“Pain points” of the reign of Nicholas II: truth and fiction. Nicholas II: the tsar who was out of place New truth about Nicholas 2

This is what I understood from the posts of outraged truth experts:

- During the reign of Nicholas II, Russia experienced an unprecedented industrial boom and prosperity, Russia began to greatly outstrip the countries of Europe, the population incredibly improved their lives, and everything would have been fine, but the indignant peasants, soldiers, workers, bourgeoisie and intelligentsia who made the revolution interfered .

— Nicholas II won the First World War, and Russian troops would have entered Berlin if only the army had not fled, the supplies had not run out, and the front line had not been so far from Berlin and so close to St. Petersburg.

— Nicholas II was not personally acquainted with Rasputin, and the tsarina was not acquainted with Rasputin, and in general no one was acquainted with Rasputin. Rasputin himself came up with fairy tales about his acquaintance with the royal family, and the Bolsheviks spread these fairy tales, and everyone believed in them, including the tsar and his family. Nicholas II did not act on the orders of Rasputin, everyone simply believed that he acted that way. Therefore, when Nicholas II wanted to promote someone, this someone brought money to Rasputin, or his wife went to Rasputin, and then the promotion happened because Nicholas wanted it, and these promotions were very reasonable, and not those what Rasputin proposed.

— Nicholas II simply could not help but start the Russian-Japanese War; circumstances would not have allowed him; and Russia would have won if Makarov had not been blown up by a mine; but even after that, Russia won, it was just that the Bolsheviks had to discredit Nicholas II, and they wrote that she lost, and everyone believed it, including the Japanese, who therefore took half of Sakhalin from Witte.

— Nicholas II was for reforms and the convening of the Duma. It’s just that the wrong deputies were constantly gathering in the Duma, they lacked education, and Nikolai had to disperse them. The educated deputies never gathered, but Nikolai is not to blame for this.

— There was no corruption during the time of Nicholas II. This was proven by a commission under Nicholas II, which did not find any cases of corruption.

— There was no famine during the reign of Nicholas II. In addition, the starving people were very well cared for by numerous famine relief societies. And Leo Tolstoy, when he wrote about the famine in 1906, had in mind the famine of 1891, but forgot to write about it. And there were no deaths from starvation, because there is a book by Sergeev, which says that there were none.

— Nicholas II was a wise ruler and thanks to him Russia prospered. And the lost wars, revolutions, pogroms, famine, repression, corruption and localism and other terrible problems, because of which Russia fell apart, happened due to the fault of ministers and associates who were in the Masonic lodge and who did not allow Nicholas II to do anything, and therefore he had no influence on the situation in Russia.

— There were no pogroms under Nicholas II, the Jews came up with that. And there would have been no revolution if the Jews had not decided to take revenge for the pogroms that never happened, and had not made a revolution with the hands of the Russian people, who were against the revolution, and they killed the entire Russian people into a civil society, because they were already civil, when did the Jews come to power in Russia, of course? There were terrible pogroms, and it was right that there were pogroms, because the Jews killed all the Russians.

— Everything bad about Russia and Nicholas II is written in the “Short Course on the History of the Party.” All other books have only good things written about him. “A Short Course in the History of the Party” is a very bad book, because it was written by associates of the German agent Vladimir Ulyanov, who overthrew the provisional government of the English agent Alexander Kerensky and seized power in Russian Russia, which had previously been successfully ruled by the Russian Tsar Nicholas Holstein-Gottorp and his wife Victoria Alex von Gessen. If something bad is written about Nicholas II in other books, it is simply because they copied from the “Short Course”, or “The Short Course” was copied from them.

— Nicholas II was loved by all the people of Russia. He was overthrown by a handful of English agents close to him, who deceived the people, who all came out for his abdication because they were deceived.

And for dessert:

“It’s not for you to talk about the Emperor after your people jumped out from behind the Pale of Settlement and destroyed the country that was the most successful in the world.” This is a well-known fact, they even write about it in English, here is the link. Speak your language, not our Russian.

I’m thinking with some fear - is all of the above already written in the school textbook, or is it still a “soviet lie”?

Not a single name in the history of Russia has been slandered as much as the name of the Tsar-Martyr and his family. Streams of the most vile slander against the Royal Family fell from the enemies of Russia long before the revolution, sowing confusion and distrust of the Throne among the people. After the abdication of the Sovereign, the new government needed at least partial evidence of what the slanderers were talking about. The Provisional Government even appointed an investigative commission, which tormented the Tsar and Tsarina with searches and interrogations. But she did not find a single fact incriminating them of any anti-state acts. When one of the commission members asked why their correspondence had not yet been published, he was told: “If we publish it, the people will worship them like saints.”

In all subsequent years, everything connected with the Royal Family was consigned to oblivion, and on the surface lay only ideological cliches showing the weakness, mediocrity and bloodthirstiness of the Tsar, which ultimately, according to Soviet ideologists, led to the revolution. The set of charges is known: Khodynka; the “Far Eastern adventure”, which ended in the inglorious Russo-Japanese War; "Bloody Sunday"; Lena execution; entry into world war.

Even now, after the canonization of the Royal Family as saints, not the whole truth about the last Russian kingdom has been fully accepted by our people.

One often hears the opinion that the Royal Family was canonized only for patiently enduring sorrows before their martyrdom. And the facts say that their whole life was a genuine Christian feat worthy of imitation. They say that Nicholas II was a bad monarch. But if we trace the path of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century, we will see that this is not so. Russia was developing rapidly. In the twentieth year of the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, the Russian economy reached its highest point of prosperity. The grain harvest doubled compared to the beginning of the reign; the population grew by fifty million people. From being illiterate, Russia quickly became literate. European economists predicted in 1913 that by the middle of this century Russia would dominate Europe politically, economically and financially. They say that Nicholas II was canonized not as a Tsar, but as a person. But fanatical Satanists killed him and his entire family precisely as a Russian Orthodox Autocrat, the bearer of supreme power. Hence the ritual nature of the murder, when even the bodies were completely destroyed.

If we clear the image of the last Russian Emperor and his family from malicious slander, false definitions and crafty omissions, then we must say with confidence: the Holy Tsar-Martyr was a genuine Russian Orthodox Autocrat, whose rule was a blessing for the great Empire and the Russian people. As an Autocrat, he fully fulfilled what was entrusted to him by God.

KHODYNSKAYA DISASTER
The tragedy on the Khodynskoye Field is usually used as proof of the myth about the “callousness of the Sovereign, his indifference to his people.” As you know, in May 1896, celebrations took place in Moscow on the occasion of the coronation of Their Imperial Majesties. On the Khodynka field during the distribution of royal gifts, a terrible stampede arose, in which over a thousand people died and several hundred were injured. A terrible tragedy marred the holiday.

What is the young Emperor doing in connection with this tragedy? An investigation was ordered. For poor organization of order and lack of foresight, the chief police chief was removed from office and the law enforcement officers subordinate to him were punished. The families of the dead and injured were given cash benefits. The dead were buried at public expense, and their children were sent to an orphanage. Moreover, the Tsar and Empress personally attended the memorial service for the dead and visited the wounded in hospitals several times.

On the day of the tragedy, the French ambassador was supposed to have a reception and ball. For a head of state, receiving the ambassador of a foreign power is not entertainment, but work. It must be taken into account that Russia and France were just establishing allied relations, and any roughness could be used by hostile states to upset the emerging alliance. And the Emperor found a worthy way out of this difficult situation. 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 whether to have fun on the day of the mournful event.

The enemies of the Autocracy even then sought to use any misfortune to discredit the Emperor. And the main reason for the hype around the Khodynka tragedy was the unfulfilled hope of the Tsar’s enemies that Khodynka would become a reason for the dismissal of the Moscow governor-general, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, whom they hated.

RUSSIAN-JAPANESE WAR
Emperor Nicholas II is usually blamed for the fact that his Far Eastern policy led to the war with Japan, and also for the fact that the war was lost. However, if we strive to soberly and impartially evaluate the past, then we must draw an unequivocal conclusion: Japan provoked and started the war. It was Japan that deliberately aggravated relations and led matters to a military outcome. The Japanese delegation unilaterally interrupted long and difficult negotiations on delimiting spheres of influence in Korea and Manchuria. The Japanese, incited by our old enemy, England, demanded Russia's almost complete withdrawal from the region. The only way to avoid war was the complete surrender of Russia, our withdrawal from the Far East. Thus, the Sovereign had a choice: either national humiliation or war. Nothing else was given.

Who is to blame for the fact that Russia lost the war? It should be noted that Japan started the war in very favorable conditions. The Japanese had the advantage both at sea and on land. With the help of England, the construction of a navy was completed, which was superior both quantitatively and qualitatively to the Russian Pacific squadron. Ground forces in the Far East were few in number and dispersed. The single-track Trans-Siberian Railway could not ensure the rapid transfer of reinforcements to the theater of military operations.

At the first stage of the war, Japan achieved maximum success. The Russian navy was destroyed. Ground forces were thrown back into the depths of Manchuria. Sakhalin was occupied. But by the summer of 1905 it became clear that Japan was not capable of more. Meanwhile, Russian troops were ready to continue hostilities. Who prevented Russia from bringing the war to victory? Allies of Japan.

In the Russo-Japanese War against Russia, Japan, England, American Jewish capital, Russian revolutionaries and liberals, as well as the court camarilla acted as a united front.

The revolutionaries launched a real war against their government. During the war, the Finnish Governor-General N.I. Bobrikov, the Minister of Internal Affairs V.K. Plehve, the Moscow Governor-General Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich and other officials loyal to the Tsar and Russia were killed. Liberal-minded figures controlled most of the newspapers and through them shaped public opinion. Lev Tikhomirov wrote in his diary with indignation about the vile act of a group of liberal professors and students at Moscow University, who sent a congratulatory telegram to the Japanese Emperor on the occasion of the Japanese victory over Russian troops. This is who corrupted the spirit of the people and the army!

High society also contributed to Japan's victory. The bureaucratic elite and court circles weaved intrigues against the Tsar and tried to push their proteges into various positions in the apparatus, without caring about the interests of the country.

It was under their pressure that the Tsar was forced to conclude a peace treaty with Japan under conditions unfavorable for Russia. US President T. Roosevelt, German Emperor Wilhelm, and head of the Russian delegation S. Yu. Witte demanded further concessions as an indispensable condition for concluding a peace treaty. But even in this difficult situation, Russia managed to conclude a shameful peace treaty. And the credit for this undoubtedly belongs exclusively to the king. The Emperor declared: “I will never conclude a shameful and unworthy peace for the great Russia.” The Russian delegation at peace negotiations with Japan followed his firm instructions: “Not a penny of indemnity, not an inch of land.”

The most common accusation against the Emperor is, undoubtedly, “Bloody Sunday” on January 9, 1905. Of course: workers with banners, icons, portraits of the monarch went to their Tsar in order to tell him about their difficult situation, and he, hiding behind the soldiers in the Winter Palace, ordered the peaceful workers’ demonstration to be shot. This, or something like this, is how this event is still described in all kinds of textbooks and scientific works.

What really happened? Firstly, it is a lie that the demonstration was peaceful and that the workers went to the Tsar with requests to improve their difficult situation. This is evidenced by the petition carried by the demonstrators. The workers did not ask, but demanded. The words “lead immediately”, “lead and swear to fulfill” do not really look like a request.

So what did the workers demand? Maybe an increase in wages, a reduction in working hours, improved living conditions? Here is a quote from the demonstrators’ petition: “They immediately ordered the convening of representatives of the Russian land [...] They ordered that elections to the Constituent Assembly take place under the condition of universal, secret and equal voting. This is our most important request; everything is based in it and on it; it is the main and only plaster for our wounds.” The workers' wounds, it turns out, were bleeding from... the absence of parliament in the Russian Empire!

In short, under the guise of “fair requests of the oppressed workers,” the petition contained a program of action for radical left parties. The workers were deceived and used as a battering ram against the authorities. Thus, objectively, the events of January 9, 1905 are a political protest against the legitimate government. And we should not forget that there was a war going on! And in wartime conditions, any protest against the supreme power can and should be qualified as betrayal and rebellion.

Of course, the forces of law and order did not act in the best way. But it cannot be said that no preventive measures were taken. Knowing in advance that the demonstrators were going to go with a petition to the Tsar, they decided on Thursday: the Tsar would not be in the city on Sunday. The police should have warned the workers about this in a timely manner, thereby hoping to prevent a demonstration. It was a wise decision. The Emperor made it clear that he did not intend to talk to the workers in this form and in this way. However, the announcement about this was printed in such a small circulation and so ineptly posted around the city (perhaps this was done deliberately) that it had no impact on the events. In the current situation, there was no other way out but to forcefully disperse the demonstration. Judging by the memoirs of many government officials of that time, the leadership of the law enforcement forces understood the seriousness of the situation literally on the eve of the tragic day. What was left to do? Should the Emperor come to St. Petersburg, go out to the crowd and swear to fulfill all their demands? This was the path of complete surrender, and not even to the people, but to the deceived, propagandized crowd.

All approaches to the city center were blocked. The demonstrators were not driven into a dead end. They had a choice - having met law enforcement officers and army units on their way, turn back and disperse. They didn't do this. Despite verbal warnings and warning shots, the demonstrators walked along a chain of soldiers who were forced to open fire. 130 people were killed and several hundred were wounded. Reports of “thousands of victims” disseminated by the liberal and revolutionary press are propaganda fiction.

What measures did the Emperor take after this bloody anti-state uprising of the workers? Officials directly responsible for failing to prevent the demonstration were dismissed from their posts, including such high-ranking officials as the Minister of Internal Affairs and the St. Petersburg mayor.

In order to personally understand the state of affairs, the Emperor received a deputation of St. Petersburg workers on January 19. Addressing them, he said: “You allowed yourself to be drawn into error and deception by traitors and enemies of our Motherland.” Naturally, the press did not say a word about the Sovereign’s reception of the workers’ delegation, as if it had never happened.

Then the Emperor ordered the creation of a commission to examine the actual needs of the workers. By order of the Tsar, 50,000 rubles were allocated from the state treasury for benefits to those affected on January 9. Find similar examples in the history of European countries when the state would allocate money to victims of anti-state protests! And besides, during a difficult and unsuccessful war!!!

Thus, the performance on January 9 must be qualified as nothing other than an anti-state protest against the legitimate government and a political provocation. It is simply amazing to see the patience with which the Emperor, in those conditions, treated the actions of his distraught people. All his actions were aimed at calming society and preventing the destructive play of passions.

The Lena gold mines belonged to the Lenzoloto joint-stock company. In other words, responsibility for what was happening at the enterprise was borne, first of all, by the founders and owners of the controlling stake. The founders of Lenzolot were Jews G. Gunzburg, M. Varshaver, K. Vinberg, M. Meyer and others.

Large dividends for shareholders arose not least from the unscrupulous exploitation of workers. Dissatisfaction is ripe. The distribution of meat unfit for consumption in the shop became the reason for a strike. The Lena mines are a special area, a place of exile and hard labor for criminals. At that moment, there were many people convicted of revolutionary terrorist activities there. It was they who led the workers' uprising. At the same time, these figures cared little about the actual needs of the workers.

On April 4, workers clashed with troops. 250 workers were killed and 270 wounded. As soon as news of the incident reached the capital, a storm of protest arose. Not only the left, but also the right protested. The leader of the far right, N. Markov, emphasized that the mine was owned by Jews. Minister of Internal Affairs A. Makarov added fuel to the fire. Speaking in the Duma, he said: “When a crowd, having lost its mind under the influence of malicious agitation, attacks the troops, then the troops have no choice but to shoot. So it was and so it will be in the future.” This awkward phrase from the minister inflamed passions even more.

The police blamed the workers. The left blamed the police. Right - Jews. What should the Emperor have done? First of all, objectively understand the situation. That's exactly what he did. The investigation was entrusted to the liberal senator Manuchin. In this decision of the Tsar his impartiality is clearly visible. “I know Manukhin well,” said the Emperor, “he is a great liberal, but he is an impeccably honest person and will not bend his soul. If you send some adjutant general, then they will have little faith in his conclusion and will say that he is covering up the local authorities.”

Senator Manukhin, having examined the circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the culprits for the events at the mines were: firstly, the board of Lenzoloto, which did not care about improving the living conditions of the workers, and secondly, the police, which at first were inactive and then allowed abuse of power . As a result of the investigation, the board of Lenzolot resigned, and captain Treshchenkov was put on trial. But the court acquitted the captain, because admitted that he ordered the use of weapons in a desperate situation of defense in the face of an angry crowd.

WORLD WAR
Many accuse the Tsar of entering the world war, although participation in it could have been avoided. To this, as a rule, are added lengthy discussions about the Tsar’s mediocre abilities as a commander, which ultimately led to disaster. What really happened?

By the time Emperor Nicholas II ascended the throne, two opposing military-political blocs had already taken shape in general terms: Germany, Austria and Italy, on the one hand, France and Russia (later joined by England) on the other. The struggle between France and Germany was the main confrontation that threatened the world with war. All that remained was to bring a match. Let us remember how the world war began. After the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Ferdinand, Austria presented an ultimatum to Serbia, fully aware that it was entering into conflict with Russia. A faithful ally of Russia, little Serbia could not independently resist the Austrian dictatorship. The Serbian royal regent Alexander begged for the protection of the All-Russian Emperor: “We cannot defend ourselves. Therefore, we beg Your Majesty to help us as soon as possible.”

The Emperor had no choice. Of course, it was possible to betray an ally and throw Serbia to be torn apart by enemies. This is fully consistent with the norms of behavior of today's rulers. But the Orthodox Russian Tsar could not do this. For he understood power not as domination over people, but as service to God, as the task of protecting Orthodoxy on earth!

In the summer of 1915, during the most difficult time for the Russian army, the Tsar took over the Supreme Command of the troops. He was convinced that only in this case the enemy would be defeated. As soon as the Anointed of God stood at the head of the army, happiness returned to Russian weapons. While the Emperor led the troops, not an inch of land was given to the enemy. By the spring of 1917, the Russian Empire had practically won the First World War. Its active Army consisted of more than 7 million well-armed and equipped soldiers, which was twice the number of the enemy. The number of Russian guns on the German front was 1.5 times greater than the artillery of the enemy army. The Russian military industry made a huge leap during the war years. A huge number of shells were prepared for the spring offensive on the Austro-Hungarian front.

During the entire war, the losses of the Imperial Army in killed and those who died from wounds did not exceed 800,000 people. On the Russian front alone, Austro-German troops lost 2.4 million people - three times more. One Russian soldier killed for every three killed by the enemy. This characterizes the Russian command from the best side.

As a result of the famous offensive of the Southwestern Front, known as the “Brusilovsky breakthrough,” 25 thousand square kilometers of territory lost in 1915 were liberated.

On the Caucasian front, Turkish Armenia was completely liberated and Trebizond was occupied. The troops were moving towards Constantinople, and the Black Sea Fleet under the command of Admiral Kolchak was preparing a landing on the Bosphorus. According to the agreement signed with the allies, Russia, as a result of the war, received power over Constantinople and the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits.

Behind these successes were the organizational qualities and selfless work of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief - Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II. As General Lokhvitsky said, “... it took Peter nine years to turn the Narva vanquished into the Poltava victors... Nicholas II did the same great work in a year and a half.”

Despite the hardships of the war, the population of Russia increased by more than four million people from 1914 to 1917, reaching 180 million by 1917. The annual income of the peasantry almost doubled from 1914 to 1916 due to state benefits to the families of those mobilized and for the supply of horses and food for military orders. The families of mobilized workers were also paid benefits worth 275 million rubles.

Thus, in the words of Churchill, “even on March 1st the Tsar was on his throne. The Russian Empire and the Russian Army held out, the front was firm and victory was certain... The system led by Nicholas II had by this time won the war for Russia.”

The sovereign in his reign and everyday life adhered to the original Russian Orthodox principles. He had a deep knowledge of Russian history and literature, was a great connoisseur of his native language and did not tolerate the use of foreign words in it. “The Russian language is so rich,” he said, “that it allows you to replace foreign expressions in all cases. Not a single word of non-Slavic origin should disfigure our language.”

The August Family, while imprisoned in Tsarskoe Selo, worked tirelessly. In the spring, the Tsar and the children cleared the park of snow; in the summer they worked in the garden; trees were cut down and cut down. The Tsar’s tirelessness impressed the soldiers so much that one of them said: “After all, if you give him a piece of land and he works on it himself, he will soon earn all of Russia for himself again.”

The issue of canonization of the Royal Family was decided at the Council of Bishops on August 14, 2000. In the hall of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, where the chairman of the Synodal Commission for Canonization, Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsky and Kolomna, gave a report, only bishops were present. At 17:20 the final decision on canonization was made. In the debate before this, about 60 bishops spoke, who with tears in their eyes spoke about the need to glorify the Tsar-Martyr and his family. The veneration of the Royal Family by the church flock was truly nationwide by that time, and many bishops admitted on the sidelines that they did not know how they would return to their dioceses if there was no positive decision. They voted by standing, and the hall of Church Councils, full of standing bishops, testified better than any words to the holiness of the royal passion-bearers. The decision was made unanimously.

The article uses materials from the historian A. Stepanov and “The Lives of the Holy Royal Martyrs” Moscow. 1999

This is what I understood from the posts of outraged truth experts:

During the reign of Nicholas II, Russia experienced an unprecedented industrial boom and prosperity, Russia began to greatly outstrip the countries of Europe, the population incredibly improved their lives, and everything would have been fine, but the indignant peasants, soldiers, workers, bourgeoisie and intelligentsia, who made revolution.

Nicholas II won the First World War, and Russian troops would have entered Berlin if only the army had not fled, the provisions had not run out, and the front line had not been so far from Berlin and so close to St. Petersburg.

Nicholas II was not personally acquainted with Rasputin, and the queen was not familiar with Rasputin, and in general no one was familiar with Rasputin, Rasputin himself invented fairy tales about his acquaintance with the royal family, and the Bolsheviks spread these fairy tales, and everyone believed in them , including the king and his family. Nicholas 2nd did not act on Rasputin’s orders, everyone simply believed that he acted this way, therefore, when Nicholas 2nd wanted to promote someone, this someone brought money to Rasputin, or his wife went to Rasputin, and then promotions happened because Nikolai wanted them, and these promotions were very reasonable, and not those that Rasputin proposed.

Nicholas II simply could not help but start the Russian-Japanese War; circumstances would not have allowed him; and Russia would have won if Makarov had not been blown up by a mine; but even after that, Russia won, it was just that the Bolsheviks had to discredit Nicholas II, and they wrote that she lost, and everyone believed it, including the Japanese, who therefore took half of Sakhalin from Witte.

Nicholas II was for reforms and the convening of the Duma. It’s just that the wrong deputies were constantly gathering in the Duma, they lacked education, and Nikolai had to disperse them. The educated deputies never gathered, but Nikolai is not to blame for this.

There was no corruption during the time of Nicholas II. This was proven by a commission under Nicholas II, which did not find any cases of corruption.

There was no famine during the reign of Nicholas II. In addition, the starving people were very well cared for by numerous famine relief societies. And Leo Tolstoy, when he wrote about the famine in 1906, had in mind the famine of 1891, but forgot to write about it. And there were no deaths from starvation, because there is a book by Sergeev, which says that there were none.

Nicholas II was a wise ruler and thanks to him Russia prospered. And the lost wars, revolutions, pogroms, famine, repression, corruption and localism and other terrible problems, because of which Russia fell apart, happened due to the fault of ministers and associates who were in the Masonic lodge, and who did not allow Nicholas 2 to do anything , and therefore he did not influence the situation in Russia in any way.

There were no pogroms under Nicholas II; the Jews came up with that. And there would have been no revolution if the Jews had not decided to take revenge for the pogroms that never happened, and had not made a revolution with the hands of the Russian people, who were against the revolution, and they killed the entire Russian people into a civil society, because they were already civil, when the Jews came to power in Russia, of course there were terrible pogroms, and it is right that there were pogroms, because the Jews killed all the Russians.

Everything bad about Russia and Nicholas II is written in the “Short Course on the History of the Party.” All other books have only good things written about him. “A Short Course in the History of the Party” is a very bad book, because it was written by associates of the German agent Vladimir Ulyanov, who overthrew the provisional government of the English agent Alexander Kerensky and seized power in Russian Russia, which had previously been successfully ruled by the Russian Tsar Nicholas Holstein-Gottorp and his wife Victoria Alex von Gessen. If something bad is written about Nicholas II in other books, it is simply because they copied from the “Short Course”, or “The Short Course” was copied from them.

Nicholas II was loved by all the people of Russia. He was overthrown by a handful of English agents close to him, who deceived the people, who all came out for his abdication because they were deceived.

And for dessert:

It’s not for you to talk about the Emperor after yours jumped out from behind the Pale of Settlement and destroyed the country that was the most successful in the world. This is a well-known fact, they even write about it in English, here is the link. Speak your language, not our Russian.

I’m thinking with some fear - is all of the above already written in the school textbook, or is it still a “soviet lie”?

For more than two decades, anti-Sovietists of all stripes, including those who for some reason call themselves “democrats,” have been making gigantic efforts to glorify perhaps the most pathetic figure among Russian autocrats - Nicholas II.

They go to great lengths for this. After a long campaign of placating the monarch, the king, to whom during his lifetime the people gave the nickname Bloody, was elevated to sainthood. In tsarist Russia there was widespread intervention of foreign capital.

Its share in the Russian economy as a whole reached almost 40% (and in some important industries it was much higher - say, in the mining, mining and metalworking industries - 52%, in electrical and electrical companies - 90%, in steam locomotive building - 100%) ; Accordingly, the lion's share of profits went abroad.

As a result, as General Nechvolodov said while speaking in the State Duma, in 6.5 years Russia brought foreigners “a tribute equal to the colossal indemnity paid by France to its victor Germany” (talking about the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 - V.V. ). “Huge funds extracted from the population with insane extravagance led the people to impoverishment,” argued Professor V.I. in 1906 in his “Note on the State Council.” Vernadsky.

And the writer Zinaida Gippius noted a little later in “Petersburg Diaries”: “Nowhere are there such rich people, such billionaires, as there are now in Russia. There are only dozens of them – with millions of beggars.”

The Pomegranate Encyclopedia in its article “Nutrition” stated that, despite economic growth, “according to the latest data (1911-1914), the nutrition of workers has deteriorated even more... The main food items are cabbage, potatoes, cereals and rye bread... The meager nutrition of the Russian population partly explains its increased morbidity and significant mortality."

How much joy did these workers have that the windows of the Eliseevsky store were bursting with hams, oysters, lobsters, the best pressed caviar in the world and other delicacies. The First World War became a severe test of the state of the Russian economy, and the results of this test are eloquent.

Among the five main warring European powers, Russia occupied 5th place in the production of machine guns (inferior to Germany 10 times), artillery pieces - 5 (inferior to Germany 3.5 times), aircraft - 5 (inferior to Germany 13 times), artillery shells - 5 (inferior to Germany by 4.5 times), cars - 4 (inferior to Germany by 3 times), rifles - 4 (inferior to Germany by 2.5 times).

Russia did not produce tanks. And only in the production of cartridges Russia was in the lead, surpassing Germany by 1.6 times. As for the subject of special pride of fans of Tsarist Russia - grain exports, it is well known that it went under the motto “we don’t have enough to eat, but we will sell it.”

And so it was. The rich made money by trading grain, and the farmers themselves... Leo Tolstoy, having visited the famine-stricken villages of the provinces of central Russia, testified in the article “Hunger”: “Bread with quinoa consumed by almost everyone - with 1/3 and for some with 1/2 quinoa - black, inky black, heavy and bitter bread is eaten by everyone - children, pregnant women, lactating women, and the sick.”.

Zemsky doctor A.I. Shingaryov presented the results of a survey of villages in the Voronezh province in a book with the eloquent title “The Endangered Village.” It noted, in particular: “Entire families without milk all year round! Isn’t this chronic malnutrition, appalling poverty, living on rye bread, occasionally porridge and nothing else?

Actually, Nicholas II himself left convincing evidence of the true picture of the “fullness and prosperity” of the people of Russia - the decree “On the preparation of bread from stillage and straw flour as it can replace the use of ordinary bread.” It is unlikely that this meant the royal family and court.