Why is Nicholas 2 called a rag. Nicholas II - a rag or a man of will? "Three stations". Without a trace of irony

Another exhibition dedicated to the 400th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty has opened in St. Petersburg. On the billboard, the central place is traditionally occupied by Nicholas II, in whose shadow are his crowned predecessors. There is no doubt that such a titan as Peter I is a nugget, a large-scale historical personality, whose achievements and sins will be weighed by historians for a long time. However, it does not come out in any way to understand how worthy Nicholas II distinguished himself in history.

The basis of the light myth about Nicholas is based on tragic death him and the entire imperial family. However, the reasons for the execution of the martyr tsar are easily found even in the Orthodox-monarchical ideology, to which his admirers usually turn.

For the emperor, as the anointed of God, the abdication of the throne committed by Nicholas is a grave sin, this voluntarily termination of the divine mission, a break with the predetermined fate. Having renounced the throne, the king left the land entrusted to him, threw off the burden of responsibility. And a crime, as you know, is followed by punishment.

Lovers of the last of the reigning Romanovs argue that Nicholas did not abolish the monarchy, but abdicated in favor of his brother Mikhail. However, the decision was made by the emperor so hastily that it does not allow talking about responsible behavior, worthy of the head of state. Michael did not accept the throne, the monarchy disappeared into thin air. Nicholas's refusal to reign, taken in fact on one day, was not a pre-planned political step, carefully thought out, taken taking into account all factors, therefore, except for the criminal weakness of Nicholas II, frightened by the riots in Petrograd, there can be no explanation.

Nikolai Romanov abandoned his Motherland, the largest country in the world in the difficult years of the war, gripped by internal contradictions, which lost many killed. It's like a commander who abandoned his army, or a captain who abandoned a ship, only the scale of surrender is much wider. As you know, the higher the responsibility, the higher the degree of guilt, and hence the amount of punishment.

In addition to sighing about the martyrdom, fans of Nicholas II love to flaunt figures illustrating the economic growth of the Russian Empire. Certain development, of course, was observed by 1913, but the last emperor had nothing to do with these achievements.

It is enough to turn to Nikolai's diaries to understand the degree of his personal detachment from state tasks. Unhurried idle walks, dinners, conversations over a cup of tea with their relatives occupy much more space in these lacy notes, worthy of a leisurely pensioner, than government activities. This is probably why Romanov's diaries have always been popular in bourgeois circles - the man in the street wants to see some parallels of his life with the activities of the ruler of a giant power.

An example of chronic naive idiocy of Nicholas - records associated with the beginning of the First World War. It would seem that these days you need to stay awake day and night, bent over military maps, weave diplomatic conspiracies against the aggressive Kaiser, control the mobilization of the population, meet with dozens of subordinates a day - slap the heads of generals and scold ministers. However, such is not the martyr of the Russian crown.

July 19, 1914: “In the morning there were the usual reports. After breakfast I summoned Nikolasha and announced to him that he had been appointed commander-in-chief until my arrival in the army. I went with Alix to the Diveyevo monastery. Walked with the children. At 6 1/2 we went to the all-night vigil. Upon returning from there, we learned that Germany had declared war on us. Dined: Olga A [leksandrovna], Dmitry and John (dezh.). English arrived in the evening. Ambassador Buchanan with a telegram from Georgie. I spent a long time composing an answer with him. Then I saw Nikolasha and Fredericks as well. Drank tea at 12 1/4.”

July 20, 1914: “Good day, especially in terms of uplifting. At 11 o'clock. went with Marie and Anastasia to mass. We had breakfast alone. At 2 1/4 we set off on the Alexandria to St. Petersburg and by carriage straight to the Winter Dv. He signed a manifesto declaring war. From Malakhitova we went out into the Nikolaevskaya hall, in the middle of the cat. the manifesto was read. and then a prayer service was served. The whole audience sang "Save, Lord" and "Many Years". He said a few words. On their return, the ladies rushed to kiss their hands and patted Alix and me a little. Then we went out onto the balcony on Alexandrovskaya Square and bowed to a huge mass of people. About 6 hours. went to the embankment and went to the boat through a large crowd of officers and the public. We returned to Peterhof at 7 1/4. We spent the evening calmly.”

Rate the Bourgeois Style - “Nice day, especially in terms of uplifting. At 11 o'clock. went with Marie and Anastasia to mass. We had breakfast alone. " This is how the burdock autocrat reacts to the beginning of the bloodiest carnage of his era. Nicholas’s diary contains not a single entry worthy of a real leader of the country in the spirit of “I’m not sleeping for the third night, a lot of work” or “I demanded from Witte to force the commissioning of new buildings at the Putilov plant”.

The last argument, which is often quoted by the fans of Nicholas II, is that the Russian ruler was allegedly killed by foreigners. "Russianness" of the tsar is the last trump card in the pack of a monarchist, if there is no other way to prove the greatness the last emperor... Weak king, but ours, ours! Citing this very mossy thesis in a more or less radical interpretation, a parallel calculation of the share of Russian blood in Lenin, Trotsky and other Bolshevik leaders begins. If we turn to this logic, then for the sake of objectivity it is worthwhile to take up the calculation of "Russianness" in Tsar Nicholas. The result will be quite interesting.

Peter I was married for the second time to a German woman Catherine I, in his daughter Anna 50% of Russian blood. Anna married Karl Friedrich of Holstein-Gottorp and gave birth to a son, Peter III, in whom 25% is of Russian blood. Peter III, in turn, married a German woman Catherine II, they had a son Paul I - 12.5% ​​Russian, his wife Sofia Maria Dorothea Augusta Louise of Württemberg gave birth to 3 sons, of which we are interested in Nicholas I, who had 6.3 % of Russian blood (rounded up). Nicholas I married Princess Charlotte of Prussia, their son Alexander II has as much as 3.2% of Russian blood, he married a foreigner, Alexander III was 1.6% Russian. Alexander III, married the daughter of the Danish king. Thus, in Nicholas II, the last Romanov, 0.8% of Russian blood! Somehow it turns out not very patriotic.

Soon it will be exactly one hundred years from the time the monarchy ended in Russia.

A hundred years have passed, but we all cannot decide on the assessment of the personality of Nicholas II. Either he is "absolutely bad", then he is an ideal statesman and guardian of his native Fatherland, worthy of a march with his portrait at the "Immortal Regiment" action, together with the fallen defenders of the country, performed by poklonskaya_nv

Personally, I have an opinion about this person, it was formed when I was studying at the history department. I will try to express this vision by compiling a small compilation of material from articles written earlier by me on third-party resources.

Nicholas II was, alas, far from ideal. And for the Russian revolution he did more than all the Bolsheviks, "Freemasons", democrats and foreign "friends" put together. Here are some offhand pictures from real events that took place during his reign or "sitting on the throne" - as you like.

The first picture. As is known, his reign began with the tragedy on Khodynka. Of course, Nikolai did not personally organize the celebrations and therefore does not directly bear responsibility for what happened there. But the head of state is responsible for EVERYTHING that happened in his country. So, Nikolai's reaction to the catastrophe that happened even to his own entourage was not that surprised, but somewhat puzzled. The perpetrators received practically no punishment, although there was an investigation and it was established that the "hooligans" were to blame for the stampede, but questions immediately arise.

Remember godfather Mikhalych from Zhmurok? When two lessons come to him and say that they were "thrown", he reasonably replies that they "should have assumed that they would be thrown." Gold words. If someone organizes celebrations, then he must assume that among the public there will be not only law-abiding citizens, but also hooligans with busters, from whom one can expect all sorts of dirty tricks and provide for preventive measures. If they were not foreseen, and the death of people occurred, then the organizer must, for granted, be punished.

But Nicholas “lets things go on the brakes,” the continuation of the celebrations does not cancel. Of course, this did not add to the love of the people.

Scene two. The people go out to the Nevsky.

The monarchist historian O. Platonov will later write that there were many provocateurs among this people (without opening "America" ​​by this, provocateurs are sure to be present in any crowd). The Tsar is absent in St. Petersburg. He is warned that there will be a demonstration. And the troops open fire. It seems to be like without the Tsar's sanction. For, for the most part, a peaceful demonstration. Here again an interesting point. If Nicholas II is a reasonable statesman, then he is obliged to gather his army and police ranks and warn - no shooting. If they shot without his knowledge, then again he must punish the guilty. But he does neither one nor the other. As a result, we get a detonator for the 1905 revolution.

Another interesting picture is number three. Two officials, both in active military service (their names are Alekseev and Bezobrazov), independently in Korea climb into the Japanese sphere of influence. Since 1902, there have been constant clashes with the use of firearms between Russian "lumberjacks" armed with rifled firearms and Japanese soldiers... The tsar seems to "don't know" about this again. The Russo-Japanese War is "news" to him. On the day of the news of the Tsushima pogrom, he had "the weather was fine, walked in the park." This is called political irresponsibility. No mourning, no personnel decisions, no army reform ...

For a snack - another example of a typical lawlessness during the reign of Nicholas II - in the Lena mines, an American concession company robbing Russian hired workers with impunity. And when they make their demands, they call the nearest military command. They open fire. And where do you ask the guardian and defender of the Russian people?

The murder of Stolypin (the second person in the country after Nikolai himself!) Is a striking example of this. Nikolai does not even visit him in the hospital, and does not come to the funeral. Leaving him to die in the Makovsky clinic in Kiev and continuing his next "pleasure trip". I'm not talking about investigating the reasons for the murder itself.

I can add more pictures. But there are enough available to characterize Nicholas II as an extremely weak-willed and little competent, indifferent political leader. Having received the country in perfect condition from his father, he managed to "surrender" it in a short time, with a revolution in the bargain! Maybe the main "revolutionary" was Nicholas II himself?

Well, now let's jump into the everyday and social realities of the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 20th century.

No matter how the monarchist gentlemen tried to sigh about the times of the "crunch of French rolls", the sad truth, alas, is that in fact no more than 20% of the population lived in relative stability in the Russian Empire. These are, first of all, the "prosperous" strata - among the middle and higher bureaucratic apparatus, large landowners, merchants (but not all), those people who are now understood as "managers" - clerks, managers in commercial organizations, private practitioners, such as lawyers and doctors, as well as highly qualified workers (railway drivers, builders, turners, etc.) - which were not so many, and even then, for example, Savva Mamontov's and they lived from hand to mouth (for that Savva himself was a noble philanthropist and unfastened funds for “Sponsorship” to various political movements, and he loved, wiping away a stingy man's tears, coming to Aksakovo (this is a place of compact clustering of the then creative intelligentsia, now a museum-reserve in the suburbs), to speculate about the hard lot of a simple “muzhik”) and, finally, wealthy peasants, although the latter depended on natural factors. For example, the writer V. Yan, having traveled around the territory of Russia, noted that the situation of the peasantry is very precarious, as soon as famine breaks out, all rural residents suffer from it to varying degrees. As in all times, “crime” lived well, which was also abundant in Russia at that time. But these were the same "20%" in the total population. If we talk about the standard of living of the bulk of the population, then I will give an example from my field of activity - the salary of a firefighter (police rank) in 1914 ranged from 16 to 20 rubles a month. The head of the unit (in Moscow, where it was a "post in uniform") received up to 35 rubles. Colonel Lund (Brandmayor of Moscow, a high position at that time, a modern analogue - the head of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Emergency Situations in Moscow) - in 1905 received 50 rubles. For comparison, a locomotive driver could receive 120 rubles. Hired servants, in the "master's houses", sometimes were content with 6 rubles / month, day laborers (seasonal workers and those who worked under "fixed-term contracts", with daily wages, by the way, "day laborer" did not mean "handyman", for example, in In the joint-stock company of the Armaviro-Tuapse railway, the same railway drivers were day laborers) - they used to be content with 20-30 rubles a month. Therefore, a significant part of the population of the Empire lived, as they say, "to the butt" - from pay to pay, since not all were highly skilled workers (they were still lucky with good jobs and wages), or merchants (who often also turned out to be bankrupt, remember the Gorky "Vassa Zheleznova").

The intelligentsia, too, for the most part did not show off. The life of doctors and teachers in rural areas can be judged entirely by the works of Veresaev (never a supporter of "socialists", rather the opposite), M.A. Bulgakov, A.P. Chekhov and others. For the most part they live not so much on a salary as on voluntary donations.

Voluntary donations are generally the "driving force" of the pre-revolutionary "social". In the county towns, there are ... Fire brigades, often people's hospitals and schools, mutual aid funds are organized, assistance is provided to workers who have become disabled. The initiative is encouraged from the top. Only the opportunity to collect these "donations" is not everywhere. And it’s not clear, but where is the state’s participation? Besides the establishment and "honorary membership" in all these "societies"? It comes to the absurd. Do you know where the saying "Drowning rescue is the work of the drowning themselves" came from? Yes, everything is from there. When Nicholas II learned how many of his loyal subjects die on the waters (especially during the freeze-up period and in the spring before the ice drift), and not in Siberia, but in St. Petersburg itself, he was puzzled. As a result, the "Imperial Voluntary Society for Water Rescue" was born. And in order to build the first rescue station in Russia (in Europe they were already 100 years earlier, and were created not on "voluntary donations", but on the basis of a line in the state budget), the founders of this society naturally "asked" to wealthy people and begged for funds ... The origin of another homebrew word - "bastard" is also connected with "social". The fact is that for some reason, the rapidly economically developing Imperial Russia lacked funds for professional firefighters. Tell me that the fire department is not an indicator? But no ... According to statistics - Russia at the end of the 19th century "burned out 1/3 times in 10 years." That is, in 30 years, roughly speaking, the country “burned out” completely and had to be “rebuilt anew”, count the gross damage and you will understand everything. But there was no money (but what about economic growth?) And the fire service in certain localities (in those where there were no well-to-do "benefactors") persisted until 1917. And citizens were naturally obliged to put out fires on their own. Well, of course, the townsfolk tried to evade this harmful and hazardous to health business with all available images, so by order of the city authorities they were “forcibly dragged” to the fire ... By the way, this practice was forgotten even in the poorest European states at the end of the 18th century ...

Army. Socially, it’s the same poverty. Ober officer, often cannot support his family, if he lives solely on a salary. The salary of an officer in the rank of staff captain is from 40 to 60 rubles per month. In fact, only officers with the ranks of lieutenant colonel and above are well provided for. As Kuropatkin points out, it turns out to be unrealistic to earn 20-25 rubles of salary in general, and their shortage affects the Russian-Japanese war. In fact, if "unlucky" with the non-commissioned officers, the company commander is forced to carry out all the issues of the company, economic, combat training, and the organization of classes (including literature) independently. Supply of the army. The same Kuropatkin cites as an example an anecdote about a "clever sergeant major" of conscripts, who was able to prove with the help of one chicken, checking that the soldiers eat perfectly in the unit. As you can see the jokes about ensigns are not a notion of the Soviet era. Whatever it was, the soldiers of the Russian army saw sheets and pillowcases only after 1906. The situation with supplies in the navy is somewhat better, but there is another problem - caste. And caste is always a degeneration, because the son of a talented admiral is not necessarily a talented naval commander himself. The result is Tsushima. And very vague actions of the fleet in the First World War. By the way, Kolchak was one of the "non-caste" officers of the navy, so he was "hindered" in every way in his service in the period 1902-1906.

BUT IN THIS RUSSIA there was something else. There were also huge bets at the card tables, there were "fortunes" spent on "singers", there were "acquired and written down to the wife" estates. As my classmate, with whom it was customary to study at the university in the "dashing 90s", said, eating "student delicacy" - buckwheat with ketchup - "You know, if someone in this life is very bad, then probably someone is very good." ...

Nicholas II, despite the fact that in his personal life he was a very decent person, a loving father, a believer in God, and because of his unfortunate - not all relatives wished him happiness, he still turned out to be a worthless politician.

Personnel policy, which he conducted, led to the formation around him, including in power structures, the environment of incompetent, and sometimes dependent on outside influence of officials. The sovereign's own decisions, based on the actions of his entourage, were either sabotaged or carried out improperly. Similarly, his entourage did not inform about their decisions, and often the decisions mentioned went against the interests of Russia and the Tsar personally. As a result, a critical national-religious situation arose in the country (due to discrimination on religious grounds of persons professing Judaism, partly persons professing Islam, Catholicism, Lutheranism, Baptism, as well as the lack of an adequate response of the authorities to the separatist movement in Finland, Poland, Ukraine, Central Asia, the North Caucasus and the Baltics), corruption flourished (the activities of Zemgor, the machinations with military purchases in the pre-war and war period, the construction of railways by private (including foreign) companies with "winding up" their cost and length, the creation unequal conditions for the activities of private capital, evasion of payment of duties, smuggling, etc.), the crime situation worsened (in the period from 1900 to 1917, the final structuring of the criminal world took place in Russian Empire, the formation of organized criminal elites and their partial merging with extremist organizations), the activities of extremist organizations were allowed as a nationalist persuasion (not only Russians (SRN, SMA), but also Polish (PPP, "Strelets"), Jewish (shtetl self-defense), Finnish and Ukrainian), and political - the militant organizations of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, anarchists, social democrats. There was no state ideological policy, a system for educating young people, there was no opposition to the work of extremist political organizations among students - which led to the detachment of a part of the intelligentsia and the formation of groups of people, directly or indirectly, who supported the opposition to Nicholas II.

Was not carried out military reform... Changes in the structure of the armed forces after the Russo-Japanese War were of a "cosmetic" nature. No changes were made to the system of combat training of the army and navy personnel, the normalization of relations between the command and enlisted personnel (first of all, this applied to the Russian Imperial Navy), the "caste" character of the command staff of the armed forces was not eliminated. Decisions were not taken aimed at increasing the social status of servicemen, primarily super-conscripts and officers.

Social politics also led to the vulnerability of employees to the arbitrariness of employers (including companies with a significant share of foreign capital), the practice of introducing a "debt" or "penalty" system at private enterprises, which led to an increase in discontent among workers, primarily those working on urgent contracts and those with low qualifications (day laborers and seasonal workers).

In the countryside the “communal” principle of land use was not changed, the principles of which did not allow the peasants to feel like the owners of land plots, and allowed discrimination of peasants in the distribution of land plots (trans-striped) on social grounds. Stolypin's reform was carried out without proper provision of material resources, which often led to a backlash (up to 20% of the peasants who were resettled to empty land either returned to their former places of residence, or moved to the position of hired agricultural workers (farm laborers) in a new place of residence). The activities of wholesale buyers of agricultural products were not regulated at the legislative level, which led to uncontrolled buying of agricultural products at low prices due to the cartel collusion of large dealers, and uncontrolled export of agricultural products at world prices. This often led to a shortage of stocks of agricultural products in the winter-spring period and the facts of famine in certain regions of the country (for example, 1903-1904). With the aggravation of the social situation in the country caused by the war and the economic crisis, these factors were used by various opposition groups, both in the immediate circle of the Tsar and among the political elite to motivate a significant part of the country's population to take part in revolutionary actions. The result of this situation was the coming to power of a group of persons representing the interests of the economic elite of Russia (the bourgeois revolution). However, this group of politicians, not having the necessary experience in governing the state, did not oppose the formation of radical groups of socialist parties (Socialist Revolutionaries, anarchists, Bolsheviks), did not take the necessary actions to strengthen discipline in the armed forces and solve social problems of the population, did not change the foreign policy course of the state, aimed at continuing Russia's participation in the First World War. As a result, ANY political force that expressed disagreement with the policy of the Provisional Government could take advantage of the current situation. This political force was the Bolshevik Party, which came to power as a result of a military coup.

Well, in the future, gentlemen monarchists, instead of analyzing in detail the personality of the last Russian Tsar, according to our own Russian habit, they began to look for the guilty "on the side". Not even noticing the striking similarity between Nicholas II and the last head of the USSR M.S. Gorbachev! Both of them were weak-willed individuals who were under the influence of their wives. Both of them surrounded themselves with incompetent people. Both the one and the other allowed intrigues against themselves in the immediate environment (how does the State Emergency Committee differ from the "conspiracy" of the Grand Dukes? By the way, both the first and the second sincerely believed that they were "saving the Fatherland"). What is the difference between the ethnic conflicts of the late 80s and the 1905 revolution? Both here and there - actions of the same nature - incompetence of managers, lack of managerial decisions of the head of state and the troops are shooting at the demonstrators. Both of them were haunted by disasters. Is it that Nicholas II still plunged Russia into a war that was not very necessary. The head of the country, when there is a crisis situation in the country, he should not only read prayers and carry around with icons under his arm, but also earnestly be baptized! He has to take action. If he does not do this, then both he and the state will face an unenviable fate. Which ultimately happened.

Nicholas II clearly did not reach the level of the head of state... Its level corresponded to the regiment commander, subject to the presence of an intelligent division commander "from above". Let's add the heir's illness. So, the entourage of relatives was bustling about ...

This created a mess at the court of Nicholas, which he, due to weakness, could not cope with, barking properly at all this pack of "gentlemen, confidants" and relatives.

Grand Duke Dima, for example, did not hesitate to mock the queen with the last words and spread rumors about her connection with Rasputin in every possible way (although Dima himself was far from ideal in moral terms), Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich also played his own game (relying on the party of "Montenegrins" led by his own wife), Countess Brasova also contributed (who does not know - the wife of another Grand Duke Mikhail. She kept a political "salon" in St. Petersburg, where they openly called for revolution according to the "English model", the result of which was to become a "decorative" monarch, of course, in the role of which her husband was meant - Mikhail), there were also Vladimirovichs, who, although they were Lutherans by origin, still "licked their lips" looking towards the throne ...

One of the Vladimirovichs will promptly put on a red bow on his uniform coat with the beginning of the revolution and lead the Guards crew out to "participate in the establishment of people's power." Even her own mother did not disdain to intrigue against her son (mainly because of personal dislike for his wife, Alexandra). Moreover, these intrigues were directed in favor of Mikhail Romanov again. All of them benefited from some kind of "popular" movement that would lead to the abdication of Nicholas. And given that there were high-ranking officials around these individuals, including those obliged by duty to resist revolutionary upheavals - the conclusion suggests itself - the February revolution did not happen on the initiative of the "democrats" - those who were just satisfied with the existing order - sitting in the Duma to receive wishing money, not really doing anything except criticism, but with the connivance and instigation of the relatives of Nicholas II, some of the officials and the military.

For example, the figure of the gendarme Dzhunkovsky is very interesting, because someone prompted him to leave the "gendarme" position in the active army in time, and what he did, while being engaged in ensuring state security - his hair stood on end, or an even more illustrative example - Nikolai Iudovich Ivanov (by the way , godson of the heir to the throne, and therefore involved in the Romanov family), who travels with a military unit to "restore" order in Petrograd, how to put it ... Very slowly, so as not to be in time.

Another thing is that the actions did not go according to the "plan", a controlled revolution did not work out ... Everything turned into a lot of blood in Kronstadt and Helsingfors. And then the process went "peddling", the most likely candidate for the throne - Mikhail - refused him, which confused the cards of the "conspirators" around the tsarist environment, and the situation was taken advantage of in time by the "democrats", who, alas, besides the talking shop (Kerensky was called so - "Main-persuasive"), really did not know how to do anything.

And the Bolsheviks came ...

* Extremist and terrorist organizations banned in Russian Federation: Jehovah's Witnesses, National Bolshevik Party, Right Sector, Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), Islamic State (IS, ISIS, Daesh), Jabhat Fath ash-Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra "," Al-Qaeda "," UNA-UNSO "," Taliban "," Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people "," Misanthropic Division "," Brotherhood "Korchinsky," Trident named after. Stepan Bandera "," Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists "(OUN)," Azov "

Now on the main

Related Articles

• Important in blogs

  Evgeny Pitersky

  Murder of the Tolstoy - look for the "mole"

  On principle, I decided not to write on my blog anything related to the situation in Donbass in one way or another (talking about the DPR and LPR, the “Novorossiya” project that was unsuccessful in my opinion, and other related things). But the series of deaths of representatives of the command staff of the “people's militia” of the LPR and “media” commanders of the armed forces of the DPR suggests certain thoughts. But I'll start ...

  9.02.2017 20:49 0

  Important in blogs

  Evgeny Pitersky

  "Optimization" of transport in Adygea

  In my sunny little homeland, transport officials once again distinguished themselves. Several years ago, the Maykop-Khadzhokh railway section was overhauled. It is understandable - since practically the only reliable connection of the mountainous regions of the Republic of Adygea with Maikop and the "window in Big world"- this electric train has appeared for more than half a century: I will even say more. In the very bad 90s, ...

  7.02.2017 15:58 56

  Important in blogs

  Evgeny Pitersky

  "Three stations". Without a trace of irony

  Sometimes they write to me in a personal remark that I have a pathological dislike for Sergei Semenovich Sobyanin, whom I call the mayor of Moscow Tyumen. In fact, it is not in my rules to defame someone on purpose. I don’t write custom posts, I don’t cut grants on "chernukha", I don’t have a rating blog, and I write mainly for ...

Monarchists like to remember about: "Russia, which we have lost," "Zhidobolsheviks bought by the Germans," etc. At the same time, the majority (of those whom I met) of Russian monarchists whitewash the "Tsar-Father" Nicholas II. For me, these attempts to call black white, manure mana from heaven, as for a person who is fond of history, is ridiculous. But, in order to explain my point of view, I will briefly describe the biography, the character (mainly on the basis of his surviving diary, which he kept during the entire period of his reign) of the "King of the Rag" (Aka Nicholas II).

Born into the family of Alexander III (who was Orthodox to his full head and loved to repeat that "the only allies of Russia are its army and navy"), the grandfather of the future autocratic Alexander the "Liberator" II was killed by the revolutionary populists, so they brought up Nicolas (as he was called in the family) in the spirit of hatred of any "free thought". The "Great Martyr" loved to have fun at: balls, hunting (he killed mainly crows), etc. He was not ready for the hard days of governing the country, he had no idea about the life of ordinary people (again, according to his diary). The reign began with a "hodynka" (because of the crush during the distribution of gifts, on the occasion of the coronation, several thousand people died), which is why he received the nickname "Prince of Khodynka", thanks to Witte's reforms, the beginning of his reign was characterized by economic growth. However, the dissatisfaction of the peasants, workers and the liberal intelligentsia with their position is growing. The Tsar, in order to reduce discontent, starts a war with Japan, which, due to the unpreparedness of Russia, its army and economy for war, is losing. On January 9, 1905, a crowd of civilians went to the "Tsar-Father" to "bow" with a petition, but Nikolashka was busy hunting the hated crows (as he wrote in his diary) and refused to accept the crowd, ordering to disperse it. The gendarmes took everything too literally and turned the marching people into a heap of meat. The revolution of 1905-1907 began. Tsar Nicholas "Tsushima" II only in October 1905, creates a parliament, although it should have been done 10 years ago. Then he appointed Stolypin, the Minister of Internal Affairs, who loved "ties" and hated the community, which he successfully destroyed, which led to an increase in dissatisfaction with the Tsarok among the peasants, who became poor and plowed for "kulaks" for a pittance just to feed their families. As an economic slave to France and England (thanks to whose investments Russia developed), Nicholas begins a war with the "Central Powers" (aka "First World War The war, which Russia was absolutely unnecessary. The Russian army loses to the German in everything (except for numbers), an economic crisis begins in the country, but the Tsar-rag, instead of liberalization, which could unite society, disperses the thought. Rasputin finally destroys the Tsarok's image because he calmly uses his wife for his sexual satisfaction, changes ministers at will, but the nobility loyal to the king and realizing how much the "Holy Devil" disgraces the Tsar, they kill Rasputin, from whom only a 28-centimeter penis in formalin remains (to which the Tsar's wife Passion-bearer "and satisfied Grishka.) Even the Church (sic!) begins to weave intrigues against Nikolashka, as she sees his powerlessness and stupidity. On March 2, 1917, Tsarek abdicates the throne and goes to Siberian exile, where he is safely shot.

Judging by the diary, Nicholas II lived in his own world, where his idyll was violated only by crows, which the Tsar destroyed. He did not understand what tasks the new century posed for him and continued to live in the old, in many respects these are the consequences of the upbringing given to him by Alexander III. All the successes achieved during his reign were achieved mainly at the expense of good ministers (Witte, Stolypin), however, there were few successes.

It was the tsar's most terrible mistakes that brought Lenin and the Bolsheviks to power. The Tsar's mistakes destroyed the people's faith in the "Tsar Father". And here Miliukov's words about the tsarist policy come to mind: "What is this stupidity or betrayal?"

I recognize certain advantages of the monarchy: stability, quick adoption of important decisions, etc., but Nicholas II reduced all the advantages to

To be honest, when I saw the famous Crimean prosecutor with the icon, I was not even surprised. Poklonskaya has long been officially taken into circulation by those freaks who today are the remnants of the once mighty house of the Romanovs. Or rather, not even they themselves. These klovans, apparently, are capable only of the role of life-size puppets depicting the heirs of the long-decayed throne of the Russian Empire. Most likely, Natalya Poklonskaya is tightly huddled and spiritually nourished by the same descendants of the underdeveloped White Guard emigration, who for many decades have tremblingly retained their hatred of the Russian people. For the fact that at one time this people gave them away in the distant 20s XX centuries of savory pendal, throwing out both from the country and from his life in general. After that (the worst thing!) I didn’t go down without quivering guidance and healing vice in the stable. And even on the contrary: he has become many times more beautiful, stronger and smarter than before.

These bearers of inescapable anger towards any variant of Russia, except as crooked under their master's boot, last years gained considerable strength in the political field of our country. The current Russian elite, having thrown away their Soviet past (and even cursed it in places), found themselves completely without any internal core structure. And without this, only snails or some kind of jellyfish can live. Therefore, the former communists (and concurrently the current governors, ministers and other oligarchs) quite massively clung to the brain hungry for the Meaning of Life what the descendants of the fugitive "lieutenants Golitsyns" suggested, shaking off the dust. I mean, into the dense monarchism mixed in with a steep hatred for everything Soviet.

Having received such influential followers, these very last descendants of the "Obolensky cornets" today feel very confident in the territory of Russia. Some of their never-ending loud attempts to outrage Lenin's body, filled with confident arrogance, speak volumes. Especially when you consider that the overwhelming majority of ordinary people say over and over again through numerous social studies: The Soviet period is a great thing.

Therefore, believe me, you shouldn't be surprised that these cunning last-ones swooped down like kites on the charming prosecutor who instantly fell in love not only in our country, but also abroad. To get your hands on such a bright and worthy person is the dream of any literate PR-masters.

In addition, Poklonskaya is not just a gray-eyed blonde charming woman, the dream of any single man "in his late thirties." She is quite an acting "combat" prosecutor. Brave and daring. He is not afraid either to "close" the all-powerful gang of murderers and racketeers, or to throw in the face of the Maidan skating rink, which is gaining speed, that he is an unlawful brawl that must be dispersed with sticks.

By the way, that comrade who demands to rip off her shoulder straps for a trick with an icon gets excited beyond measure. So yes, this trick is filled with idiocy more than completely. But Natalya Poklonskaya did not deserve her epaulettes at all by her quivering love for the most worthless of Russian emperors. And absolutely real at times deadly tedious, and at times deadly service in the prosecutor's office. If you look closely at the recordings of her interviews, you will notice that when she speaks, the left side of her face moves worse. As if the freeze after dental treatment had not completely gone away. But in this case, it is not freezing at all. These are the irreparable consequences of assault and brutal beating.

So already in the prosecutor's office of Ukraine, Poklonskaya proved herself more than worthy. And, most importantly, it regularly continues to carry out this service. Standing honestly and calmly on guard of security and legality in the newly acquired homeland. Vaughn, recently directly demanded to recognize the "Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people" (the one that blew up the power lines leading current from Ukraine to Crimea) as a terrorist organization.

But I must admit: becoming a Russian, Natalya showed that you can be an excellent specialist prosecutor and at the same time remain a total layman in other spheres of life. And a layman so much that it begins to border on idiocy.

Nicholas II can rightfully be considered the most shameful spot on the heroic panel of the history of the Romanov dynasty. Even Anna Ioannovna, who brought the swindler Biron to us, and the unfortunate Peter III , who could not reign even for a year and was overthrown by his own wife. Even these two cannot be compared with what the worthless son of the mighty and formidable Alexander managed to create. III.

After all, even the same Peter III was exactly what was overthrown. Those. he, of course, ran in confusion, and did not understand what to do. But at least he had loyal troops at his disposal. For Nicholas, under number 2, not a single regiment of a huge army mobilized for the war (almost seven million people at the end of 1916) did not want to intercede. And he himself, referring to the concern about his own children, completely spinelessly waved the paper on renunciation. After that, he was no longer so dangerous for the new government that he could afford to live in peace. Just like "Citizen Romanov". To make the difference clear: Petra III immediately after the deposition, they were imprisoned. Where, according to one of the widespread versions, they were killed almost a week later.

So a serious person who truly loves Russia can regard Nicholas II exclusively as some kind of endemic attraction. Has done little in history, but is able to attract the attention of tourists hungry for all sorts of wonders. Something that would look good alongside the Tsar Cannon and the Tsar Bell. A sort of Tsar-rag.

Contemporaries, by the way (and white emigrants as well), in the overwhelming majority, this is how they treated him. Like a rag. The story of his canonization alone speaks volumes. Few are aware that it was not the Russian Orthodox Church that made Nicholas saints. The Serbian Orthodox Church presented this unfortunate emperor with the right to paint with a halo on icons. And they can be understood: the Serbs have long been saying that "God is in heaven, Russia is on earth." Therefore, to rank among the saints of the last Russian tsar, and even, let's be honest, completely killed without trial (with his wife, children and servants, moreover) - this could well be expected from the Serbs. Another thing is interesting: that part of the Russian Orthodox Church, which ended up in emigration for 10 years, swayed in order to support the Serbs and begin to honor Nikolai II in the rank of a saint. Despite all his fierce hatred for the Bolshevik regicides.

So, if Poklonskaya went out on the march of the Immortal Regiment simply with an icon (for example, with the same George the Victorious), then the maximum that would have caused such an entry would be some displeased buzz. And at the same time I would give others a gorgeous opportunity next year with a clear conscience to go out on the march with portraits of Stalin. And even Beria in general. Since the whole prosecutor can carry the face of the patron saint of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (he is depicted on the emblem of our police officers, if someone does not know), then why should not others carry other people who, even in the rank of saints and are not glorified, but are worshiped by the people at all no less than other saints.

By the way, in general, it must be admitted that the Immortal Regiment itself is quietly beginning to go beyond the originally established regulations, which suggests that people go out on the march ONLY with portraits of their relatives who fought at war. And, as it is seen now, it is remarkable that this principle is beginning to be interpreted broadly. Because if we consider this march not just as a desire to show off their heroic grandfathers-great-grandfathers (yes, to measure themselves with someone more heroic), but as a desire to unite today's Russians with those who gave their lives for this very Russia in battle, then the thought arises: how to be with those warriors whose family was cut short by the war? After all, there are certainly many who have lost their entire family. And the front-line hero himself, and his wife and children. There was no one to leave descendants who on a sunny May day XXI centuries would carry a portrait of a warrior through the streets. Does the feat of those whose grandchildren do not exist in the world diminish? Who would dare at least someone to reproach a person who brought to the Immortal Regiment a photograph, albeit a stranger to him, but from that no less worthy soldier?

Moreover, already this year in the ranks of the Immortal Regiment, which was marching through the streets of Donetsk, there were, they say, photographs of those who died fighting in the ranks of the militia in the past two years. And now they'll execute me, but that's right. It is not known whether there is generally an opportunity to experience joy among the heroes who fell in that great War. The water is dark, as they say. But it seems that those who took up their banner in the fight against fascism and, as one of Tvardovsky's poem says, “fell just the same step further” - these are our heroic ancestors who will accept into their ranks without objection.

But even with such a broad understanding of the meaning of the Immortal Regiment, Nicholas number 2 cannot be squeezed into it in any way. When he was given the grandiose opportunity to finally prove his loyalty to Russia, he refused it. He threw it off, that way, from his shoulders, like a boring coat unfashionable according to European canons. And he did not even make further attempts to return what was lost. How can he even stand next to the real heroes who make up the Immortal Regiment? Not to mention receiving equal honors with them.

But even this is not the most idiotic in the appearance of Mykola Drugokho among the Immortal Regiment. Are there many urban madmen in the world? I would not be surprised that someone, on the sly, has been carrying a portrait of a drunken neighbor, bent over from a glass of denatured alcohol, for the second year. And he giggles to himself: "Eck, I am gloriously and creatively scoffing at these stupid quilted jackets"

From this, to be honest, there will not be much trouble. Even if there are more "creative" ones than the mathematical error. People will just begin to slowly take these to the little corner and explain to the measure of culture and upbringing that it is not necessary to defile the little pure and really spiritual that is left to us by the current bestial life with their "creativity". After all, women have the 8th of March, when not a single sane man will allow himself public rudeness towards a woman. So let 90% of the country's population have at least one day a year when they can, with a calm heart, puncture anyone who decides to “exercise creatively” about our great past. Knowing that at this moment even a patrolman standing nearby will suddenly become extremely interested in an invisible to all other specks on his own tunic.

So, the whole nightmarish idiocy of Poklonskaya's antics lies in the fact that with all her blond naivete she drove an iron wedge into the very monolith of patriotic unity that was the Immortal Regiment a year ago. With her stupid icon, she showed the whole country that in addition to what unites us, there is also what separates us. Moreover, it separates completely, fatally. Because this very Nikolai II , especially in the version of the saint - this is today's living banner of those who mortally hated our Russia, which raised the red banner over the Reichstag. And I'm ready to strangle today's quietly. For again striving to become the world guardian of Justice. And completely without their emigre quivering management. And he even unequivocally hints that he will paint completely different faces on his banners. Maybe not a fiery Bolshevik from Simbirsk, but certainly the owner of a sly smile and a magnificent Caucasian mustache.

So, grasping this "Poklonskoy Wedge", and skillfully starting to swing it, you can split the new Russian monolith quite well. At least two parts. But for those who want such cracks and splits, this will be enough. Having played off both of the resulting pieces, you can finally finish off Russia with great success.

Therefore, the wonderful, tough, confident prosecutor and, at the same time, the naive, light-eyed Crimean girl Natasha Poklonskaya really dealt a colossal blow to the whole idea of ​​enormous potential, which the Immortal Regiment began to revive.

And God forbid that the force of Life that the Immortal Regiment awakened could overcome this deadly blow.

PS And God forbid Natasha a little more intelligence. And at least a couple of good friends. To help her sort out the confusion that seems to swirl behind her charming eyes. Because if

It was not easy to comprehend the character of the last reigning Romanov. Nicholas II led a secluded life, having neither the inclination nor the ability to create a broadcast hype around his name. He did not have any of the qualities that appeal to the crowd. Russian society did not like him and did not even find it necessary to hide it. Nicholas II was accused of heartlessness and weakness. Chekhov expressed himself about him in the sense that the sovereign is neither bad nor good - "an ordinary officer of the Guards."

However, this review is not entirely unfair. If Nikolai was an ordinary person, then with very nice character traits - "an honest, simple-minded man of average ability and kind nature," according to Winston Churchill, "his whole life was supported by faith in the Lord." There was nothing "royal" in him - neither love for luxury and comfort, nor any unusual addictions in food and clothing. He willingly engaged in physical labor - sawing wood, removing snow. The education he received was really no different from the education of a guards lieutenant. But, endowed with common sense and analytical abilities, he grasped on the fly everything that was said to him. He was fluent in foreign languages ​​- German, French and English, wrote and spoke Russian competently. He was a diligent reader: he was interested in both light entertaining literature and serious scientific works, including on historical topics; he subscribed to Russian and foreign newspapers and magazines. Of all Russian writers, he valued Gogol most of all.

Preferring a quiet life with his family and loved ones, Nikolai never closed himself in the narrow world of Tsarskoye Selo. His education program included trips to Russia and foreign countries. During his time as heir to the throne, he visited Greece, Egypt, India, Ceylon, Singapore, Java, China, and Japan. The trip to the Land of the Rising Sun almost cost him his life. In the small town of Otsu, after breakfast at the local governor, the Tsarevich was attacked by a Japanese policeman - a religious fanatic samurai, who considered it an insult to Nikolai's visit to the temple of the goddess Amaterasu. Subsequently, having inherited the throne, Nicholas willingly visited European countries.

The tsar did not like so-called secular pleasures. In his youth, he played the piano well, studied violin, took part in theatrical performances, and painted. He understood painting as few, including modern, and was one of the first connoisseurs of the French impressionists in Russia. He also adored sports: in his youth he was fond of kayaking, later he preferred tennis and billiards. And all his life he was a passionate hunter.

Like any of his subjects, Nikolai gave his hobbies only free time, which he had little. He lived according to a strict routine established once and for all, dealing with state affairs with great care and punctuality (for example, never having a personal secretary, he himself stamped letters). Only a severe malaise of one of the family members could force him to cancel the minister's appointment or postpone the familiarization with the next report.

His family and family were his idols. Nikolai and his wife Alexandra Feodorovna were an example of family virtues - a rare case in the Romanov dynasty.

Add to this an attractive appearance, always polite, without a shadow of arrogance, treatment of subordinates, excellent self-control. None of the people who knew him denied the exceptional charm of his nature. Sergei Yulievich Witte found that “the distinguishing features of Nicholas II are that he is a very kind and extremely educated person. I can say that in my life I have never met a person more educated than the current reigning emperor. "

As Tsar Nicholas, his natural shyness and indecision did much harm. He hated any form of pressure on his subordinates. In conversations, even important ones, he easily yielded, since he could never bring himself to upset the interlocutor. But, as the British ambassador to Russia George William Buchanan noted, the tsar was "weak in everything, except for his autocracy." Pobedonostsev heard Nikolai once say to someone from his entourage: “Why do you always argue? I always agree with everyone, and then I do everything in my own way. "

Physically completely unlike his father, from whom he inherited neither height nor colossal strength, Nikolai was his perfect copy in his views on the place and role of autocracy in the state system of the Russian Empire. “In every fold of this little officer’s overcoat there is an autocrat,” Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna once said about him during the lifetime of Alexander III. People who knew Nicholas closely spoke of "a velvet glove worn on a steel hand." French President Emile Loubet wrote: “It is said about the Russian emperor that he is available to various influences. This is deeply wrong. The Russian emperor himself carries out his ideas. He protects them with consistency and great strength. He has maturely thought out and elaborate plans. He works incessantly to implement them. " Prince Henry of Prussia had the same opinion about the Russian sovereign: “The Tsar is benevolent, kind in his address, but not as gentle as people often think. He knows what he wants and does not give anyone a descent. " His compatriot Admiral Hopman stated: “At first glance, the tsar seems timid, but then you realize that he is a serious, thoughtful and tactful person. He always looks benevolent, but, for a man, perhaps too soft. But inwardly he is much stronger and more unyielding than those around him see. "

This evidence, however, should not be exaggerated. The history of the reign of the last Romanov shows that on all the most important state issues, he ultimately yielded to pressure from people or pressure from circumstances.

The original article on my site