations with Tibet, where he was called "Chakravartin" (King of the World), Mongolia, China, Manchuria, Korea and Japan - countries with great development potential. He also thought about Afghanistan, India and Siam (Thailand). King Rama V of Siam visited Russia in 1897, and the king prevented Siam from becoming a French colony. This was the kind of influence that would extend to Laos, Vietnam and Indonesia. People living in these countries today make up almost half of the world's population.
In Africa, where almost one seventh of the world's population lives today, the holy king had diplomatic relations with Ethiopia, which he successfully defended from colonization by Italy. The emperor also intervened for the interests of the Moroccans, as well as the Boers in South Africa. It is well known that Nicholas II had a strong aversion to what the British did with the Boers - and they simply killed them in concentration camps. We have reason to assert that the tsar thought something similar about the colonial policy of France and Belgium in Africa. The emperor was also respected by Muslims who called him "Al-Padishah", that is, "Great King". On the whole, the Eastern civilizations that recognized the sacred respected the "White Tsar" much more than the bourgeois Western civilizations.
It is not unimportant that the Soviet Union later also opposed the brutality of Western colonial policy in Africa. There is also continuity here. Today Russian Orthodox missions are already operating in Thailand, Laos, Indonesia, India and Pakistan, there are parishes in Africa. I think that today's BRICS group, consisting of rapidly developing states, is an example of what Russia could achieve 90 years ago as a member of the group of independent countries. No wonder the last Maharaja of the Sikh Empire, Duleep Singh (d. 1893), asked Tsar Alexander III to free India from exploitation and oppression by Britain.
- So, Asia could become a colony of Russia?
- No, definitely not a colony. Imperial Russia was against colonial policy and imperialism. Suffice it to compare the advance of Russia to Siberia, which was mostly peaceful, and the advance of the Europeans to both America, accompanied by genocide. To the same peoples (Native Americans are mostly close relatives of Siberians), it was completely different attitude... Of course, in Siberia and Russian America (Alaska) there were both Russian traders-exploiters and drunken fur hunters who behaved towards the local population in the same way as cowboys. We know this from the lives, as well as from the missionaries in the east of Russia and in Siberia - Saints Stephen the Great and Macarius of Altai. But such things were more likely not the rule, but the exception, and there was no genocide.
- All this is very good, but now we are talking about what could have happened. And these are only hypothetical assumptions.
Yes, these are hypothetical assumptions, but hypotheses can give us a vision of the future.
- Yes, hypothetical assumptions, but hypotheses can give us a vision of the future. We can view the last 95 years as a hole, as a catastrophic deviation from the course of world history with tragic consequences that cost the lives of hundreds of millions of people. The world lost its balance after the fall of the bastion - Christian Russia, carried out by transnational capital with the aim of creating a "unipolar world". This "unipolarity" is just a code for the designation of a new world order led by a single government - the world anti-Christian tyranny.
If only we realize this, then we can continue where we left off in 1918 and bring together the remnants of Orthodox civilization around the world. As dire as the current situation is, there is always hope born of repentance.
- What can be the result of this repentance?
- The New Orthodox Empire with its center in Russia and the spiritual capital in Yekaterinburg - the center of repentance. Thus, it would be possible to restore balance to this tragic, out of balance world.
- Then you can probably be caught in excessive optimism.
- Look what happened for recent times, since the celebration of the millennium of the Baptism of Rus in 1988. The situation in the world has changed, even transformed - and all this thanks to the repentance of a sufficient number of people from the former Soviet Union, capable of changing the whole world. The last 25 years have witnessed a revolution - the only true, spiritual revolution: the return to the Church. Taking into account the historical miracle we have already seen (and it seemed to us, born amid the nuclear threats of the Cold War, only ridiculous dreams - we remember the spiritually gloomy 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s), why don't we envision these possibilities discussed above in the future?
In 1914 the world entered a tunnel, and during the Cold War we lived in complete darkness. Today we are still in this tunnel, but glimpses of light are already visible ahead. Is that the light at the end of the tunnel? Let us recall the words of the Gospel: "Everything is possible for God" (Mark 10:27). Yes, humanly, the above is very optimistic, and there is no guarantee for anything. But the alternative is the apocalypse. Time is running out and we must hurry. Let this be a warning and a call to us all.
Meanwhile, there were many voices against canonization, especially Nicholas II. His unsuccessful state policy, including the tragedy on Khodynka, Bloody Sunday, the Lena execution, and contacts with Rasputin were cited as arguments. In 1992, by the decision of the Council of Bishops, the Synodal Commission was initiated, which was instructed to investigate
materials related to the martyrdom of the royal family. As a result, the political activity of Nicholas II was separated by the Church from the period of spiritual and physical suffering that the last Russian emperor suffered at the end of his life. In the end, the following conclusion was given: “In the sufferings endured by the royal
family in confinement with meekness, patience and humility, in their martyrdom, the light of Christ's faith conquering evil was revealed, just as it shone in
life and death of millions of Orthodox Christians who endured persecution for Christ in the 20th century.
It is in comprehending this feat of the royal family that the commission, in complete unanimity and with the approval of the Holy Synod, finds it possible to glorify in the Cathedral the new martyrs and confessors of Russia in the face of martyrs of Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia. "
On August 14, 2000, at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church, the tsar's family was canonized as part of the Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, both revealed and undetected.
It was also of great importance for church leaders that Nicholas II led a decent and pious life: he paid great attention to the needs of the Orthodox Church, generously donated funds for the construction of churches. All members of the royal family, according to the ROC, lived in accordance with the traditions of Orthodoxy.
You can treat differently political activities Nikolai Romanov, but in this case his personality is considered exclusively from the standpoint of the Christian worldview. By his martyrdom, he atoned for all his sins.