Was Tsar Nicholas II a weak politician? What kind of ruler was Nicholas II? Nikolay 2 what did wrong

- Why are rumors 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 that 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 who intended 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 because 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 reason to start 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.

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 would not 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 expiatory. 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. Now 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 in 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 the 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! 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 on the lips of betrayal and lies,
And fits life into the chapter of the last book
Treason vile 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 its 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 the 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 protector 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 the 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 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 K. Marx, and not believing, practicing Jews. The Jews who participated in the revolution worked hand in hand with non-Jewish atheists, for example, the American banker P. Morgan, as well as with the Russians and many others, and depended on them.

Satan does not give preference to any one particular nation, but uses for his own purposes everyone who is ready to obey him

We know that Britain organized, which was supported by France and financed by the United States, 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 their own, should be vilified, no matter what its political system is 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 prejudice 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 recalled the past victories of 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 there is continuity in Russian history.

The Soviet period was a deviation from history, a falling away from Russia's national destiny, 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 were quick to take action then. 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. Russia would then push the Germans back to Berlin, or most likely their Prussian commanders. 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 Nikolai 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 the First World War, from which Russia would have emerged 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 come 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 have been avoided as well. The consequences would be colossal. Can we imagine Russian-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 important 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, and there are parishes in Africa. I think that today's BRICS group, which consists 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 Europeans to both America, accompanied by genocide. The same peoples (Native Americans are mostly close relatives of Siberians) had a completely different attitude. Of course, in Siberia and Russian America (Alaska) there were both Russian traders and 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 we only realize this, then we can continue where we left off in 1918 and bring together the remains 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 at what has happened recently, 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, which can change 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.

At the beginning of the 20th century, Western journalists vied with each other about the Russian economic miracle.

The Russian Empire came out on top in the world in terms of economic growth.

Thanks to the wise rule of Emperor Nicholas II, successes were achieved in all areas of the country's life: economy, science, education, social and military spheres.

What was done:

• 90% of the land was transferred to the peasants;
• 5.5 km of railways were built per day;
• the largest export of agricultural products in the world has been established;
• the ruble was the 3rd currency in the world and was only converted into gold;
• birth rate growth - 2.5 million per year;
• 85% of young Russians were literate by 1916.

In terms of industrial production, Russia ranked 4th in Europe and 5th in the world, second only to the USA, Germany, Great Britain and France in the most important indicators. In terms of growth rates of national income and labor productivity, Russia ranked 1st in the world.

The plan for the electrification of the country was approved back in 1909., the beginning of its implementation was planned for 1915, but because of the war it was moved to 1920. After the revolution, the GOELRO plan was appropriated by the Bolsheviks.

2000 km of railways were built annually. The Great Trans-Siberian Railway, which entered the Guinness Book of Records as the longest road in the world and which connected the Far East with the European part of Russia, is the brainchild of Nicholas II.

From 1895 to 1906 the river fleet doubled. It was the largest in the world.

In the production of the main types of agricultural products, Russia took the 1st place. It accounted for 2/5 of all world exports of agricultural products.

Thanks to the progressive Stolypin reform, which the emperor approved and promoted in every possible way, in 1916 already 90% of the land belonged to peasants... According to the All-Russian Census of 1917, peasants carried out 89.3% of the crops and owned 94% of agricultural animals. What, then, did Lenin's "Decree on Land" proclaim?

During the reign of Nicholas II the ruble was converted into gold and did not depend on the currencies of other states... The royal ruble was ahead of the mark, franc and other foreign currencies, second only to the pound sterling and the dollar. "Russia owes its metal gold circulation exclusively to Emperor Nicholas II"- wrote the minister of the tsarist government S. Yu. Witte.

Russia was not a raw material appendage! The emperor categorically prohibited the export of round (unprocessed) timber from Russia and the export of crude oil. Russia supplied only oil products abroad, and Russian motor oil was the best in the world.

The population of Russia for 23 years of the reign of Nicholas II has grown by more than 60 million people! After 1917, the population only decreased (by 65 million after the repressions, famines and the Great Patriotic War).

There were colossal achievements in the spheres of invention, science, education, medicine, culture, and in the social sphere. Thus, spending on education and culture increased during the reign of Nicholas II by 8 times and more than 2 times ahead of the costs of France and 1.5 times - of England. Medicine was free, Russia was second in Europe and third in the world in terms of the number of doctors. In 1908, free primary education was introduced. By 1916, the number of literate in the Empire was more than 50%, among the youth - 85%.

Under the last Emperor, Russia became the pinnacle of Russian civilization, possessing political, economic, military might, the highest culture and advanced science.

Could this have happened with a weak ruler? ..

Testimonies of historians and politicians - contemporaries of Nicholas II - about the qualities of the Emperor:

“They say about the Russian Emperor that he is available to various influences. This is deeply wrong. The Russian Emperor himself carries out his ideas. He protects them with consistency and great strength. He has maturely thought out and elaborate plans. He works incessantly to implement them. "

Emile Loubet, former President of the French Republic

“His manners are so humble and he shows so little outward determination that it is easy to conclude that he lacks a strong will; but the people around him assure that he has a very definite will, which he knows how to implement in the most calm way.

German diplomat Count Rex

“The sovereign had a velvet glove over his iron hand. His will was not like a thunderclap. It did not manifest itself in explosions or violent collisions; it rather resembled the steady run of a stream from a mountain height to the ocean plain. He bends around obstacles, deviates to the side, but, in the end, with constant constancy comes closer to his goal. "

Was the last Russian tsar weak?
In the minds of the majority of the population of the USSR and post-Soviet Russia, Nicholas II is reputed to be a weak ruler. He lacked decisiveness, says the layman sometimes. Our tsar was not a bloody dictator like Lenin, he did not want unnecessary deaths and did not show strong will, as was required, - howl N. Starikov and his admirers - Russian nationalists. But what was it really like? Let us recall the episodes from the life of the Russian emperor most familiar to every schoolchild.
The accession to the throne of Nicholas was marked by the famous "Khodynka". On that fateful day (May 18, 1896), according to press reports, from 4 to 5 thousand people died, another 3 thousand people. remained seriously wounded, and tens of thousands of Russian people received bruises and injuries. In the evening of the same day, the French ambassador Montebello had a ball, where the Russian emperor and empress were invited. And contrary to the advice of the courtiers to cancel the trip to the ball, Nikolai remained adamant. Ball to be! As S. Witte writes in his memoirs, “the festivities were not canceled and everything took place as if there had been no catastrophe ... It was decided not to recognize the catastrophe, not to reckon with it” (See: S.Yu. T. Witte 2, pp. 69-70, 74). Still would! How can you miss such a luxurious holiday, when 100 thousand fresh roses were ordered from Provence, and silver dishes from Versailles. When the evening program includes a mazurka, a polonaise and a quadrille, which Alexandra Fyodorovna liked so much. And then useless advice about the need to honor the memory of the dead ... Is this worthy of the emperor of great Russia? Of course not! And the tsar and his wife, along with thousands of those invited, were given fun at the moment when tens of thousands of Russians were burying their loved ones. And a little later, His Majesty's uncle, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, the main culprit of the "hodynka", received a commendation "For exemplary preparation and holding of celebrations" ... Was Nicholas II so weak in this situation?
... More than 100 years have passed since the end of the Russo-Japanese War. Over the years, anyone has been accused of Russia's defeat. Here are Alekseev, and Stessel, and "talentless Kuropatkin". But today "historians" like Starikov have come up with a new version - the Russian revolutionaries are to blame for everything - spies and the "fifth column" of London. But what about Tsar Nikolai? What is his contribution to the Russian-Japanese Tsushima?
After the suppression of the "boxing" uprising in China in 1900, Russia occupied Manchuria. Under the Russian court, numerous plans appeared for the economic development of this territory and even the complete annexation of this part of China to Russia. But then the USA, Great Britain and Japan, who themselves dreamed of spreading their influence here, were outraged. London and Tokyo signed an anti-Russian treaty in 1902. The air smelled of war. And then there's the so-called. "Korean" question. In 1899, a certain Aleksandr Bezobrazov, a cavalry captain, proposed to the Russian emperor to extend the influence of Russia to North Korea, using for this a forest concession on the Yalu River. But the vigilant Witte, seeing Bezobrazov's note, did not give it a go. Bezobrazov disappeared for three years, but at the beginning of 1903 he managed to gain confidence in the emperor and receive from him 2 million rubles to create a "forest guard". In fact, this "guard", located at the mouth of the Yalu, was supposed to become an outpost of the tsarist retention of Manchuria and the conquest of North Korea. Nicholas II liked the idea very much and, contrary to the opinion of the Minister of Foreign Affairs Count Lamsdorf, Prime Minister Witte and Minister of War Kuropatkin, he began to actively promote it. And although most of the money Bezobrazov spent on other, only known to him purposes, in May 1903 he was granted by the emperor as secretary of state. (For more details about this story, see the journal "Questions of history". 2014. No. 3. P. 32-37). And this is bypassing the order of rank production that was in force at that time, for the sake of only one idea ... Ideas? Judging by the recollections of people close to the emperor, the emperor's persistence was explained not only by his geopolitical views. Nikolai knew perfectly well what he was doing. Concession on the r. Yalu promised to bring him a good income personally. The Russian tsar became a shareholder of the company founded by Bezobrazov and soon promised him to invest 200,000 rubles into the business. The Minister of the Court, Count Fredericks, who had an impeccable reputation, became aware of the emperor's act. Fredericks long ago drew attention to the tacit audiences that the emperor gives to the "shameless gang" and at the next meeting with the tsar expressed his displeasure with him. In response, according to the head of the office of the Ministry of the Imperial Court A.A. Mosolov, the tsar objected that "he is personally very interested in this very widely conceived and clever matter" (AA Mosolov At the court of the last Russian emperor: Notes of the head of the Chancellery of the Ministry of the Imperial Court. M., 2008.S. 132). This, of course, was about that very concession on the Yalu River. But Fredericks did not let up. At the next report to the tsar, he pointed out that "the Russian autocrat never became a shareholder and that this could cause unwanted rumors." Where is there? A day later, the Minister of the Court received a note from Nikolai, in which he demanded that Bezobrazov be given 200,000 rubles. The minister took offense and asked for resignation. All the same A. Mosolov writes: “This was the first and only case in his entire long service under the sovereign, when Fredericks decided to resign because of a disagreement with his monarch” (Ibid. Pp. 132-133).
And then what happened was what should have happened when the ruler puts his personal, in this case material interests, above the interests of his country, his people, his nation. Not wanting to master the vast expanses of Siberia and the Far East, where by the beginning of the XX century. barely had time to stretch one railway line, the Russian government provoked a war with Japan, for the sake of dividends that the Russian autocrat and the adventurers who supported him dreamed of getting. Well, the bills, as was always the case during the reign of Nicholas II, were paid by the Russian people. The irrecoverable losses of the Russian army alone in the war with Japan amounted to more than 200 thousand people. Military historian A. Kersnovsky wrote: "Of the 870,000 people who were in the ranks of the Manchu armies, the decrease was 6,593 officers and 222,591 lower ranks" (See: A. Kersnovsky History of the Russian army. M., 1994. Vol. 3 . P. 103). And what about financial expenses? It is known that the Russo-Japanese War forced Russia to turn to foreign loans even more widely. As a result, by the beginning of the First World War, the country's national debt had become more than 12 billion rubles. According to this indicator, Russia ranked 2nd in the world after France and 1st in terms of payments related to loans (See: Ananich B.V. Russia and international capital. 1897-1914. L., 1970, p. 298 ). But all these "little things" did not stop the Russian ruler. He resolutely implemented his geopolitical plans. Back on February 6, 1903, in his diary, Minister of War A.N. Kuropatkin wrote: “... our sovereign has grandiose plans in his head: to take Manchuria for Russia, to go to the annexation of Korea to Russia. He dreams of taking Tibet under his own state. He wants to take Persia, capture not only the Bosphorus, but also the Dardanelles. " (Kuropatkin A.N. Diary. Nizhpoligraf, 1923. S. 36.). And these plans were gradually being implemented. After the war with Japan, the northern part of Persia was occupied, and in Central Asia, Russian troops literally reached India, facing the British with their foreheads, which almost caused a war with Great Britain and both sides had to deal with the delimitation of their colonial possessions. A little later, the Uryankhai Territory was annexed to Russia, and then the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles were next in line ... And it is not known how long this "movement to the natural borders of Russia" would have continued if not for the overthrow of the autocracy. The fall of the monarchy caused the jubilation of ordinary Russian people, who were tired not only of the war, but also of the decisive emperor, who flooded the vast expanses of Eurasia with Russian blood. It is no coincidence that, having gone to the front immediately after the emperor's abdication, the former State Duma deputies N.O. Yanushkevich and F.D. Filonenko drew attention to the fact that republican sentiments prevail among soldiers everywhere. And the soldiers, addressing the distinguished guests, asked them: “Have Romanov and his family been arrested? As soon as they said that he was arrested, they started shouting "hurray", pumping and so on. " (See: 1917. The decomposition of the army. Collection of documents. M., 2010. S. 97). By the way, the very fact of such sentiments shows how much the last tsar, and precisely the specific ruler Nikolai Romanov, was unpopular with the people. In general, the Russian people have long remembered the era of the last Russian emperor, christening him for all the "good deeds" with the nickname "Bloody". The poet K. Balmont, who subtly felt the attitude of the Russian people to the tsar, wrote a poem back in 1906.
Our king is Mukden, our king is Tsushima,
Our king is a bloody stain
The stench of gunpowder and smoke
In which the mind is dark.
Our king is blind misery,
Prison and whip, judgment, execution,
The king is a gallows, so half as low,
That he promised, but did not dare to give.
He's a coward, he stumbles
But it will be, the hour of reckoning awaits.
Who began to reign - Khodynka,
He will finish - standing on the scaffold.

So was Nicholas II a weak politician? No, he was a determined but cynical politician. Persistent in achieving their own goals and irresponsible in public affairs. Stubborn when it came to satisfying his own ambitions and indifferent to the fate of the common Russian people ...

To be continued

Nicholas II was born in 1868 and went down in history as the last emperor of the Russian Empire. The father of Nicholas II was Alexander III, and his mother was Maria Fedorovna.

Nicholas II had three brothers and two sisters. He was the oldest, so after the death of Alexander III in 1894 it was he who took the throne. Nicholas II's contemporaries note that he was a fairly simple person to communicate

The period of the reign of Nicholas II was marked by a fairly rapid development of the economy of the Russian Empire. However, at the same time, social and political contradictions and revolutionary movements were growing in Russia.

For more than twenty years of reign, Nicholas II did a lot for the Russian Empire.

First of all, it is worth noting that during his reign, the population of the Russian Empire increased by almost 50 million people, that is, by 40%. And the natural population growth has increased to 3,000,000 people a year. At the same time, the overall standard of living has increased significantly.

Thanks to the active development of agriculture, as well as more thoughtful communication routes, the so-called "hunger years" at the beginning of the twentieth century were quickly eliminated. A poor harvest now did not mean that there would be famine, since a poor harvest in some areas was compensated by a good harvest in others. Under Nicholas II, the harvest of cereals increased significantly.

Coal production has increased significantly. During the entire reign of Nicholas II, it has almost quadrupled.

Also, during the reign of Nicholas II, the metallurgical industry increased significantly. For example, pig iron smelting has increased almost fourfold, and copper production has increased fivefold. Thanks to this, a fairly rapid growth began in the field of mechanical engineering. Consequently, the number of workers also increased from 2,000,000 to 5,000,000.

The length of railways and telegraph poles has increased significantly. It is also worth noting that under Nicholas II, the army of the Russian Empire increased significantly. Nicholas II managed to create the world's most powerful river fleet.

Under Nicholas II, the level of education of the population increased significantly. The production of books also increased.

Finally, it should be said that during the reign of Nicholas II, the treasury of the Russian Empire increased significantly. At the beginning of his reign, it was 1,200,000,000 rubles, and at the end - 3,500,000,000 rubles.

All this indicates that Nicholas II was a very talented ruler. According to his contemporaries, if everything went on like this, then by the 1950s the Russian Empire would have become the most developed country in all of Europe.

Let's take a closer look at his reign:

When they talk about Nicholas II, two polar points of view are immediately identified: the Orthodox-patriotic and the liberal-democratic. For the former, Nicholas II and his family are the ideal of morality, the image of martyrdom; his rule is the highest point of Russia's economic development in its entire history. For others, Nicholas II is a weak personality, a weak-willed person who could not save the country from revolutionary madness, completely under the influence of his wife and Rasputin; Russia during the period of his reign is seen as economically backward.

The attitude to the personality of the last Russian emperor is so ambiguous that there can be no consensus on the results of his reign.

When they talk about Nicholas II, two polar points of view are immediately identified: the Orthodox-patriotic and the liberal-democratic. For the former, Nicholas II and his family are the ideal of morality, the image of martyrdom; his rule is the highest point of Russia's economic development in its entire history. For others, Nicholas II is a weak personality, a weak-willed person who could not save the country from revolutionary madness, completely under the influence of his wife and Rasputin; Russia during his reign is seen as economically backward

Let's look at both points of view and draw our own conclusions.

Orthodox-patriotic point of view

In the 1950s, a report by the Russian writer Brazol Boris Lvovich (1885-1963) appeared in the Russian diaspora. During the First World War, he worked in Russian military intelligence.

Brazol's report is titled “The Reign of Emperor Nicholas II in Figures and Facts. Answer to slanderers, dismembered and Russophobes. "

This report begins with a quote from the famous economist of the time Edmond Teri: “If the affairs of the European nations from 1912 to 1950 go the same way as they did from 1900 to 1912, Russia by the middle of this century will dominate Europe both politically and both economically and financially ”. (Economist Europeen magazine, 1913).

Here are some data from this report.

On the eve of World War I, the population of the Russian Empire was 182 million people, and during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II it increased by 60 million.

Imperial Russia built its fiscal policy not only on deficit-free budgets, but also on the principle of a significant accumulation of gold reserves.

During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, by the law of 1896, a gold currency was introduced in Russia. The stability of monetary circulation was such that even during the Russo-Japanese War, accompanied by widespread revolutionary unrest within the country, the exchange of credit notes for gold was not suspended.

Before World War I, taxes in Russia were the lowest in the entire world. The burden of direct taxes in Russia was almost 4 times less than in France, more than 4 times less than in Germany and 8.5 times less than in England. The burden of indirect taxes in Russia was on average half that in Austria, France, Germany and England.

Between 1890 and 1913 Russian industry quadrupled its productivity. Moreover, it should be noted that the growth in the number of new enterprises was achieved not due to the emergence of fly-by-night firms, as in modern Russia, but due to actually operating factories and plants that produced products and created jobs.

In 1914, the State Savings Bank had deposits for 2,236,000,000 rubles, i.e. 1.9 times more than in 1908.

These indicators are extremely important for understanding that the population of Russia was by no means poor and saved a significant part of their income.

On the eve of the revolution, Russian agriculture was in full bloom. In 1913, in Russia, the harvest of the main cereals was ⁄ s higher than that of Argentina, Canada and the United States of America combined. In particular, the collection of rye in 1894 yielded 2 billion poods, and in 1913 - 4 billion poods.

During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, Russia was the main breadwinner of Western Europe. At the same time, special attention is drawn to the phenomenal growth in the export of agricultural products from Russia to England (grain and flour). In 1908, 858.3 million pounds were exported, and in 1910 2.8 million pounds, i.e. 3.3 times.

Russia supplied 50% of the world's eggs. In 1908, 2.6 billion pieces worth 54.9 million rubles were exported from Russia, and in 1909 - 2.8 million pieces. worth 62.2 million rubles. The export of rye in 1894 amounted to 2 billion poods, in 1913: 4 billion poods. Sugar consumption in the same period of time increased from 4 to 9 kg per year per person (then sugar was a very expensive product).

On the eve of the First World War, Russia produced 80% of the world's flax production.

In 1916, that is, in the midst of the war, more than 2,000 versts of railways were built, which connected the Arctic Ocean (port of Romanovsk) with the center of Russia. The Great Siberian Way (8.536 km) was the longest in the world.

It should be added that Russian railways, in comparison with others, were the cheapest and most comfortable in the world for passengers.

During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, public education reached extraordinary development. Primary education was free by law, and from 1908 it became compulsory. Since this year, about 10,000 schools have been opened annually. In 1913 their number exceeded 130,000. At the beginning of the 20th century, Russia ranked first in Europe, if not in the entire world, in terms of the number of women studying in higher educational institutions.

During the reign of Tsar Nicholas II, the government of Peter Arkadievich Stolypin implemented one of the most significant and most brilliant reforms in Russia - the agrarian reform. This reform is associated with the transition of the form of ownership of land and land production from communal to private land. On November 9, 1906, the so-called "Stolypin Law" was issued, which allowed the peasant to leave the Community and become the individual and hereditary owner of the land he cultivated. This law was a huge success. Immediately, 2.5 million petitions were filed for cuts from family peasants. Thus, on the eve of the revolution, Russia was already ready to turn into a country of owners.

For the period 1886-1913. Russia's exports amounted to 23.5 billion rubles, imports - 17.7 billion rubles.

Foreign investment in the period from 1887 to 1913 increased from 177 million rubles. up to 1.9 billion rubles, i.e. increased by 10.7 times. Moreover, these investments were channeled into capital-intensive production and created new jobs. However, what is very important, the Russian industry was not dependent on foreigners. Enterprises with foreign investments accounted for only 14% of the total capital of Russian enterprises.

The abdication of Nicholas II from the throne was the greatest tragedy in the thousand-year history of Russia.

By the decision of the Bishops' Council of March 31 - April 4, 1992, the Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints was instructed "to start researching materials related to the martyrdom of the Tsar Family in the study of the exploits of the new martyrs of Russia."

Excerpts from "BASIS FOR CANONIZING THE ROYAL FAMILY

FROM THE REPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN OF KRUTITSKY AND KOLOMENSKOYE JUVENAL,

CHAIRMAN OF THE SINODAL COMMISSION FOR THE CANONIZATION OF SAINTS ".

“As a politician and statesman, the Sovereign acted on the basis of his religious and moral principles. One of the most common arguments against the canonization of Emperor Nicholas II is the events of January 9, 1905 in St. Petersburg. In the historical note of the Commission on this issue, we point out: having got acquainted on the evening of January 8 with the content of the Gapon petition, which bore the character of a revolutionary ultimatum, which did not allow entering into constructive negotiations with representatives of the workers, the Tsar ignored this document, illegal in form and undermining the prestige of an already shaken wars of state power. Throughout January 9, 1905, the Tsar did not make a single decision that determined the actions of the authorities in St. Petersburg to suppress mass protests of workers. The order to the troops to open fire was given not by the Emperor, but by the Commander of the St. Petersburg Military District. Historical data do not allow us to detect in the actions of the Sovereign in the days of January 1905 a conscious evil will, turned against the people and embodied in specific sinful decisions and actions.

With the outbreak of World War I, the Tsar regularly travels to Headquarters, visits military units of the active army, dressing stations, military hospitals, rear factories, in a word, everything that played a role in the conduct of this war.

From the very beginning of the war, the Empress devoted herself to the wounded. After completing the courses of sisters of mercy together with the eldest daughters - Grand Duchesses Olga and Tatiana - she took care of the wounded for several hours a day in the Tsarskoye Selo hospital.

The Emperor viewed his tenure as Supreme Commander-in-Chief as a fulfillment of a moral and state duty to God and the people, however, always presenting leading military specialists with a broad initiative in addressing the entire set of military-strategic and operational-tactical issues.

The Commission expresses the opinion that the very fact of the abdication of the Throne of Emperor Nicholas II, directly related to his personal qualities, as a whole, is an expression of the historical situation in Russia at that time.

He made this decision only in the hope that those who wanted him to be removed would still be able to continue the war with honor and would not ruin the cause of saving Russia. He was afraid then that his refusal to sign the abdication would not lead to civil war in view of the enemy. The Tsar did not want even a drop of Russian blood to be shed because of him.

The spiritual motives for which the last Russian Tsar, who did not want to shed the blood of his subjects, decided to renounce the Throne in the name of inner peace in Russia, gives his act a truly moral character. It is no coincidence that during the discussion in July 1918 at the Council Council of the Local Council of the issue of the memorial service for the murdered Emperor, His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon made a decision on a widespread funeral service with the commemoration of Nicholas II as Emperor.

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 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 of Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia.

Liberal Democratic Perspective

When Nicholas II came to power, he had no program other than a firm intention not to surrender his autocratic power, which his father had given him. He always made decisions alone: \u200b\u200b"How can I do this if it is against my conscience?" - this was the basis on which he made his political decisions or rejected the options offered to him. He continued to pursue the controversial policies of his father: on the one hand, he tried to achieve social and political stabilization from above by preserving the old estate-state structures, on the other, the industrialization policy pursued by the Minister of Finance led to enormous social dynamics. The Russian nobility launched a massive offensive against the state's economic policy of industrialization. Having removed Witte, the tsar did not know where to go. Despite some reformist steps (for example, the abolition of corporal punishment of peasants), the tsar, under the influence of the new Minister of Internal Affairs Plehve, decided in favor of the policy of every possible preservation of the social structure of the peasantry (preservation of the community), although the kulak elements, that is, the richer peasants, had an easier exit from peasant community. The tsar and the ministers did not consider reforms necessary in other areas either: on the labor question, only a few minor concessions were made; instead of guaranteeing the right to strike, the government continued its repression. The tsar could not satisfy anyone with the policy of stagnation and repression, which at the same time in a cautious manner continued the economic policy he had begun.

At a meeting of representatives of the zemstvos on November 20, 1904, the majority demanded a constitutional regime. The forces of the progressive local nobility, rural intelligentsia, city government and wide circles of urban intelligentsia, united in opposition, began to demand the introduction of a parliament in the state. They were joined by the Petersburg workers, who were allowed to form an independent association, headed by priest Gapon, they wanted to submit a petition to the tsar. The lack of general leadership under the already effectively dismissed minister of the interior and the tsar, who, like most ministers, did not understand the seriousness of the situation, led to the disaster of Bloody Sunday on January 9, 1905. Army officers, who were supposed to hold back the crowd, in panic ordered fire people. 100 people were killed and more than 1,000 were allegedly injured. Workers and intellectuals reacted with strikes and protest demonstrations. Although the workers for the most part made purely economic demands and the revolutionary parties could not play an important role either in the movement led by Gapon or in the strikes that followed Bloody Sunday, a revolution began in Russia.

When the revolutionary and opposition movement in October 1905 reached its climax - a general strike, which practically paralyzed the country, the tsar was forced to turn again to his former Minister of the Interior, who, thanks to the peace treaty that was very beneficial for Russia, he concluded with the Japanese in Portsmouth ( USA), has gained universal respect. Witte explained to the tsar that he must either appoint a dictator who would fiercely fight the revolution, or must guarantee bourgeois freedoms and elective legislative power. Nikolai did not want to drown the revolution in blood. Thus, the fundamental problem of constitutional monarchies - the creation of a balance of power - has been exacerbated by the actions of the prime minister. The October Manifesto (10/17/1905) promised bourgeois freedoms, an elective assembly with legislative powers, an expansion of suffrage and, indirectly, equality of religions and nationalities, but did not bring the country the peace that the tsar expected. Rather, it caused serious riots that broke out as a result of clashes between loyal to the king and the revolutionary forces, and led in many regions of the country to pogroms directed not only against the Jewish population, but also against representatives of the intelligentsia. The development of events since 1905 has become irreversible.

However, in other areas there were positive changes that were not blocked at the political macro level. The economic growth rate has again almost reached the level of the nineties. In the countryside, the Stolypin agrarian reforms aimed at creating private ownership began to develop independently, despite resistance from the peasants. The state, with a whole package of measures, sought large-scale modernization in agriculture. Science, literature and art have reached a new heyday.

But the scandalous figure of Rasputin decisively contributed to the loss of the monarch's prestige. World War I mercilessly exposed the shortcomings of the late tsarist system. These were primarily political weaknesses. In the military field, by the summer of 1915, it was even possible to seize the situation at the front and arrange supplies. In 1916, thanks to Brusilov's offensive, the Russian army owned even most of the Allied territorial gains before the collapse of Germany. Nevertheless, in February 1917 tsarism was approaching its death. In such a development of events, the king himself was fully to blame. Since he increasingly wanted to be his own prime minister, but did not correspond to this role, during the war, no one could coordinate the actions of various state institutions, primarily civilians with the military.

The provisional government, which replaced the monarchy, immediately took Nicholas and his family under house arrest, but wanted to allow him to leave for England. However, the British government was in no hurry to respond, and the Provisional Government was no longer strong enough to resist the will of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies. In August 1917, the family was moved to Tobolsk. In April 1918, local Bolsheviks secured their transfer to Yekaterinburg. The tsar endured this time of humiliation with great calmness and hope in God, which in the face of death gave him undeniable dignity, but which, even in the best times, sometimes prevented him from acting rationally and decisively. On the night of July 16-17, 1918, the imperial family was shot. Liberal historian Yuri Gauthier spoke with cold precision upon learning of the Tsar's assassination: "This is the denouement of yet another of the countless secondary knots of our time of troubles, and the monarchical principle can only benefit from this."

The paradoxes of the personality and reign of Nicholas II can be explained by the objectively existing contradictions of Russian reality at the beginning of the 20th century, when the world entered a new phase of its development, and the tsar did not have the will and determination to master the situation. Trying to defend the "autocratic principle", he maneuvered: he made small concessions, then he refused them. As a result, the regime rotted, pushing the country towards the abyss. Rejecting and slowing down reforms, the last tsar contributed to the beginning of the social revolution. This should be recognized both with absolute sympathy for the fate of the king, and with his categorical rejection. At the critical moment of the February coup, the generals changed their oaths and forced the tsar to abdicate.

Nicholas II himself knocked the soil out from under his feet. He stubbornly defended his positions, did not make serious compromises and thereby created the conditions for a revolutionary explosion. He did not support the liberals, who sought to prevent the revolution in the hope of concessions from the tsar. And the revolution took place. 1917 became a fatal milestone in the history of Russia.

From myself, I can say that I am more of an adherent of the Orthodox-patriotic point of view.