Myths and truth about the family of Nicholas II. The real Tsar

Although a lot has been written about Nicholas II, much of what has been written relates to “folk fiction” and misconceptions.

The king was modest in dress. Unpretentious

Nicholas II is remembered from many surviving photographic materials as an unpretentious man. He was really unpretentious when it came to food. He loved fried dumplings, which he often ordered during walks on his favorite yacht “Standart”. The king observed fasts and generally ate moderately, tried to keep himself in shape, so he preferred simple food: porridge, rice cutlets and pasta with mushrooms.

Among the guards officers, the Nikolashka snack was popular. Its recipe is attributed to Nicholas II. Sugar ground into dust was mixed with ground coffee; a slice of lemon was sprinkled with this mixture, which was used to snack on a glass of cognac.

Regarding clothing, the situation was different. The wardrobe of Nicholas II in the Alexander Palace alone numbered several hundred items military uniform and civilian clothing: frock coats, uniforms of guards and army regiments and overcoats, cloaks, sheepskin coats, shirts and underwear, made in the capital's Nordenstrem workshop, hussar mentik and dolman, which Nicholas II wore on his wedding day. When receiving foreign ambassadors and diplomats, the king put on the uniform of the state from which the envoy was from. Often Nicholas II had to change clothes six times a day. Here, in the Alexander Palace, a collection of cigarette cases collected by Nicholas II was kept.

It must be admitted, however, that of the 16 million allocated per year to the royal family, the lion's share was spent on paying benefits for palace employees (the Winter Palace alone served a staff of 1,200 people), on supporting the Academy of Arts (the royal family was a trustee, and therefore expenses) and other needs.

The expenses were serious. The construction of the Livadia Palace cost the Russian treasury 4.6 million rubles, 350 thousand rubles per year were spent on the royal garage, and 12 thousand rubles per year on photography.

This is taking into account that the average household expenditure in the Russian Empire at that time was about 85 rubles per year per capita.

Each Grand Duke was also entitled to an annual annuity of two hundred thousand rubles. Each of the Grand Duchesses was given a dowry of one million rubles upon marriage. At birth, a member of the imperial family received a capital of one million rubles.

The Tsar Colonel personally went to the front and led the armies

Many photographs have been preserved where Nicholas II takes the oath, arrives at the front and eats from the field kitchen, where he is “the father of the soldiers.” Nicholas II really loved everything military. He practically did not wear civilian clothes, preferring uniforms.

It is generally accepted that the emperor himself led the actions of the Russian army in the First World War. However, it is not. The generals and the military council decided. Several factors influenced the improvement of the situation at the front with Nicholas taking command. Firstly, by the end of August 1915, the Great Retreat was stopped, the German army suffered from stretched communications, and secondly, the change in the commanders-in-chief of the General Staff - Yanushkevich to Alekseev - also affected the situation.

Nicholas II actually went to the front, loved to live at Headquarters, sometimes with his family, often took his son with him, but never (unlike cousins ​​George and Wilhelm) never came closer than 30 kilometers to the front line. The Emperor accepted the Order of St. George, IV degree, shortly after a German plane flew over the horizon during the Tsar’s arrival.

On domestic policy The absence of the emperor in St. Petersburg had a bad effect. He began to lose influence on the aristocracy and government. This proved to be fertile ground for internal corporate splits and indecision during February Revolution.

From the emperor’s diary on August 23, 1915 (the day he assumed the duties of the Supreme High Command): “I slept well. The morning was rainy; in the afternoon the weather improved and it became quite warm. At 3.30 I arrived at my Headquarters, one mile from the mountains. Mogilev. Nikolasha was waiting for me. After talking with him, the gene accepted. Alekseev and his first report. Everything went well! After drinking tea, I went to explore the surrounding area. The train is parked in a small dense forest. We had lunch at 7½. Then I walked some more, it was a great evening.”

The introduction of gold security is the personal merit of the emperor

The economically successful reforms carried out by Nicholas II usually include the monetary reform of 1897, when gold backing of the ruble was introduced in the country. However, preparations for monetary reform began in the mid-1880s, under the ministers of finance Bunge and Vyshnegradsky, during the reign of Alexandra III.

The reform was a forced means of moving away from credit money. Its author can be considered Sergei Witte. The tsar himself avoided solving monetary issues; by the beginning of World War I, Russia’s external debt was 6.5 billion rubles, only 1.6 billion was backed by gold.

Made personal “unpopular” decisions. Often in defiance of the Duma

It is customary to say about Nicholas II that he personally carried out reforms, often in defiance of the Duma. However, in fact, Nicholas II rather “did not interfere.” He didn't even have a personal secretariat. But under him, famous reformers were able to develop their abilities. Such as Witte and Stolypin. At the same time, the relationship between the two “second politicians” was far from idyll.

Sergei Witte wrote about Stolypin: “No one destroyed at least the semblance of justice like he, Stolypin, and that was all, accompanied by liberal speeches and gestures.”

Pyotr Arkadyevich did not lag behind. Witte, dissatisfied with the results of the investigation into the attempt on his life, he wrote: “From your letter, Count, I must draw one conclusion: either you consider me an idiot, or you find that I, too, am participating in the attempt on your life...”.

Sergei Witte wrote laconically about the death of Stolypin: “They killed him.”

Nicholas II personally never wrote detailed resolutions; he limited himself to notes in the margins, most often simply putting a “read sign.” He sat on official commissions no more than 30 times, always on extraordinary occasions, the emperor’s remarks at meetings were brief, he chose one side or another in the discussion.

The Hague Court is the brilliant “brainchild” of the Tsar

It is believed that the Hague International Court was the brilliant brainchild of Nicholas II. Yes, indeed the Russian Tsar was the initiator of the First Hague Peace Conference, but he was not the author of all its resolutions.

The most useful thing that the Hague Convention was able to do concerned the laws of war. Thanks to the agreement, WWI prisoners were kept in acceptable conditions, could communicate with home, and were not forced to work; sanitary stations were protected from attack, the wounded were cared for, and civilians were not subjected to mass violence.

But in reality, the Permanent Court of Arbitration has not brought much benefit over the 17 years of its work. Russia did not even appeal to the Chamber during the crisis in Japan, and other signatories did the same. “It turned out to be nothing” and the Convention on the Peaceful Settlement of International Issues. The Balkan War and then the First World War broke out in the world.

The Hague does not influence international affairs today. Few heads of state of world powers go to the international court.

Grigory Rasputin had a strong influence on the Tsar

Even before the abdication of Nicholas II, rumors began to appear among the people about excessive influence on Tsar Grigory Rasputin. According to them, it turned out that the state was ruled not by the tsar, not by the government, but by the Tobolsk “elder” personally.

Of course, this was far from the case. Rasputin had influence at court and was allowed into the emperor's house. Nicholas II and the Empress called him “our friend” or “Gregory,” and he called them “dad and mom.”

However, Rasputin still exerted influence on the empress, while state decisions were made without his participation. Thus, it is well known that Rasputin opposed Russia’s entry into the First world war and even after Russia entered the conflict, he tried to convince the royal family to enter into peace negotiations with the Germans.

Most of the Romanovs (grand dukes) supported the war with Germany and focused on England. For the latter, a separate peace between Russia and Germany threatened defeat in the war.

We should not forget that Nicholas II was the cousin of both the German Emperor Wilhelm II and the brother of the British King George V. Rasputin performed an applied function at court - he saved the heir Alexei from suffering. A circle of ecstatic admirers actually formed around him, but Nicholas II was not one of them.

Didn't abdicate the throne

One of the most enduring misconceptions is the myth that Nicholas II did not abdicate the throne, and the abdication document is a fake. There really are a lot of oddities in it: it was written on a typewriter on telegraph forms, although there were pens and writing paper on the train where Nicholas abdicated the throne on March 15, 1917. Supporters of the version that the renunciation manifesto was falsified cite the fact that the document was signed in pencil.

There is nothing strange about this. Nikolai signed many documents in pencil. Something else is strange. If this is really a fake and the tsar did not renounce, he should have written at least something about it in his correspondence, but there is not a word about it. Nicholas abdicated the throne for himself and his son in favor of his brother, Mikhail Alexandrovich.

The diary entries of the Tsar's confessor, the rector of the Fedorov Cathedral, Archpriest Afanasy Belyaev, have been preserved. In a conversation after confession, Nicholas II told him: “...And so, alone, without a close adviser, deprived of freedom, like a caught criminal, I signed an act of renunciation both for myself and for my son’s heir. I decided that if this is necessary for the good of my homeland, I am ready to do anything. I feel sorry for my family!”

The very next day, March 3 (16), 1917, Mikhail Alexandrovich also abdicated the throne, transferring the decision on the form of government to the Constituent Assembly.

Yes, the manifesto was obviously written under pressure, and it was not Nikolai himself who wrote it. It is unlikely that he himself would have written: “There is no sacrifice that I would not make in the name of the real good and for the salvation of my dear Mother Russia.” However, formally there was a renunciation.

Interestingly, the myths and cliches about the abdication of the tsar largely came from Alexander Blok’s book “The Last Days of Imperial Power.” The poet enthusiastically accepted the revolution and became the literary editor of the Extraordinary Commission for the Affairs of Former Tsarist Ministers. That is, he processed verbatim transcripts of interrogations.

Young Soviet propaganda actively campaigned against the creation of the role of the martyr tsar. Its effectiveness can be judged from the diary of the peasant Zamaraev (he kept it for 15 years), preserved in the museum of the city of Totma, Vologda region. The peasant's head is full of cliches imposed by propaganda:

“Romanov Nikolai and his family have been deposed, are all under arrest and receive all food on a par with others on ration cards. Indeed, they did not care at all about the welfare of their people, and the people’s patience ran out. They brought their state to hunger and darkness. What was going on in their palace. This is horror and shame! It was not Nicholas II who ruled the state, but the drunkard Rasputin. All the princes were replaced and dismissed from their positions, including the commander-in-chief Nikolai Nikolaevich. Everywhere in all cities there is a new department, the old police are gone.”

May 2018 marks the 150th anniversary of the birth of Emperor Nicholas II. Not a single Russian tsar has had as many myths created as about the last one. So, what was he really like, let's figure it out together.

Perhaps this is one of the most controversial rulers of Russia. Political scientists and historians interpret the personal qualities of the Sovereign and his policies in such contradictory ways that one may get the impression that we are talking about two different people. The image of Nicholas II as a weak, weak-willed, incapable of governing, and sometimes even insane and “bloody” ruler was replicated for many years by Soviet propaganda and the education system, taking root in society. After the breakup Soviet Union, when many were declassified archival documents, Nicholas II presented himself as an intelligent, reasonable, honest and noble ruler.

The disaster on the Khodynskoye Field is often reproached to the Emperor. The day of the Emperor's coronation was marked by tragic events. During the distribution of royal gifts, mass riots occurred that took the lives of thousands of citizens. Nicholas II is not shown in the best light for attending a ball at the French embassy. But could he have done otherwise?

Modern historian A. Stepanov rightly notes: “For a head of state, a reception with an ambassador of a foreign power is not entertainment, but work. Of course, it was possible to cancel the appointment. But it must be borne in mind that Russia and France were just establishing allied relations and any roughness could be used by hostile states to upset the emerging alliance.”

France sincerely showed friendly feelings towards Russia. The day of the coronation of the Russian Tsar was perceived there as a national holiday. Paris was decorated with Russian flags, and festive demonstrations took place. Classes in schools and lyceums were cancelled, soldiers received dismissals, and officials were given part-time work. French President Felix Faure himself and members of the government were present at the solemn service in the Russian Cathedral of St. Alexander Nevsky in Paris. Could Emperor Nicholas II not come to the reception with the French ambassador after this?

In this difficult situation, the Emperor found a worthy solution. He attended the reception, which emphasized Russia’s loyalty to allied relations and interest in their development, but soon left, leaving everyone’s Christian conscience to make a choice - should they have fun on the day of a mournful event?

The next morning, the Tsar and Empress attended a memorial service for the dead and later visited the wounded in hospitals several more times. 1000 rubles were given per family of those killed or injured, and a special shelter was created for their children; the funeral was accepted at the state expense. No attempt was made to hide or downplay what happened - the report of the disaster appeared in the newspapers the very next day...

As for the culprits, there is a very big question here: the organizers did not expect such a volume of people to arrive. There were no such crowds at the coronation of Alexander III. Therefore, this time the organizers decided not to change anything. As for ditches and other things, the same thing happened at the last coronation and there was no crush and the trenches didn’t bother anyone. It was this confidence of the organizers in the prudence of the crowd that played an unfortunate role. There was also self-interest among the shopkeepers who were tasked with giving out gifts. There were rumors in the crowd that gifts were being given away through connections, and many decided that they wouldn’t get anything that way. And then the people rushed. And the crowd was already five hundred thousand... A terrible crush began. People's greed also played a big role. Even if the field were without trenches, this would not matter. And those rumors about cronyism were too exaggerated. Eventually a large number of victims.

Nicholas II was also reproached for his connection with Grigory Rasputin. Rasputin is another iconic and mysterious figures that time. Some saw in him a representative of certain “dark”, “secret” forces, who at a certain period had almost unlimited influence on the imperial couple. Others considered him a wise and perspicacious “royal friend” and almost a “saint.” Still others found in him an illiterate and ignorant, but cunning and dexterous Siberian peasant who managed to break into the highest spheres and skillfully used his proximity to the tsar for selfish purposes, but was not able, due to his lack of education, to take any part in making government decisions .

Rasputin became close to the royal family due to the illness of the young heir Alexei, who suffered from hemophilia. It is known that reduced blood clotting is a fatal disease, since even the slightest wound can lead to complete loss of blood. At that time, medicine was powerless against the disease, but Rasputin managed to successfully fight it each time, and the Tsarevich continued to live.

And although Grigory Rasputin was called the “secret” adviser to the Tsar, many historians are confident that his political influence is extremely exaggerated. Stories about revelries and scandals with his participation are considered a malicious invention of enemies of the monarchy, and the “old man” himself is considered a victim of a slander campaign that ended with his murder, which became a “bad omen.”

Rasputin predicted his own death and the future of Russia after his death: “If they kill me simple people, peasants, then Tsar Nicholas need not fear for his fate, and the Romanovs will rule for another hundred years and more. If the nobles kill me, then the future of Russia and the royal family will be terrifying. The nobles will flee the country, and the king’s relatives will not be alive in two years, and brothers will rebel against brothers and kill each other.” Rasputin's prophecy came true; he was killed in 1916 in the Yusupov palace, and two years later the royal family was also shot.

Another myth about Nicholas II is that the Emperor was a good family man, but a bad ruler. On the one hand, a certain concession is made - the real exemplary family qualities of the tsar are recognized, on the other hand, the main message is conveyed - he was a weak politician. It was on the latter that the main emphasis was placed. But the assessments and memories of the Sovereign of prominent figures of that time indicate the opposite.

Lieutenant General Mikhail Konstantinovich Diterichs:

“The Emperor was an intelligent, educated and very well-read man. He had an enormous memory, especially for names, and was an extremely interesting conversationalist. He knew history well and loved serious history books. About the attitude and feelings of the Sovereign towards Russia - they cannot be expressed in words, that he loved Russia. Russia for him was almost the same as the Christian faith; how could he not renounce Christian faith, I couldn’t tear myself away from Russia.”

Izvolsky A.P. Minister of Foreign Affairs:

“Was Nicholas II naturally gifted and smart person? I have no hesitation in answering this question in the affirmative. I was always amazed by the ease with which he grasped the slightest nuance in the arguments presented to him, as well as the clarity with which he expressed his own thoughts.

The affairs of Nicholas II do not give grounds to speak of him as a bad and weak ruler. As for family qualities, there is no doubt that Nicholas II was an exemplary family man. Even his enemies admit this.

His wife, German Princess Alexandra Feodorovna, was a loving wife and mother. The Empress was a kind and sympathetic person. She was actively involved in charitable activities. By the beginning of 1909, under her patronage there were 33 charitable societies, communities of sisters of mercy, shelters, and orphanages. Alexandra Feodorovna was well versed in government affairs, had influence on her husband, was an adviser in some matters. But despite all her personal qualities and merits, the Empress was not popular in society.

Another fiction about Nicholas II is that he was a flayer. Slanderers spread the myth of “thousands of cats killed by the Tsar.” In the Tsar's diary entries dedicated to hunting, a cat as a trophy is extremely rare, only once.

All the other thousands of cats listed in the annual reports were killed by the imperial hunting department, but not by the Emperor. And the department of imperial hunting was clearly guided by the “Rules on Hunting” of the Russian Empire, adopted in February 1892. Article 19 of these Rules stated: “Exterminate wild animals and birds, their chicks and nests, as well as kill stray cats and dogs in the fields and forests allowed throughout the year, by any means except poison. The heads of provinces and regions are authorized to allow the use of poison for the extermination of wild animals as a general measure or to issue permits for this to individuals and societies of hunters.”

That is, we were talking about shooting those wild and stray animals that were dangerous to humans (threat of rabies, etc.). In addition, the word “cat” did not always mean a domestic cat. In the forest, the Tsar could only meet a wild predatory cat, such as a lynx, or a wild European forest cat. One cannot remain silent about the fact that Tsarevich Alexei had a favorite cat, and the Tsar and his family members had many dogs. So, if Nicholas II had hatred for animals, then they probably would not have had personal pets.

Another mystery is the Tsar’s personal diary, or more precisely, the authenticity of the entries from it, made public after the death of Nicholas II. And this is why doubts arose about the reliability of the diary.

What remained of the Emperor was a sea of ​​state documents. This is a gigantic number of analytical notes that the country's top officials compiled for him, draft laws, transcripts of Military Councils, diplomatic telegrams and much more. On these papers are the tsar's resolutions, which contrast sharply with the crazy entries in the diary.

Strictly speaking, if we evaluate a statesman, then it is logical to study him from state documents, and not from home notes. And here the picture changes dramatically.

From Nikolai’s resolutions it is clearly visible that he is well versed in the most complex issues economics, politics, defense and social problems Russia. The emperor's comments made on the documents show that he carefully studies the submitted reports of the ministers and is well versed in what they tell him. Moreover, Nikolai persistently strives to make the decision that he considers optimal. This also diverges from the image of a weak-willed emperor, subject to all sorts of external influences and Rasputin’s mystical revelations.

For example, during negotiations in Portsmouth, Witte repeatedly asked the tsar for permission to give up all of Sakhalin and pay an indemnity to the Japanese. The Tsar unswervingly answered in style: not a penny of money, not an inch of land.

“His Imperial Majesty did not deign to agree to the proposals made by Japan,” Witte lamented.

We know that half of Sakhalin had to be ceded, but this did not happen at the request of Witte, but under the pressure of the unfolding terrorist war, better known as the “revolution of 1905.”

As for the tsar’s actions during the war, Nicholas was intensively engaged in public administration, constantly received generals and ministers who covered in detail the events at the fronts.

In addition, Nicholas II traveled all over Russia to personally address parting words to military units before they were sent to Manchuria. Nikolai also visited shipbuilding factories that were preparing the fleet for a campaign in the Far East.

Financial issues and foreign policy were under the special control of Nicholas, and here, too, there are many documents showing how carefully, delving into all the important subtleties, the tsar studied the emerging problems. The reports of the finance ministers and Nicholas's comments on them are well known to historians. They have nothing in common with the image of an illiterate ruler.

It is clear that in Soviet time An objective study of the activities of Nicholas II was impossible. All articles and books obviously had to have an “accusatory bias”, sometimes reaching the point of shameful barking. However, now previously inaccessible documents have entered scientific circulation, and experts have noticed a literally striking discrepancy between two completely different personalities. The one that takes shape after reading the diary, and the one that wrote resolutions on documents.

Gradually, versions began to emerge that could at least somehow explain the obvious contradiction. For example, it was suggested that the diary was partly a falsification, fabricated specifically to discredit Nicholas.

The published “diary of Nicholas II” amazes not only with regularly repeated stories about shooting crows, the number of birds shot and misses, and not only with a description of the game of dominoes, and a mention of reading books to his wife. The problem is not only that there is a lot of obviously unnecessary detail in the diary, the problem is that there is nothing else there. The Tsar's diary is incredibly empty. Terror, a war with Japan, a bitter struggle with Duma loudmouths, and so on, are unfolding in the country, and all these events pass by the head of state. It is clear that from this fact people draw conclusions about Nikolai’s complete professional incompetence.

Let us note one more important point. Excerpts from the diary first appeared in the Pravda newspaper after the murder of Nikolai. He could neither confirm nor deny what was printed, even physically. There is still no examination of handwriting, or at least, this was simply not announced openly, and accordingly, no one has provided the public with either the examination methodology or their results, indicating the organization and persons who carried out the examination.

At the same time, a log of events at the king’s court is now available. This is the so-called Chamber-Fourier journal, which simply recorded those who came to the emperor for a report, the time of the audience, the names of the regiments with which Nicholas met, and the like.

So, it has long been noticed that the text of the diary and the text of the Chamber-Fourier journal coincide at the copy-paste level. The impression is that someone literally took excerpts from the camera-fourier’s recordings and inserted them into Nikolai’s diary. Did the emperor himself do this? Just at the end of the working day, he called a clerk with a journal and carefully, down to the comma and letter, copied the registration entries into his diary?

Of course, only an objective, independent examination can dot all the i's and give a final answer. And it’s very strange that no one took up this work.

blogger-historian, writing under the meaningful pseudonym A. Brusilov: firstly, it follows that there was no prosperity in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, and secondly, that that Russia and today’s Russia coincide in some aspects to the point of amazement.

Industry

First of all, Russia, even in terms of industrial production, lagged behind the USA, England, Germany and France. Its share in the total industrial production of the five powers listed above was only 4.2%. In global production in 1913, the share of Russia was 1.72%, the share of the USA - 20, England - 18, Germany - 9, France - 7.2% (these are all countries with a population 2-3 times less than Russia ). And this despite the fact that in Russia in 1913 there was a record (80 million tons) grain harvest. In terms of gross national product per capita, Russia was inferior to the United States - 9.5 times, England - 4.5, Canada - 4, Germany - 3.5, France, Belgium, Holland, Australia, New Zealand, Spain - 3 times, Austria-Hungary - 2 times.

Russia not only “rushed”, but continued to lag behind - in 1913 its GNP correlated with Germany’s GNP as 3.3 to 10, while in 1850 the ratio was 4 to 10.

Volumes of industrial production in 1913:

At 24,472 factories there were only 24,140 electric, steam, and diesel engines (with an average power of 60 hp). That is, not every plant had at least one engine. So much for “advanced technology”. In terms of power and mechanical equipment, Russia was 10 times behind the United States, 5 times behind England, and 4 times behind Germany, Belgium, and New Zealand. Let's add one more here interesting fact: in 1913, there were 3.035 million telephone network subscribers in the USA, 797 thousand in Germany, 536.5 thousand in England, 185 thousand in France, 110 thousand in Austria-Hungary, 102 thousand in Sweden ., in Denmark - 98 thousand, but in Russia - 97 thousand subscribers. And this is at Russian distances...

In 1913, Russia imported more than 1 million tons of steel and 8.7 million tons of coal from other countries.

Let's give a few more numbers. In 1913, the USA produced 25 million tons of steel, Russia - 4.2 million tons, over 5 years in the USA, steel production increased by 5 million tons, in Russia by 1.7 million tons (in on average by 1 million, and 0.34 million tons per year). 1% increase in steel production in the USA was equivalent to 200 thousand tons, in Russia it was only 25 thousand tons - 8 times less.

The level of labor productivity in industry in Russia was less than: in the USA - 9 times; in England - 5 times; in Germany - 4 times.

In 1909-1914. The British riveted 64 large surface ships, the Germans - 47, the French - 24, the Italians - 16, Russia, with efforts, completed and again created 10 surface ships of the battleship-cruiser class. And this despite the fact that in Russia military spending in 1908-1913. accounted for 32 - 33% of the total state budget.

Economic efficiency

Let's now take the state budget. How many curses were brought down on the heads of the Bolsheviks and the CPSU for “drunk” budgets, starting from the mid-70s. But what did we see in Tsarist Russia? Here are the "Statistical Yearbooks of Russia" (edited by the director of the Central Statistical Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs N.N. Belyavsky) for 1908-1913, the yearbooks of world statistics by S. Zap "Socio-political tables of all countries of the world" of the publishing house "Cooperation" Moscow.

So, 1908-1913. the total amount of income received by the budget amounted to: 14987 million rubles, including income from the vodka monopoly: 3993 million rubles. (26.64%), direct taxes: 1115 million rubles. (7.44%), indirect taxes: 3111 million rubles. (20.76%), duties: 943 million rubles. (6, 29%)

The West had nothing to fear from Russia, which “rushed” forward. The more efficiently the Russian economy worked, the more income the banks of Western countries received. In 1887-1913. The West invested 1,783 million gold rubles in Russia. During the same period, net income was exported from Russia - 2326 million gold rubles (the excess of income over investments over 26 years was 513 million gold rubles). Annually, up to 500 million gold rubles were transferred abroad in interest payments and loan repayments (in modern prices this is 15 billion dollars).

Life in Russia was also not cheap. So a worker’s family of 4 people in St. Petersburg spent about 750 rubles. in year. At the same time, food costs amounted to up to 100% of the wages of the head of a family of 4 people, and, as a rule, everyone worked, including children. Of the remaining amount, up to 45% went to pay for housing, and up to 25% to clothes and shoes.

For comparison: for a German worker, paying for food for a family took 20-25% of the salary (for one adult), for an English worker - 40%.

Summing up industrial development Russia in 1908-1914, we must also point out the following fact: in 1893-1900. the average annual increase in industrial production was 9%, and in 1908-1913. - 8.8%.

In parallel with the growth of industrial production, there was a process of rising prices. In 1908-1913. prices for consumer goods increased by 24%, while wages in Russia increased by an average of 34 rubles. (by 14.52%), thus we see that the real incomes of workers did not increase, but fell. Prices (wholesale) for wheat in 1901-1912. increased by 44%; for rye - by 63.63%; for pork - by 55.86%. Naturally, no less than wholesale prices have increased for bakery products and for meat in retail trade. As a result, in 1913 the real incomes of workers in Russia were 90% of the level in 1900.

People's health

Not all was well in the areas of education and healthcare.

According to statistics, in 1913 in Russia more than 12 million people (7.26% of the population) were affected by epidemics of cholera, diphtheria, anthrax, scabies. Another 9 million people suffered from malaria, trachoma, whooping cough, etc. In total, 21,877,869 people (13.2% of the country's population) were chronically ill with infectious diseases.

Per 10,000 people in Russia there were 1.6 doctors, 1.7 paramedics, 1.7 obstetricians and midwives. In rural areas there was 1 doctor per 26 thousand people.

In the USA there were 4 times more doctors per 10,000 population, in Germany - 2.7, in England - 3.5, in Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Holland - 3.2 times more.

Out of every 1000 newborns under the age of 1 year in Russia, 263 children died. For comparison: in Sweden, 70 children under 1 year of age died for every 1000 births, in England - 108, in the USA and France - 112-115. in Italy - 138, in Germany - 151. That is. Russia exceeded the countries of Europe and the USA in infant mortality by 1.74 - 3.76 times.

Public education

In Russia in 1913, the number of students in all types educational institutions(including spiritual and military) was 9.7 million people (60.6 people per 1000 inhabitants). 70% of children and adolescents were deprived of the opportunity to study. In Russia, according to the Statistical Yearbook of Russia, among the population over 9 years old (the age of entry to study), 27% were literate (excluding Transcaucasia and Central Asia). For comparison: in the USA, even among the black population, literacy reached 56%. In the United States in 1913 there were 18.3 million students (190.6 students per 1000 inhabitants).

For comparison with Russia, which had 227-228 literate people per 1000 population (excluding children preschool age) Belgium had 998 literates per 1000 population, Germany - 980, England - 816, France - 930, Australia - 816, Austria - 644, Hungary - 524, Argentina - 495, Italy - 440, Portugal - 214 people.

Even within Russia there was inequality: in Finland there were 988 literate people per 1000 people (excluding preschool children), in Poland - 305, in the Caucasus - 124, in Central Asia - 53 people. Great Russia, Little Russia, Belarus, Siberia - 268 people.

In 1913, 127,423 people studied in Russian universities, 258,000 in the USA (twice as many as in Russia). In the USA there were several dozen university-level universities, in England - 18 universities, in Germany - 22, in France - 14, in Russia - 8 universities. There were about 20 million inhabitants per university in Russia, 2.5 million in England, 2.8 million in France, and 3 million inhabitants in Germany. In Russia there were 1.7 teachers per 1000 people, in the USA there were 5.45 teachers - more than 3 times more. Thanks to the well-known circular of the Minister of Education Delyanov (during the reign of Alexander III) “0 cook’s children,” access to education was blocked for persons from the peasant and bourgeois classes. And although in 1911-1914, the circular was not actually in effect, nevertheless, out of 119,000 people studying in gymnasiums, people from peasant families accounted for 18,000 people (15.12%). In all educational institutions of the Ministry of Education (including professional, commercial, etc.), peasants made up about 15% of the students (and this in a country where 80% of the population was peasant!!!). IN cadet corps, military schools did not allow people from peasant families at all.

Agriculture

Now let's look at what many apologists of Tsarist Russia are proud of - agriculture. “Russia was well-fed and abundant!” they proclaim. Unfortunately, I have to admit that this is not so. In the 19th century Russia has experienced 40 famines. In the 20th century were hungry in 1901/02, 1905; 1906; 1907; 1908; 1911/12 In 1901-1902, 49 provinces went hungry, in 1905; 1906; 1907;1908 From 19 to 29 provinces were starving in 1911-1912. In 2 years, famine affected 60 provinces. 30 million people were on the verge of death. By various estimates in 1901-1912 About 8 million people died from the famine and its consequences. The tsarist government was most concerned with how to hide the scale of the hunger strikes. In the press, censorship prohibited the use of the word hunger, replacing it with the word “famine.”

If under Alexander II, during the major famine of 1871, zemstvos, the Red Cross and other organizations were actively involved in helping the starving, then Nicholas II sharply curtailed the rights of zemstvos to combat hunger, and in 1911 and 1912 completely banned the participation of zemstvos, Red Cross and charities in providing famine relief.

Obtaining famine relief (“famine loans”) was also fraught with difficulties. The “hunger loan” amounted to 1 pood of flour per month per adult and 1/2 pood of flour per child. At the same time, adults aged 18 to 55 years were not entitled to receive a “hunger loan” (they say, there is no point in feeding parasites, they will get out on their own). Ownerless peasants were excluded from the recipients of the “hunger loan” (and there were 3.5 million such families in Russia , these were usually farm laborers)) widows and orphans, whom rural society had to feed “from surplus aid.” What! The most defenseless sections of society were doomed to starvation. Where does a starving village get its “surplus”?

Moreover, the received “hunger loan” subsequently had to be repaid. In 1911, over 20 million rubles were collected from the starving Samara province. arrears for the “famine loans” of previous years. How many people in 1911-1912? killed the "famine loans" received in 1901-1902. 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908....

And, despite the famine, grain flowed from Russia to Europe. The slogan of the Tsarist Minister of Finance Vyshnegorodsky - “we ourselves are undernourished, but we will take it out” - was put into practice.

Russia was not a leader in world agricultural production either. The vast expanses of Russia allowed it to produce large quantities of grain, but the level of agriculture, yields and productivity were low. In 1913, having received a record grain harvest - 80 million tons - Russia had about 471 kg of grain per capita. England, France, Germany had about 430-440 kg, the USA - over 1000 kg, Canada - about 800 kg, Argentina 1200 kg. Where do the claims come from that Russia produced more grain than other countries combined? After all, the USA produced 96 million tons of grain - more than Russia. If we take the total production of agricultural products, it had the following form (in rubles).

If in total production volumes Russia was in 2nd place after the United States, then per capita production put it in 5th place. If we take others European countries, Australia, Canada, then Russia was dropped into the second ten and even lower. It is necessary to pay attention to the figures characterizing grain production per capita. England, France, Germany, producing grain less than 500 kg per capita, were its importers. The USA, Canada, Argentina, producing 800-1200 kg of grain per capita, exported it. And only Russia, producing less than 500 kg (the norm for self-sufficiency in industrial grain) of grain per capita, exported it. Those. exports came at the expense of dooming part of the population to malnutrition and hunger. Even tsarist officers and generals testified that 40% of conscripts at the beginning of the twentieth century. For the first time in my life I ate meat in the army.

The level of technical equipment in agriculture was low. More than 52% of peasant farms did not have plows, cultivating the land with plows and roe deer. In 1913, there were only 152 tractors in Russia (in the USA, Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, and Denmark there were thousands and tens of thousands of tractors). 80% of agricultural work was carried out manually (although in 1908-1913 the fleet of agricultural machines increased significantly).

Due to chronic landlessness, every year up to 2 million peasants from the central non-black soil provinces were forced to go to work in the southern provinces in the summer months, hiring themselves out as farm laborers to kulaks and landowners.

The chronic crisis in livestock farming continued in Russia. So the number of working horses in agriculture per 100 people rural population fell from 38 in 1870 to 30 in 1911. The number of livestock (cattle and pigs) per 100 people decreased from 67 heads in 1896-1898. up to 65 goals in 1899-1901. and up to 55 goals in 1911-1913.

In 1914, in Russia there were 293 heads of cattle per 1000 inhabitants, in the USA - 622, in Denmark - 888 heads.

The productivity of a dairy cow in 1913 was: in Russia - 28 rubles, in the USA - 94, (1: 3.36), in Switzerland 150 rubles. (1:5,36). Russia was also inferior in the productivity of grain production per hectare (tithe).

So the yield in 1913 per tithe was,

Science and Engineering

And again I will return to industry. Remember which planes Utochkin and Nesterov shone on? Nieuport, Farman, Bristol Bulldog, Sopwith, Fokker. England, France, Belgium..., but not Russia. For 1914-1917 Only 94 “Ilya Muromets” were assembled, and the engines and instruments were imported.

What about cars? "Ford", "Mercedes-Benz", "Fiat", "Renault", "Peugeot". And where are the Russian companies that produce cars completely (from raw materials to the finished product) - they are not there.

Russian destroyers, cruisers and battleships had German and Swedish turbines, English gyrocompasses and rangefinders.

I analyze Russia’s lags in such detail not with the aim of savoring them. No. I am no less proud of D.I. Mendeleev, K.E. Tsiolkovsky, and many other talented scientists and engineers. I remember that the first diesel engines and motor ships were created in Kolomna, I remember that Novik-class destroyers and Russian steam locomotives were considered standard, I remember that Russia is the birthplace of radio, but, unfortunately, these were only rays of light in a generally bleak picture.

Let's remember that Mendeleev and Sechenov (the pride of Russia!!!) were voted out of the Academy of Sciences (if only they were Germans...), inventor of radio communications Popov he remained a modest teacher at a naval school.

All this is analyzed in order to prevent the creation of a new mythology, because any myth ultimately turns against itself, as we saw in the example of the CPSU, when Suslov, Yakovlev, etc. and so on. They lied first in one direction and then in the other.

Moral

After all, Russia was by no means a quiet and God-fearing country of high Christian morality and legality (immediately after the February Revolution in 1917, when the Provisional Government abolished compulsory visit prayers, in the Russian army, which consisted mainly of peasants, 70% of the soldiers stopped attending church).

In St. Petersburg in 1913, the number of higher educational institutions was equal to the number of officially registered brothels.

Let's remember Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich, who stole funds allocated for the construction of Borodino-class battleships, as a result of which Russia by 1904 instead of 10 battleships of this type, which were in service, had only 5. And even then only on the stocks.

If we want to get a more complete impression of the life of Russia in those times, then, really, it is worth turning to the works of such writers as L. Tolstoy, A. Chekhov, I. Shmelev, V. Zasodimsky, I. Zlatovratsky, G. Uspensky, D. .Mamin-Sibiryak, F.Reshetnikov, M.Gorky, I.Bunin.

And finally, I will offer a statement by the Prime Minister of the Tsarist Government Kokovtsev for the deputies of the 4th State Duma: “Talk about Russia catching up with countries with advanced culture in 15-20 years is, gentlemen, a demand that is not serious.” And Kokovtsev knew what he was saying...

As sad as this sounds for those who try to imagine Russia as a country where patriarchal silence and universal brotherhood between rich and poor reigned, it should be noted that there was a stubborn struggle in the country, the mention of which is so unfashionable now, and which is called the class struggle.

According to the 4th State Duma, from 1901 to 1914. Tsarist troops opened fire more than 6,000 times, including artillery, on rallies and demonstrations of workers, as well as on gatherings and processions of peasants. And this is only for PEACEFUL rallies, processions, and gatherings. The number of victims ranged from 9 to a thousand people. In total, the number of victims of this kind of “shooting” exceeded 180 thousand. In 1907-1910. Over 40 thousand people died in convict centers.

Everything written in this material should give us a clear picture of why events inevitably moved towards 1917, why military assistance from England, France, the USA, Japan, provided to Kolchak, Denikin, Yudenich, Miller, and direct foreign military intervention could not break the Bolsheviks. This material provides an answer to why the white movement, having controlled up to 4/5 of the territory of Russia in the summer of 1918, was ultimately defeated.

The terror of the Cheka was not the reason for this. Peasant Russia entered into an unspoken agreement with the Bolsheviks - agreed to tolerate food appropriation, the Cheka, ChON, committees of poor people, etc. etc., but on the condition that the Bolsheviks GUARANTEE THE NON-RETURN OF THE OLD ORDERS. And this turn of the peasantry towards the Bolsheviks in 1918 ensured the collapse of the white movement. The peasant, seeing Kolchak and Denikin, the White Czechs and Krasnov, realized what awaited him and made his choice. And the result of this choice was the Victory Parade, there was Gagarin’s flight, there was one of TWO superpowers - the USSR.

You cannot mythologize the past. Otherwise, the truth about him turns into an all-destroying battering ram.

The recently released film by Alexei Uchitel about the love of the heir to the throne and the ballerina Matilda Kshesinskaya is an opportunity to remember what popular myths about the family of the last Russian emperor are still interesting to readers and lead to fierce debate.

Still from Alexei Uchitel’s film “Matilda”

In two articles I want to talk only about what is more or less well known from the memoirs of contemporaries and the works of historians dedicated to the beginning of the twentieth century. I myself am not an expert on the era of Nicholas II, but I have read quite a lot of works about the personality of the last emperor and how the royal family was treated by its contemporaries and descendants. The first article will be devoted recent years the life of the royal family, and the second - myths associated with the royal family before the outbreak of the First World War.

First, I want to answer the main question, otherwise we will not be able to move on.

Why was Nicholas II canonized?

The family of the last Russian emperor was canonized in 2000. Supporters and opponents of canonization argued very fiercely and actively back then. The Internet was not yet widely available, so people read and talked. The main problem was the same as now. Nicholas II and Alexandra Fedorovna are complex personalities and politicians, their government activity and personal life, their attitude towards the Church was very difficult. Opponents of canonization said that hasty glorification does not make it possible to give an objective historical assessment of the new saints as politicians. Supporters of a speedy glorification cited popular veneration and numerous miracles, as well as the fact that the new saints would help unite Orthodox Christians in Russia and beyond. Along the way, they often talked about slander against Nicholas II and hoped that canonization would help people recognize the real image of the royal family.

In 2000, the Church did everything possible to prevent this canonization from leading to a split among believers for political reasons. Nicholas II and his family were glorified in the rank of passion-bearers, that is, saints, “who, imitating Christ, patiently endured physical and moral suffering and death at the hands of political opponents.” The royal family was not glorified for its political activity or a pious life until their arrest in the spring of 1917, but for their behavior before their death. In his report, Metropolitan of Krutitsky and Kolomna, at that time chairman of the canonization commission, emphasized that “the canonization of a saint does not mean the canonization of every line he wrote.”

Unfortunately, this phrase was not heard then. Almost immediately, the attitude towards the royal family became idealized. Of them, some immoderate admirers began to actually make a “holy family”, turning the king into an ideal politician, and the queen into a model of all possible virtues. The consequences of this were revealed during the discussion about the film by Alexei Uchitel.

However, the Church is not to blame for this. All official canonization documents emphasized that the Church does not consider the life of the Romanov family before the abdication and arrest or the political activities of the last Russian emperor and his wife to be a life. That is, until March 1917, the royal family were ordinary Christians with their own merits and demerits, whose lives can be debated, and their actions assessed positively or negatively. This does not affect the holiness of the royal family in any way.

Was the entire royal family shot in the Ipatievs' house?

Anna Anderson, false Tsarevich Alexei, the story that Nicholas II himself safely escaped execution and lived out his days calmly in England or Latin America- these are just a small part of the stories about the miraculous salvation of someone from the royal family that can be found on the Internet.

The same applies to the fate of the remains of the royal family. In the early 90s, in various newspapers one could come across a story that the heads of Nicholas II and other family members preserved in alcohol were in jars in the closet of either Lenin or Sverdlov.

In the book of one of the leaders of the white movement, Mikhail Diterikhs, “The Murder of the Royal Family and Members of the House of Romanov in the Urals,” there is a wonderful story that instead of Nicholas II, a volunteer count was shot, and the emperor himself and his children fled abroad. The author of the book cites this story as Bolshevik disinformation. In the summer of 1918, when white army entered Yekaterinburg, in general there were many rumors that not everyone was shot.

In the teacher's book French the royal children of Pierre Gilliard, “Emperor Nicholas II and His Family,” you can find several stories about how people who escaped from the Ipatiev house hoped until the last that not everyone was shot. The hopes turned out to be false, as proven by investigator Nikolai Sokolov, who conducted a thorough investigation into the circumstances of the execution of the royal family. He left Russia with the whites, and then wrote a book, “The Murder of the Royal Family,” based on materials from the investigative case. Now most historians have no doubt that the royal family was shot on July 17, 1918 in Yekaterinburg. A few days later the Bolsheviks left Yekaterinburg, but they managed to kill the royal family.

Could Nicholas II and his family have escaped after their arrest?

In 1972, Soviet historian Mark Ksavinov published the book “23 Steps Down.” For many people, this text is still almost the best source for assessing the reign of Nicholas II. The last emperor reigned for 23 years (from 1894 to 1917). The telling title helps the reader immediately understand that he was a mediocre ruler. According to historian Sergei Firsov, the author of one of the biographies of Nicholas II in the ZhZL series, Ksavinov’s work was very unusual for Soviet historiography - here the tsar for the first time appeared before the reader not as a fiend of hell, but as a man with his own advantages and disadvantages.

One thesis of Mark Ksavinov is especially interesting to us - the German ambassador Mirbach really wanted to save Nicholas II. Conspirators were constantly walking around the Ipatievs' house. The Bolsheviks uncovered several conspiracies and were forced to shoot the Tsar. It's good that they managed to do this.

A tempting theory. It's just completely implausible. From March 1917 to July 1918, Nicholas II had several opportunities to leave Russia, but they were rather hypothetical.

Many sources have a story that Nicholas II would like to live as a private person in Crimea. An equally widespread version is about the possibility of emigrating to England, which was ultimately denied to the royal family.

In general, the movements of the royal family after their arrest are an extremely interesting topic. First, St. Petersburg, from where it would be easiest to get abroad, but Alexander Kerensky refused to take the royal family to the west or to the Crimea, saying that the Provisional Government could not guarantee their safety. Instead, the train with the royal family departed for Tyumen on August 14, 1917, and then the royal family was transported by ship to Tobolsk.

Was it possible to escape from Tobolsk? Theoretically yes, practically no. In April 1917, King George V of England said that the royal family's move to England would be undesirable. Nicholas II could not leave for Germany, since it was a military enemy of Russia. Stories about salvation in Latin America can be dismissed out of hand.

In other words, there was nowhere to run even from Tobolsk. At the beginning of April 1918, the royal family was taken from Tobolsk to Yekaterinburg. At this moment the Bolsheviks wanted to arrange a public trial of former emperor, but circumstances did not allow this to be done, which led to the tragedy in Ipatiev’s house.

So the royal family had practically no chance of salvation, but after the execution the Bolsheviks for some time willingly spread a variety of rumors about the salvation of the tsar. However, their opponents also tried to play this card. Was walking Civil War, and the family of Nicholas II became hostage to political confusion.

Why did the Church support the abdication of Nicholas II, and was it legal?

On March 2, 1917, at 23.40, representatives of the State Duma A.I. Guchkov and V.V. Shulgin received the final text of Nicholas II’s abdication of the throne for himself and his heir Alexei, known in history as the Abdication Manifesto. Power passed to Mikhail Alexandrovich Romanov, who the next day abdicated the throne until the convening of the Constituent Assembly.

On March 9, 1917, the Holy Synod expressed its attitude towards renunciation. The working documents stated that it was necessary to “take note of the abdication of Nicholas II and his brother Mikhail.” In the proclamation “To the faithful children of the Russian Orthodox Church regarding the events currently being experienced,” it was written: “The Holy Synod earnestly prays to the All-Merciful Lord, may He bless the works and undertakings of the Provisional Government, may He give it strength, strength and wisdom, and the sons of the great May the Russian state be guided on the path of brotherly love."

There are still fierce debates around these two facts. Some researchers say that the Church, represented by the Synod, betrayed the Tsar, others that Nicholas II, who, according to the laws of the Russian Empire, was the head (“ultimate judge”, to be more precise) of the Church, beheaded Russian Orthodoxy on the eve of the revolution, without declaring its independence from states. Still others (for example, Peter Multatuli) say that there was no renunciation, the document was drawn up with gross legal errors, which makes it invalid.

Most likely, we will never be able to fully find out what exactly happened on the royal train, which was traveling from Mogilev to Tsarskoe Selo, but ended up in Pskov. A significant number of memories have reached us, but their value as historical sources unequal. Some memoirs were written much later than March 2, taking into account the political situation in Russia and the position that the author took in relation to the events of February or October 1917.

One thing is obvious: the emperor had to make a decision in a critical, constantly changing situation and in a very short time (this explains several telegrams from the sovereign). Neither Nicholas II nor Alexandra Feodorovna could calmly communicate with each other at that moment, or get a more or less complete understanding of what was happening. What on February 25 seemed to the empress a revolt of “boys and girls” turned into a powerful revolution in two days, when the troops refused to obey orders, and the front commanders asked Nicholas to abdicate the throne. In these conditions, failure to comply with some formalities could simply not be paid attention to. The abdication of Nicholas II suited both the authorities represented by the Provisional Government, the Church represented by the Synod, and most of the Russian people, who were tired of the war and saw the royal family as a source of trouble for the country. Fair or not, I will say further.

It is important to note that Nicholas II abdicated for himself and his heir in favor of his brother Mikhail, who in turn abdicated the throne in favor of the Constituent Assembly. So Nicholas II acted as a man for whom the interests of the country, family and health, as he understood them, were above personal benefits and security. He thought he was sacrificing himself for the country. But it didn’t matter to Russia then.

The circumstances in which the tsar’s abdication took place, and the motives that motivated him, became one of the grounds for the canonization of the royal family: “Spiritual motives for which the last Russian Sovereign, who did not want to shed the blood of his subjects, decided to abdicate the Throne in the name of internal peace in Russia, gives his act a truly moral character,” says the act of canonization.

And two words about the Church. The Church took note of the abdication of its “ultimate judge”. There was nothing else she could do. We will not consider fantastic versions that it was possible to rouse the people to defend the king. By the beginning of 1917, the people really did not like Nicholas II and especially his wife, Alexandra Fedorovna.

German spy, Rasputin's mistress, saint?

The wife of the last Russian emperor had a special gift. Almost no one was indifferent to Alexandra Fedorovna. She was either loved or hated and condemned. Nicholas II, her children and Anna Vyrubova really loved her. Pierre Gilliard, whom we have already mentioned, treated her with sympathy. Of course, this list is not complete.

They hated and did not accept the chosen one of Nicholas II much more people. Many saw her as a person who brought misfortune to Russia. Alexandra Fedorovna did not know how to please or play a role. It could either be taken entirely or not taken at all, which is basically what happened. Sergei Firsov, in his book about Nicholas II, cites only one plot of a tabloid novel in the Russian press after the emperor's abdication of the throne - this is a love triangle with the participation of Nicholas II, Anna Vyrubova, the empress herself and a young officer.

On the road from Tyumen to Tobolsk, Alexandra Fedorovna heard the crowd shouting “Sasha, where is your Grisha (a hint of Rasputin - A.Z.).” Nicholas II himself did not react to such attacks, but public opinion was not on the side of the royal family. Of course, Alexandra Feodorovna was neither a German spy nor Rasputin’s mistress (Rasputin himself, by the way, was against Russia’s participation in the First World War), but she actively intervened in state and church affairs, gave advice to her husband and listened to Rasputin’s advice. Here is an excerpt from the empress’s letter to her husband dated June 23, 1916: “Ts. S. June 23, 1916 My beloved angel!

It’s already 12 o’clock, I just went to bed, but I want to write to you while I still remember well my conversation with Sturmer. The poor fellow was very upset by the rumors conveyed to him by people who had been in Mogilev, and since Rodzianko also attacked him, he fell into complete bewilderment. As if a military dictatorship with Sergei M. at the head, a change of ministers, etc. is assumed. Fool Rodz. flew to him to find out his opinion on this, etc., etc.” . Below she will call Rodzianko “vile” (in another translation “hateful.” The correspondence was conducted in English).

In many letters to her husband, Alexandra Fedorovna alternates tender epithets and stories about children with harsh assessments of politicians and sometimes church hierarchs, so the royal correspondence should not be considered as sentimental and pious conversations between two Christians. Alexandra Fedorovna was a tough, strong-willed person, absolutely inflexible - the first two qualities were exactly what her husband lacked, according to many contemporaries. She grew old early. At the time of the execution, she was not even fifty, but she walked poorly and suffered from nervous exhaustion. The illness of the heir and constant care for him greatly changed her character. However, even in her youth she did not know how to please to the right people. At the same time, she loved her husband and children very much and ultimately gave her life for them. She also loved Russia, but not the real country with its advantages and disadvantages, but an ideal image, where the people love the tsar, the tsar has unlimited power and can do anything. However, Matilda Kshesinskaya in her diaries and memoirs speaks of Alexandra Fedorovna with respect.

But we will talk about this, as well as about Rasputin and the religiosity of the royal family, in our second article.

“A friend of one of the correspondents of the English newspaper “Morning Post”, who has just arrived from St. Petersburg, says that Grand Duke Kirill received a letter on November 18 from Grand Duchess Tatiana, which states that the Tsarina and the Grand Duchesses are safe and that the Tsar was not shot. According to this letter, one Bolshevik officer came to the Tsar and announced to him that he had been appointed to carry out the death sentence. When asked if there was a way to avoid this, he replied that he himself was indifferent to this, but that he needed to have a disfigured body as proof of carrying out the order given to him. Some count, whose name is not mentioned in the letter, offered himself to take the place of the Tsar. The king protested persistently. But the count insisted, and the Bolshevik officer ended the argument by shooting the count, according to his wishes. At this time, the Tsar took advantage of the moment and disappeared to God knows where.”

More information about the Church's reaction to the abdication of Nicholas II can be found in the book. Babkin M.A. The clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church and the overthrow of the monarchy (beginning of the 20th century - end of 1917). M., Ed. State Public Historical Library of Russia. 2007. – 532 p.

The report of Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsky and Kolomna, on the basis of which they decided to canonize the royal family, main source for those who want to understand why Nicholas II is a holy passion-bearer (http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/422558)

“The magazine “Spotlight” published a story about the loving and lustful queen, her hypocritical friend A. A. Vyrubova, the always drunk, cruel and suspicious erotomaniac king. The plot is simple. Alexandra Fedorovna and Anna Alexandrovna simultaneously fall in love with the handsome young officer Orlov, whom the queen, taking advantage of the empress, makes her lover. Vyrubova “takes revenge” by provoking a clash between the king and his wife. Nicholas II, having caught his wife and lover at the scene of the “crime,” kills the latter. In revenge for the death of Orlov, Alexandra Fedorovna, already in the years Great War, his younger brother, who was recovering in the Tsarskoye Selo hospital, shoots. The assassination attempt ends with Vyrubova being slightly wounded, and the queen forgives the shooter. The detective story is told, the “nightmarish” secret of the Court is revealed. The publishers promise to continue publishing sensational revelations.” Firsov S. L. Nikolai II. M., 2010, p. 442.

Message quote Myths about Nicholas II (Romanov Chronicles)

On February 13, 2012, the Russian Orthodox Church celebrates the Council of New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia. The conciliar glorification of the holy new martyrs and confessors of Russia took place at the Council of Bishops in August 2000. According to some sources, more than 200 thousand priests died in Russia during the period of repression, according to other sources, at least 320 thousand. In addition, those who did not have the priestly rank, but suffered torment for their faith and the Fatherland, are also included in the ranks of martyrs. A total of 1,154 ascetics were glorified by name then, and the list of martyrs is still constantly growing. Among such passion-bearers are members of the imperial family, headed by the Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II.

Icon "The Council of the Holy New Martyrs of Russia from the Atheists Killed"

The inclusion of the emperor and members of his family in the category of martyrs is still controversial: some approve of such a decision, others are categorically against it. Both sides have a lot of arguments. Our history is to blame for everything, or rather, the way it was presented and is still presented. We do not have a neutral history, based only on facts and documents, we have a political history, beneficial to this or that politician, system, party. Perhaps someday the time will come when such an approach will be forgotten and it will be written real story Russia and its life. In the meantime, one of the points of view on the myths about Nicholas II and why he is still worthy of canonization, set out in the material of Yulia Komleva, candidate historical sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of New and modern history Ural State University named after. Gorky.

New Martyrs of Russia

The act of conciliar glorification of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia in the 20th century reads:

"To glorify the Royal Family as passion-bearers in the host of new martyrs and confessors of Russia: Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia. In the last Orthodox Russian monarch and members of his Family, we see people who sincerely sought to embody the commandments of the Gospel in their lives. In the suffering endured by the Royal Family in captivity with meekness, patience and humility, in their martyrdom in Yekaterinburg on the night of July 4 (17), 1918, the evil-conquering light of Christ's faith was revealed, just as it shone in the lives and deaths of millions Orthodox Christians who suffered persecution for Christ in the twentieth century".

There are no grounds for revising the decision of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), however, discussions in Russian society about whether to consider the last Emperor of the Russian Empire a saint continue to this day. Statements that the Russian Orthodox Church “made a mistake” in canonizing Nicholas II and his family are far from uncommon. The arguments of opponents of the holiness of the last Sovereign of the Russian Empire are based on typical myths, mostly created by Soviet historiography, and sometimes by outright antagonists of Orthodoxy and independent Russia as a great power.

Manizer V.G. Portrait of Emperor Nicholas II 1905

Some accusations are frankly naive, if not ridiculous, for example: “during the reign of Nicholas II, so many people died and a war was fought” (are there periods in history when no one died? Or were wars fought only under the last Emperor? Why are there no comparisons of statistical indicators with other periods of Russian history?). Other accusations indicate the extreme ignorance of their authors, who build their conclusions on the basis of pulp literature such as books by A. Bushkov, pseudo-historical novels by E. Radzinsky, or in general some dubious Internet articles by unknown authors who consider themselves to be nugget historians. This article presents a number of the most common myths that could be found in old textbooks of the Soviet period and which, despite their complete groundlessness, are still repeated in the mouths of some people due to their reluctance to get acquainted with new research modern science. After each myth, brief arguments for refutation are given.

Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov 1890

Myth 1

Tsar Nicholas II was a gentle and kind family man, an intellectual who received a good education, a skillful interlocutor, but an irresponsible and absolutely unsuitable person for such a high position. He was pushed around by his wife Alexandra Fedorovna, a German by nationality, and from 1907 by the elder Grigory Rasputin, who exercised unlimited influence on the tsar, removing and appointing ministers and military leaders.

If you read the memoirs of Emperor Nicholas II’s contemporaries, Russians and foreigners, who, of course, were not published or translated into Russian during the years of Soviet power, then we come across a description of Nicholas II as a kind, generous man, but far from weak. For example, French President Emile Loubet (1899-1806) believed that under the apparent timidity the king had a strong soul and a courageous heart, as well as always well-thought-out plans, the implementation of which he slowly achieved. Nicholas II possessed the strength of character necessary for the difficult royal service; moreover, according to Metropolitan of Moscow (since 1943 - Patriarch) Sergius (1867-1944), through anointing to the Russian throne he was given an invisible power from above, acting to elevate his royal valor. Many circumstances and events of his life prove that the Emperor had a strong will, which made his contemporaries who knew him closely believe that “ the Tsar had an iron hand, and many were only deceived by the velvet pepper worn on it weave."

Nicholas II received a real military upbringing and education; all his life he felt like a military man, which affected his psychology and many things in his life. The Emperor, as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian army, himself, without the influence of any “good geniuses,” made absolutely all the important decisions that contributed to victorious actions.

As for relationships Royal Family with Grigory Rasputin, then, without going into details here of the extremely ambiguous assessments of the latter’s activities, there is no reason to see in these relations signs of any dependence or spiritual charm of the Royal Family. Even The Extraordinary Commission of Inquiry of the Provisional Government, consisting of liberal lawyers who were sharply opposed to the Tsar, the dynasty and the monarchy as such, was forced to admit that G. Rasputin did not have any influence on the state life of the country.

Romanov family 1901

Romanov family 1901

Romanov family 1904

Myth 2

Unsuccessful state and church policies of the Emperor. In defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. It is the Emperor who is to blame for failing to ensure efficiency and combat effectiveness Russian army and the fleet. With his persistent reluctance to carry out the necessary economic and political reforms, as well as to conduct a dialogue with representatives of Russian citizens of all classes, the emperor “caused” the revolution of 1905-1907, which, in turn, led to severe destabilization of Russian society and state system. He also dragged Russia into the First World War, in which he was defeated.

In fact, under Nicholas II, Russia experienced an unprecedented period of material prosperity; on the eve of the First World War, its economy flourished and grew at the fastest pace in the world. For 1894-1914. The country's state budget increased by 5.5 times, gold reserves by 3.7 times, the Russian currency was one of the strongest in the world. At the same time, government revenues grew without the slightest increase in the tax burden. The overall growth of the Russian economy, even during the difficult years of the First World War, was 21.5%. Edinburgh University professor Charles Sarolea, who visited Russia before and after the revolution, believed that the Russian monarchy was the most progressive government in Europe.

The Emperor did a lot to improve the country's defense capability, having learned the hard lessons of the Russo-Japanese War. One of his most significant acts was the revival of the Russian fleet, which occurred against the will of military officials, but saved the country at the beginning of the First World War. The most difficult and most forgotten feat of Emperor Nicholas II was that under incredibly difficult conditions, he brought Russia to the threshold of victory in the First World War, however, his opponents did not allow her to cross this threshold og. General N.A. Lokhvitsky wrote: “ It took Peter the Great nine years to turn the vanquished of Narva into the victors of Poltava. The last Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Army, Emperor Nicholas II, did the same great work in a year and a half, but his work was appreciated by his enemies, and between the Sovereign and his Army and victory “became a revolution" The Sovereign's military talents were fully revealed at the post of Supreme Commander-in-Chief. Russia definitely began to win the war when the triumphant year of 1916 of the Brusilov breakthrough came, a plan with which many military leaders disagreed, and which the Emperor insisted on.

It should be noted that Nicholas II treated the duties of the monarch as his sacred duty and did everything in his power: he managed to suppress the terrible revolution of 1905 and delay the triumph of the “demons” for 12 years. Thanks to his personal efforts, a radical turning point was achieved in the course of the Russian-German confrontation. Already a prisoner of the Bolsheviks, he refused to approve the Brest Peace Treaty and thereby save his life. He lived with dignity and accepted death with dignity.

Emperor Nicholas II

Myth 3

On the day of the Emperor’s coronation on May 18, 1896, during the distribution of gifts in a stampede on the Khodynskoye field, more than a thousand people died and more than a thousand were seriously injured, due to which Nicholas II received the nickname “Bloody.” On January 9, 1905, a peaceful demonstration of workers protesting against living and working conditions was shot at (96 people were killed, 330 were injured); On April 4, 1912, the Lena execution of workers protesting against the 15-hour working day took place (270 people were killed, 250 were injured). Conclusion: Nicholas II was a tyrant who destroyed the Russian people and especially hated workers.

The most important indicator of the effectiveness and morality of government and the well-being of the people is population growth. From 1897 to 1914, i.e. in just 17 years, it reached a fantastic figure of 50.5 million people. Since then, according to statistics, Russia has lost and continues to lose on average about 1 million deaths per year, plus those killed as a result of numerous government-organized actions, plus abortions, murdered children, the number of which in the 21st century has exceeded one and a half million per year. In 1913, a worker in Russia earned 20 gold rubles per month with the cost of bread being 3-5 kopecks, 1 kg of beef - 30 kopecks, 1 kg of potatoes - 1.5 kopecks, and income tax - 1 ruble per year (the lowest in the world) , which made it possible to support a large family.

From 1894 to 1914, the public education budget increased by 628%. The number of schools increased: higher - by 180%, secondary - by 227%, girls' gymnasiums - by 420%, public schools - by 96%. In Russia, 10,000 schools were opened annually. Russian empire experienced a flourishing cultural life. During the reign of Nicholas II, more newspapers and magazines were published in Russia than in the USSR in 1988.

The blame for the tragic events of Khodynka, Bloody Sunday and the Lena execution, of course, cannot be placed directly on the Emperor. The cause of the stampede on Khodynka Field was... greed. A rumor spread through the crowd that the bartenders were distributing gifts among “their own”, and therefore there were not enough gifts for everyone, as a result of which the people rushed to the temporary wooden buildings with such force that even 1,800 policemen, specially assigned to maintain order during the festivities, could not were able to hold back the onslaught.

According to recent research, the events of January 9, 1905 were a provocation organized by the Social Democrats in order to put certain political demands into the mouths of the workers and create the impression of popular protest against the existing government. On January 9, workers from the Putilov plant with icons, banners and royal portraits moved in procession to Palace Square, filled with joy and performing prayer chants to meet their Sovereign and bow to him. A meeting with him was promised to them by the socialist organizers, although the latter knew very well that the Tsar was not in St. Petersburg; on the evening of January 8, he left for Tsarskoe Selo.

People gathered in the square at the appointed hour and waited for the Tsar to come out to meet them. Time passed, the Emperor did not appear, and tension and unrest began to grow among the people. Suddenly, the provocateurs began shooting at the gendarmes from the attics of houses, gateways and other hiding places. The gendarmes returned fire, panic and a stampede arose among the people, as a result of which, according to various estimates, from 96 to 130 people were killed, and from 299 to 333 people were wounded. The Emperor was deeply shocked by the news of “Bloody Sunday.” He ordered the allocation of 50,000 rubles for benefits to the families of the victims, as well as the convening of a commission to determine the needs of the workers. Thus, the Tsar could not give the order to shoot civilians, as the Marxists accused him of, since he simply was not in St. Petersburg at that moment.

French postcard depicting the Emperor

Emperor Nicholas II at military maneuvers

Myth 4

Nicholas II easily agreed to the government's proposal to abdicate the throne, thereby violating his duty to the Fatherland and betraying Russia into the hands of the Bolsheviks. The abdication of the anointed king from the throne, moreover, should be considered as a church-canonical crime, similar to the refusal of a representative of the church hierarchy from the priesthood.

Here we should probably start with the fact that modern historians generally cast great doubt on the very fact of the Tsar’s abdication of the throne. Stored in State Archives Russian Federation The document on the abdication of Nicholas II is a typed sheet of paper, at the bottom of which is the signature “Nicholas”, written in pencil and circled, apparently through a window glass, with a pen. The style of the text is completely different from that of other documents compiled by the Emperor. The counter-signature (assurance) inscription of the Minister of the Imperial Household, Count Fredericks, on the abdication was also made in pencil and then circled with a pen. Thus, this document raises serious doubts about its authenticity and allows many historians to conclude that the Autocrat of the All-Russian Sovereign, Emperor Nicholas II, never composed a renunciation, wrote it by hand and did not sign it.

In any case, the renunciation of the kingship itself is not a crime against the Church, since the canonical status of the Orthodox sovereign anointed to the Kingdom was not defined in the church canons. And those spiritual motives for which the last Russian Sovereign, who did not want to shed the blood of his subjects, could abdicate the Throne in the name of internal peace in Russia, give his act a truly moral character.

Room in the Ipatiev house where the royal family was shot 1918

Pavel Ryzhenko In the Ipatiev house after the execution of the royal family

Myth 5

The death of Emperor Nicholas II and members of his family was not a martyrdom for Christ, but... (further options): political repression; murder committed by the Bolsheviks; ritual murder committed by Jews, Masons, Satanists (to choose from); Lenin's blood revenge for the death of his brother; a consequence of a global conspiracy aimed at an anti-Christian coup. Another version: the Royal Family was not shot, but secretly transported abroad; The execution room in the Ipatiev House was a deliberate staging.

Actually, according to any of the listed versions of the death of the Royal Family (with the exception of the completely incredible one about its salvation), the indisputable fact remains that the circumstances of the death of the Royal Family were physical and moral suffering and death at the hands of opponents, that it was a murder associated with incredible human torment: long, long and savage.

In the “Act on the Conciliar Glorification of the New Martyrs and Confessors of the Russian 20th Century” it is written: “ Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich often compared his life to the trials of the sufferer Job, on whose church memorial day he was born. Having accepted his cross in the same way as the biblical righteous man, he endured all the trials sent down to him firmly, meekly and without a shadow of a murmur. It is this long-suffering that is revealed with particular clarity in last days life of the Emperor». Most witnesses to the last period of the life of the Royal Martyrs speak of the prisoners of the Tobolsk Governor's House and the Yekaterinburg Ipatiev House as people who suffered and, despite all the mockery and insults, led a pious life. Their true greatness stemmed not from their royal dignity, but from the amazing moral height to which they gradually rose.