New details of the abdication of Nicholas 2 from the throne. Nicholas II did not abdicate the throne

On March 2, 1917, according to the old style, Nicholas II abdicated the throne for himself and for his son Alexei. He spent the February revolution not in one of his residences and not even in Headquarters, but in a blocked train, on which the autocrat tried to break into the anarchy capital. Until the last moment, the emperor did not believe in the proximity of his abdication. And only a series of circumstances forced him to relinquish power.

"Around treason, cowardice and deceit"

On February 27, 1917, a general strike in Petrograd escalated into an armed uprising. Nicholas II at this time was at the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander in Mogilev - the First World War was in full swing. It was precisely his remoteness from the epicenter of events that became his fatal weakness. All the following days, the monarch could hardly imagine the situation in the capital. Information from his sources was belated and contradictory.

On the evening of February 27, Nikolai had to decide whether to make concessions to the protesters or suppress discontent in the most decisive way. The crown bearer leaned towards the second option. A punitive detachment headed by General Nikolai Ivanov went to Petrograd. However, approaching Tsarskoe Selo and meeting with the local garrison that supported the revolution, the military withdrew his forces from the capital.

On March 1, the commanders of all fronts spoke out in favor of the emperor's abdication. Until that day, they were unquestioningly loyal to the monarch, but now they unanimously sacrificed the king in order (as many thought) to save the dynasty and continue the war with Germany without turning it into a civil one.

Meanwhile, the autocrat tried to return from Headquarters to Tsarskoe Selo. The Tsar's train reached the Bottom station. They did not let him go further. Blocked Nikolai went to Pskov. There he was awaited by a message from Rodzianko, who persuaded the ruler to abdicate in favor of his son, with whom the Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich would remain as regent. The proposal was passed on by the commander of the Northern Front, Nikolai Ruzsky.

At first, the emperor hesitated. Time, however, worked against him. Soon a message came to Pskov about the request of the entire military command of the country to abdicate. Suppressed by this news, Nikolai wrote in his diary the catchphrase "treason, cowardice and deceit are all around."

For myself and for my son

On March 2, on the fourth day of the second Russian revolution, in the afternoon Nikolai was on his train at the Pskov station. He invited the family doctor, Professor Fedorov, to his place.

At another time, doctor, I would not have asked you a similar question, but a very serious moment has come, and I ask you to answer with complete frankness. Will my son live like everyone else? And can he reign?

Your Imperial Majesty! I must confess to you: according to science, His Imperial Highness should not live to be 16 years old.

After this conversation, Nicholas II decided to deny both himself and his son. The 12-year-old heir had hemophilia, which he inherited on his maternal side from Queen Victoria of England. The father did not want to leave the fragile son alone with the revolution. They never parted and eventually died together.

At 10 o'clock in the evening, two deputies of the State Duma arrived in Pskov to the tsar: Alexander Guchkov and Vasily Shulgin. It was they who became living witnesses of how Nikolai first wrote and then signed a document on his abdication. According to eyewitnesses, Nikolai remained calm. Shulgin only noted that the monarch's reprimand was different - that of the guards. The deputy was worried that he had come to the tsar in a crumpled suit and unshaven.

Formally, the renunciation took place in favor of his brother Nikolai Mikhail. He was in Petrograd and also renounced power. He signed his paper on March 3. The incident was witnessed by one of the leaders of the Cadet Party, Vladimir Nabokov, the father of the famous writer. This is how the power of the Provisional Government received legitimacy.

P.S

After his abdication, Nikolai departed for Tsarskoe Selo and was reunited with his family. Citizen Romanov asked Kerensky for permission to leave for Murmansk and from there emigrate by ship to England to his cousin George V (and after the war, return to Russia and settle in Livadia as a private person).

The head of the Provisional Government gave his consent. Negotiations began with the British Parliament, which also ended in success. Nikolai's departure was postponed due to the fact that the children of the Romanovs fell ill with chickenpox. And soon the English king withdrew his invitation to his cousin. Georg was frightened by criticism from the left in parliament, who raised a cry of discontent over the arrival of the ousted king.

I wanted to write this article after another program about Nikolai Romanov, the last Russian emperor, when he was again accused of being soft due to his abdication. Is it still not clear what kind of act he did. Such, only a person with a strong spirit can do it. Yes, now everything has turned upside down, and the actions of the rulers and elected representatives of the people look much more natural - to stay in power at any cost, and no moral principles have any force. There are many examples, take, for example, today's Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein, or our State Emergency Committee, or the governments of the United States, France, Great Britain, which at any cost want to realize their plans, without any hesitation, bombing Yugoslavia and the Middle East. It is a pity that they did not watch our film "White Sun of the Desert", where Comrade Sukhov said the well-known phrase: "The East is a delicate matter." And they so rudely impose their interests on these countries, living according to the principles of a million years ago - "tit for tat". The rulers of these countries will never forgive such interference up to the use of nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad has promised to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, and this could happen with Europe. All these heroes are certainly not soft-bodied.

And this decision was made by Nicholas II just to prevent bloodshed and the beginning of a civil war. There are always people who are dissatisfied with the authorities and blame them for any problems. There is always opposition, using this discontent to their advantage. And there are always those who are ready to sacrifice their lives for the sovereign. Of course, at one time the provocation known as "Bloody Sunday" on January 9, 1905. the opposition succeeded and undermined the sovereign's power. Later it became clear that the priest Gapon, an absolutely immoral person, had long been contemplating a public action capable of shaking the foundations and causing confusion in the country.

The Russian people loved their tsar, and therefore the idea of ​​going to him and asking him for "truth and protection" was quite natural, and already in December 1904 it was widely discussed at meetings. In early January 1905, a strike broke out at the largest enterprise in St. Petersburg, the Putilov factory, caused by the dismissal of several workers. The strike spread quickly, and workers from other factories began to join. This event accelerated the course of affairs, and the workers almost unanimously decided to go to the tsar with a petition. But the workers for the most part were not familiar with the full list of the demands themselves; it was drawn up by a small “group of commissioners” chaired by Gapon. The workers only knew that they were going to the tsar to ask for "help to the working people." Meanwhile, along with the economic points, the petition contained a number of political demands, some of which touched on the foundations of the state structure and were openly provocative.

Gapon lied to the authorities, posing as a law-abiding citizen, lied to people, assuring that their interests and aspirations were closest to him in the world, lied to God, talking about peace and love, and in his heart worshiping terror and violence. He acted masterfully. The military and police authorities showed their helplessness and, instead of isolating a dozen organizers, relied on the "word of Gapon", who assured them that the march would not take place. The emperor did not know anything about the impending action and was at that moment in Tsarskoe Selo, and the idea of ​​handing him a petition in the Winter Palace was deliberately impracticable. And he was informed about these events at the last moment. Officials finally enlightened that Gapon was playing a double game and on January 8 decided to send large contingents of troops into the capital and blockade the city center, in the end, thousands of people still broke through to the Winter Palace. Shooting was opened in different parts of the city, and there were numerous casualties. Two days later, signed by the Minister of Internal Affairs P.N.Durnov and the Minister of Finance V.N.Kokottsov, a government message was published, which said that during the events of January 9, 96 people were killed and 333 wounded. The enemies of the throne and the Dynasty overestimated the number of victims many times over and spoke (and still write) about "thousands of those killed."

Bloody Sunday happened. There were many to blame and many victims. The king, who was in Tsarskoe Selo, upon learning about what had happened, was bitterly worried. He fired the chief of the St. Petersburg police and the minister of internal affairs. But this satisfied few people. The negative psychological impact of the January 9 event was enormous. Those who dreamed of destruction were the winners. Radicals of all stripes in their merciless political game received such a "trump card" that they could not even dream of.

And on the other hand, during the period of abdication, there were many loyal subjects, and the Guards regiment stood ready, it was only necessary to give a command. At that time, they tried to make him extreme. The emperor was upset. “What a shame! During the war, when Russia is straining all its forces to achieve victory over the accursed Teutons, there are people who betray their duty. And what has come to this: soldiers of HIS army, an army preparing for a decisive offensive against the enemy, take part in the outrageous anti-government protests! Of course, it is difficult for many now. It's clear. But the successful end of the war is the sacred duty of every true Russian. The blessing of the Lord is on our side, and victory is near! And suddenly these outrageous riots. They are pleasing only to external and internal enemies! "

There was another option as well. Lieutenant General Ruzsky urged him to accept the following formula: the sovereign reigns, and the government rules. But Nikolai Aleksandrovich objected that this formula was incomprehensible to him, that he had to receive a different upbringing and be reborn, that he "Does not hold on to power, but only cannot make a decision against his own conscience and, having relinquished responsibility for the course of affairs before people, cannot relinquish responsibility before God".

And yet, to avoid bloodshed, he took this step. And most importantly, the emperor was guided my conscience, which is almost absent from the current ones. And certainly none of the real rulers and officials is guided by it. After all, if a person is guided by his conscience, then he has only one choice, and when people are guided by the carnal mind, any action and even crime can be justified.

And after the renunciation, he showed the highest endurance, self-sacrifice and humility. "What a difficult time we are going through! How inexpressibly bitter to realize the abnormal situation in which we all found ourselves. He always took care of not just autocratic power, but Russia, and where is the confidence that a change of government will give peace and happiness to the people? But God was pleased to send this is a new test, and one must humbly submit to His holy will! In the name of peace and prosperity, one must agree with the Duma's demand. How few faithful, reliable people you can rely on, and no one to ask for advice. "

But it is precisely self-sacrifice that is the highest love for humanity. And today, the highest love is manifested by the shameless application of the most perfect technical achievements to destroy all living things.

All situations that people find themselves in are needed to learn important lessons. And the most important lesson is to learn to make decisions guided by the voice of your heart, where a particle of God lives, and not by the carnal crafty mind, which, alas, is used by all the politicians of our world. After all, a person in whose heart God dwells will never allow himself to harm another person.

So who did Nicholas II become, who knew about the death that lay ahead for him and his children. After all, he could save his life and flee abroad. He died? No, he did not become a dead man, he became an Ascended Master. “I consciously accepted this cross, this crucifixion. The hardest part was overcoming the resistance of the part of me that tried to save the children at any cost. But I sacrificed my children. Just like Abraham was ready to sacrifice his son. Until the last moment I hoped that the Lord would take away the hand of fate, if not from me, then from my children. But no. A terrible thing happened.

The innocent saints were put to death by martyrdom. And this moment served as a signal for the most feisty forces of darkness to crawl out of the corners and rush to power. All the darkness floated out. Everything that had previously tried to maintain decency and hid in the corners climbed out. It was an orgy of evil spirits. And this orgy continues to this day. I could resist. I could save my family, and we could all stay alive. But what is the point in my life without Russia? I chose the path of giving up the fight. Avoiding violence. I chose the path of Christ and allowed myself and my whole family to be crucified. I became an Ascended Master, I achieved my ascension. And if my life were to repeat itself again, I would again choose the crucifixion for myself and for my family. You know that Jesus, by his martyrdom, took upon himself the karma of mankind. He suffered for the sins of the people. All the saints at all times took upon themselves the sins of mankind, part of the planetary karma, in order to lighten the load, and so that mankind could straighten up and look at Heaven. "

And who are today's "living"? Those in whose hands all power is concentrated in almost all countries, both financial and political, but do not have God in their hearts. They died a long time ago, their Higher Self does not work, the connection with it has been interrupted. And after the death of the physical body, there will be nothing more to evolve, they will become larvas. So is it worth relying on these living dead, flashing on TV screens, who use the limitation of human consciousness to assert their power through the introduction of laws, rules and religious dogmas that are inconvenient for people.

“Stop looking to the West. Stop taking samples that are not only unhelpful, but also harmful. Very soon, the peoples of the entire globe will listen with amazement and take a closer look at the changes that are taking place in Russia. Changes in this country will not come from the authorities, not from politicians and economists, changes in this country will come from the hearts of people, and these changes will be impossible not to notice. " Mother Mary.

And if you see hope in someone, if you see that they have not yet completely dried up, if you still hope for them, then learn not to experience any negative feelings against them. After all, they are dead and do not know love. Send your love to them, the president of the country. Pray that their hearts will be opened so that they will be able to receive divine wisdom into their hearts.

When writing the article, the materials of the book by Alexander Bokhanov "Nicholas II" from the ZhZL series (1997) were used.

Remember that even if you suffer a visible defeat on the physical plane, you are gaining gigantic victories on the subtle plane. You are immortal. And by sacrificing your physical body, you only affirm Life. You are affirming the principles of Good and Light on this planet.

Prince Lvov also perceived the revolution in the spirit of enthusiastic populism. “The great Russian revolution is truly wonderful in its stately, calm march. It’s wonderful not the enchanting coup, not the colossal shift, not the strength and speed of the onslaught, the storming of power, but the very essence of its guiding idea. The freedom of the Russian revolution is imbued with elements of a world, universal character. The soul of the Russian people turned out to be a world democratic soul by its very nature. It is ready not only to merge with the democracy of the whole world, but to stand ahead of it and lead along the path of human development on the great principles of freedom, equality and brotherhood, "he said. Needless to say, these words were "with the greatest pleasure" received by a part of the socialists, who saw in them a hint of a world revolution.

However, there are also testimonies about Georgy Lvov of a slightly different kind. Vasily Maklakov wrote that “Lviv in this (Provisional - Approx. TASS) government renewed its provincial system, creating a government within the government, that is, a small group of like-minded people of 5“ democrats ”with whom he intrigued against those who remained outside of this five ". “I saw well how he had to turn around all the time, sometimes lie, sometimes promise what he was not going to do or could not contain, and get into a stupid and false position,” Maklakov recalled.

Among the people, both the appointment of Lvov as head of the cabinet and the composition of the Provisional Government as a whole were received without enthusiasm. Vasily Shulgin recalled a worker's speech at a rally on March 3 (16): "For example, they formed a government ... who are they in this government? Do you think, comrades, is there anyone from the people? .. So to speak, from that people, Who won freedom for himself? No matter how ... Read ... Prince Lvov ... Prince ... So that's why we, comrades, did the revolution ... "

For example, they formed a government ... who are they in this government? Do you think, comrades, is there anyone from the people? .. No matter how it is ... Read here ... Prince Lvov ...

However, the question of what to do with the ruling sovereign remained unresolved. Everyone understood that, as Pavel Milyukov said in one of his speeches at the Tauride Palace, "the old despot, who had brought Russia to complete ruin, would voluntarily renounce the throne or be deposed." Vasily Maklakov wrote later that on the eve of the revolution "there was a saying throughout St. Petersburg:" To save the monarchy, you must kill the monarch. "

“That Nicholas II would no longer reign was so indisputable for the widest circle of the Russian public that no one somehow thought about the technical means for fulfilling this general decision,” Miliukov wrote later. However, this is not the case.

The coup that will overthrow Nicholas II, if not prepared, then at least thought over for a relatively long time, and the closest to the position of its organizer came a man who eventually initiated a trip to Nicholas II for abdication and was ready to follow him even "on your own fear and risk ", - the head of the Central Military-Industrial Committee, former chairman of the State Duma of the III convocation, Alexander Guchkov.

Alexander Guchkov
Chairman of the Central Military-Industrial Committee

Guchkov himself admitted that "in the fall of 1916, the idea of ​​a palace coup was born, as a result of which the sovereign would be forced to sign the abdication of the throne and hand it over to his legitimate heir."

However, instead of the coup d'état planned by Guchkov, a revolution began. In the face of massive popular uprisings, the commander of the Northern Front, General Nikolai Ruzsky, under whose protection Nicholas II arrived in Pskov, contacted Mikhail Rodzianko and received an answer that the only way out of this situation was the abdication of the emperor. The negotiations between Ruzsky and Rodzianko were simultaneously telegraphed to Headquarters. The Chief of Staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, General Mikhail Alekseev, who was there, interrogated the commanders of the fronts and fleets about their attitude to the possible abdication of the sovereign. Every single commander spoke in favor of abdication, which was reported to Nicholas II. It was assumed that Nicholas would abdicate in favor of his son, Tsarevich Alexei.

March 2, 1917 Russian Emperor Nicholas II signed the abdication of the throne in favor of his brother Mikhail (who also abdicated soon after). This day is considered the date of the death of the Russian monarchy. But there are still many questions about renunciation. We asked the candidate of historical sciences Gleb Eliseev to comment on them.

1. When the version appeared, that there was no renunciation?

The first time the version that the abdication is legally incompetent appeared back in 1921, at the Congress of the Economic Recovery of Russia, held in the German city of Bad Reichengall. In the speech of the former deputy chairman of the Main Council of the "Union of the Russian People" V.P. Meetings are illegal. " At the same time, it was emphasized that the "Basic Laws of the Russian Empire", in principle, did not imply and did not legally negotiate the procedures for the Tsar's renunciation of the throne. But they started talking about the fact that there was no actual renunciation at all already in the nineties of the twentieth century, when it became possible to freely explore the so-called "Manifesto on the abdication" of Emperor Nicholas II. (In the literature, it is also sometimes called the "act of abdication", which is strange, because the legal practice of the Russian Empire did not know for sure).

Nicholas II

2. What sources did you refer to?

A whole complex of sources was considered, first of all, the memoirs of eyewitnesses, who, naturally, “lied as eyewitnesses”. (The first collection of such materials was published under the Soviets,

to the 10th anniversary of the revolution). When studying the documents, researchers (especially the leading national expert on this issue P.V. Multatuli) revealed such frank contradictions in their memories that it destroyed the whole blissful picture of "voluntary renunciation" that Soviet historiography had been creating for years. The second most important step was the consideration of the facsimile reproduction of the text of the "Manifesto on the abdication" of Emperor Nicholas II. Here, the most important role was played by AB Razumov's article “Several remarks on the“ Manifesto on the abdication of Nicholas II ”", where it was convincingly proved that the signatures on the so-called abdication were almost certainly a forgery.

3. As far as these sources can trust?

Two points should not be confused here - the actual sources (I emphasize once again - mainly of memoir origin) should be trusted very carefully, they should be rechecked. But the researchers' argumentation is quite easy to verify. The memoirs of the “eyewitnesses” of the “renunciation” have been published many times and are widely available both in print and on the Internet. And even the text of the "Manifesto" is posted on the Internet, and everyone can check the arguments of A. B. Razumov or other specialists by comparing their statements with a real document.

"Act of abdication", signed by Emperor Nicholas II. State Archives of the Russian Federation

4. Indeed Nicholas II signed the document in pencil?

The signature is indeed in pencil. So what? The real problem lies elsewhere - was it really the sovereign who signed it? Or someone else for him?

5. Where is the document stored now? about renunciation?

At present, the Manifesto of Abdication (under the title of the Act of Abdication) is kept in the State Archives of the Russian Federation (formerly the Central State Archives of the October Revolution and the Central State Archives of the RSFSR); its archival data (State Archive of the Russian Federation. F. 601. Op. 1. D. 2100a. L.5) A photocopy of it can be viewed on the website of the State Archive of the Russian Federation.

6 . Is it true that signing in pencil rather than ink automatically invalidates the document?

No, it’s not like that. On some unimportant documents (like separate telegrams to Headquarters), the Emperor had previously made notes in pencil. This document invalidates not a pencil signature, but its incorrect execution according to the law: it was not drawn up according to the rules for this kind of documents (manifestos), not certified by the Imperial seal, not approved by the Governing Senate, not approved by the State Council and the State Duma. That is, it is legally null and void.

The Imperial Train leaves for Headquarters

7. Are there any historical evidence that during March 1917 to July 1918 Nicholas II denied the authenticity his abdication?

From March 8, 1917, the sovereign and members of his family were under arrest, their contacts with the outside world were sharply limited. Later, all the relatives with whom Nikolai Aleksandrovich could conduct similar conversations (his wife, personal doctor E. S. Botkin, Prince V. A. Dolgorukov or Count I. L. Tatishchev) were also killed by the Bolsheviks.

Diary of Emperor Nicholas II for 1916-1917 "The bottom line is that for the sake of saving Russia and keeping the army calm at the front, you need to decide on this step."

9. Could it be that Nicholas II was simply arrested, and his signature under the abdication was forged?

In Pskov, the emperor was actually arrested at first, detaining the tsarist train, ostensibly to "ensure his safety" in connection with the outbreak of riots. The sovereign was completely isolated from the outside world, he could not even speak on the phone. And this position remained until March 8, 1917, when the real arrest was simply formalized by the decision of the Provisional Government. And what is known in science under the "Act of renunciation" is most likely a fake (A. B. Razumov's arguments are very convincing). But in any case, even if, after a graphological examination, the signature of Nicholas II is recognized as genuine, this will not cancel any doubts about the approval of the rest of the text by the sovereign, typed on a typewriter, and not written with his own hand, nor the legal nullity of a document drawn up in this way.

10. Did Nicholas II think that his abdication from the throne meant liquidation of the Russian monarchy?

In no case did the Emperor think so. Moreover, even the so-called "Manifesto of abdication" speaks only of the transfer of supreme power to Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. And even the abdication of the Grand Duke did not mean the liquidation of the monarchy. By the way, the members of the Provisional Government perfectly understood this. Even after the formal proclamation of the republic on September 1, 1917, only the Constituent Assembly had to finally decide the question of the form of government in Russia.

- a joint project of the "Foma" magazine and the radio "Vera", dedicated to the centenary of revolutionary events.

During this year we will talk about the events that took place in Russia for a hundred years. ago - in 1917. Let's try to understand the motivations of people and understand the chain of events that led, as they wrote earlier in textbooks, from February to October.

Listen:

Read:

- On March 2, according to the old style, 1917, Emperor Nicholas signed an act of abdication for himself and his son, Tsarevich Alexy, in favor of his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. This event was followed by the renunciation of the throne of the Grand Duke. So Russia was left without a monarchy.

This was preceded by the February Revolution, which in those days had not yet approached the stage of the Russian rebellion "senseless and merciless", but which very soon will turn into it.

What significance in this context was the abdication of the emperor and the renunciation of the throne of the grand duke? Why did they take this step?

Let's talk about this with Vasily Tsvetkov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, professor at Moscow State Pedagogical University and a regular contributor to the journal Living History.

- Good evening, Vasily Zhanovich.

- Hello.

- When we talk about the abdication of Emperor Nicholas, a lot of aspects immediately arise in my head. First, how emotional was this decision and how rational was it? Second, was there any alternative in this situation? Do you think it was possible to avoid the tragic events that took place in Russia throughout the 17th year?

- You asked a very topical question, because indeed now, when there is a lot of talk about the reasons for February 1917, it is said that this tragedy could have been avoided. But, on the other hand, we must never forget that renunciation was the result, not the cause of those events. After all, revolutionary events began earlier, and we must remember this when we talk about February-March 17th. These are grain riots, and riots in Petrograd, which began on February 14-15 and continued on February 23, and the initiative to create a temporary committee of the State Duma - the Provisional Government, simultaneously with a council of workers 'and soldiers' deputies, that is, in fact, all power in the capital passes to these two structures.

In no case should we forget that by the time of the decision of Nicholas II, the revolution began to spread throughout the country. Revolutionary events engulfed Moscow, Kronstadt - these were the centers where garrisons and armed forces were located. And the question was not about whether it was possible to avoid revolutionary upheavals, but about the form of suppression or some kind of, as they said at the time, channeling these revolutionary sentiments, directing them into some relatively calm channel. And there were already options.

The forceful alternative - the suppression of these revolutionary centers with the help of troops loyal to the sovereign, of course, could be successful, but only when two very important factors are taken into account. The first is the factor of war. If you suppress riots in the rear, then you need to remove the troops from the front, and there is a war. Second, you had to be confident in the troops. Not even in the generals and officers, who declared that they were loyal to the king, in the oath, but in the soldiers. And here there was no longer any certainty, because we see how the Petrograd garrison, without a doubt, allowing the killing of officers, refuses to help the police and the authorities. Therefore, the power alternative, probably, could no longer be so obvious.

The second alternative, on which Rodzianko and, accordingly, the ministries, insisted from the very beginning, is to find some kind of compromise, not even with the revolutionary, but with the liberal public. Often these concepts are identified, but I think that liberal and revolutionary circles still need to be separated, historically this is more correct. The alternative was to create a version of power in which the government would be accountable to the Duma. But a very important point - at the same time, the monarchical system will definitely be preserved. The only question will be.

Then a third alternative began to emerge - the preservation of the monarchy with a donation by the monarch. This was just announced in the telegraphic correspondence between Rodzianko and Ruzsky, Pskov, where the sovereign was just - this is a well-known correspondence on the night of March 2, 1917.

The first option was probably preferable, but it is very important to keep the war in mind. It was necessary to decide what was more important - to continue the war or to suppress the revolution. I think that this alternative was very well understood by the sovereign and influenced his decision.

Material on the topic

On March 2, 1917, Russian Emperor Nicholas II signed the abdication of the throne in favor of his brother Mikhail (who also soon abdicated). This day is considered the date of the death of the Russian monarchy. But there are still many questions about renunciation. We asked the candidate of historical sciences Gleb Eliseev to comment on them.

- After all, at that moment he was on the train, which first went to Bologoye, then he was sent to Pskov and so on. In general, if you look at the trajectory of this train, then it is somewhat strange. Why is this so? Why could the emperor not be allowed, for example, to Petersburg, so that he could promptly take part in resolving the crisis that was taking place in Petrograd at that moment?

- Here is a very simple answer. These are the actions that were carried out on the railways by these unauthorized, as they were then called, organizations. Actually, they were then controlled by little-known figures, whose names will not tell anyone now: Lieutenant Grekov or Bublikov from the Provisional Government, Professor Lomonosov - this is on the one hand. On the other hand, the initiative was taken by the railway workers themselves. Why did neither General Ivanov with a punitive detachment nor the tsarist train manage to get to Petrograd? Because the paths were blocked. In front of Ivanov's detachment, they removed arrows, crosses, and dismantled the path. Of course, one could go in marching order, but this is a greater risk. And in front of the royal train, traffic was simply closed, and they had to change the route.

On the other hand, there is the following point of view, which, I think, has a right to exist. For the operation to succeed, it was necessary to remain at Headquarters. With all the versions that a conspiracy was ripening in it, that Alekseev specially summoned the sovereign from Petrograd, throughout the 17th year there were no revolutionary and republican sentiments in the Headquarters. As the Bolsheviks later dubbed it, it was the "hornet's nest of the counter-revolution." And in this case, the Bet could be counted on.

But another option, even more serious - even after leaving Headquarters, the emperor went essentially without protection. There was a convoy, but very few in number. And just the battalion of St. George's Cavaliers and other units, the same guard from the front, which could have been headed, were concentrated separately - it turned out to be spread fingers, and not a concentrated fist, which, in fact, would be needed.

There are a lot of factors here, I think it is impossible to explain everything by one single circumstance.

- When you read the diaries, it is mentioned that there was something festive in the air, the atmosphere was reminiscent of Easter. People walked around Petrograd with red armbands, and there was a premonition of something big, festive, great, and so on.

- Rather, there were moods of expectation of some kind of joyful changes for the better. It was assumed that if such changes now take place, then everything will be fine: the war will end, and the supply of Petrograd will immediately be adjusted, and all sorts of government crises will immediately disappear.

This is probably the specificity of mass psychology. After all, mass psychology suppresses the personality, it makes one obey certain moods. In this case, these are moods of euphoria, which, probably, cannot be understood, because what is Easter in terms of Orthodox values? It was just the weeks of Lenten that were going on and it was necessary to somehow humble ourselves, to endure. But we see the opposite situation.

When Easter came, Easter red was associated with the color of the banners. Oddly enough it may seem now, but it was so.

- Indeed, these days, March 2 and 3, following the abdication of the sovereign-emperor was followed by the abdication of Grand Duke Mikhail. What do you think, was there a mistake in this case, or was it some kind of regularity, based on the current situation.

- Probably, now, after a hundred years, we should admit this is a mistake, although, nevertheless, understanding the situation of that time, the feelings and moods of those people, we can probably explain it.

Firstly, Mikhail did not prepare at all for this kind of responsibility, for such a cross, which suddenly turned out to be entrusted to him by his brother. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that the transfer of the throne took place without any preliminary consultations with Michael. This was the decision of the sovereign. When later a telegram was handed over to Mikhail, which Nikolai wrote to him after his abdication and after Mikhail himself had already signed the act of rejection of the throne, he largely doubted his own act, considering that it might be worth accepting the throne.

Another point is that most of the members of the Provisional Government, with the exception of Milyukov and Guchkov, convinced Mikhail that his accession to the throne would be much more legitimate if he was supported by some kind of national veche, an assembly. And the idea of ​​the Constituent Assembly was carried out as a kind of analogy for the Zemsky Sobor. If Michael receives power from the hands of this Constituent Council, then everything will be fine: he will be able to say that he is a legitimate monarch, not only because his brother decided so, but because the people also supported him. It was a tempting idea, I think that Mikhail could not just ignore it.

Another point connected with the character of Mikhail Alexandrovich Romanov is that he did not want to ascend the throne, stepping over violence and blood. But this would have to be done in any case, because having become monarch on March 3 or 4, he would have to somehow indicate his position in relation to, for example, the same Soviet of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies. It is unlikely that he would have recognized him, because it is an unauthorized organization, as they said then. But at that time she certainly enjoyed the support of the population. And suppressing these actions, trying to drive this terrible beast with machine guns, as Shulgin later wrote in his memoirs, was probably impossible for Mikhail, again due to his character.

On the other hand, there was some hope that over time the power of the Provisional Government would increase and it would be possible to transfer the throne to Michael. Moreover, Kerensky categorically convinced him of this: "You must wait for the moment when the people will elect you." This temptation, I think, played a fatal role in Mikhail's decision.

- History has shown that this was no longer possible. Thank you very much for your comment.