Nicholas 2 board results table. Nicholas II: outstanding achievements and victories. The best ruler of Russia, slandered by the communists. Orthodox-patriotic point of view

Nature did not give Nicholas the properties important for the sovereign that his late father possessed. Most importantly, Nikolai did not have the “mind of the heart” - political instinct, foresight and that inner strength that those around him feel and obey. However, Nikolai himself felt his weakness, helplessness before fate. He even foresaw his bitter destiny: “I will undergo severe trials, but will not see reward on earth.” Nikolai considered himself an eternal loser: “I succeed in nothing in my endeavors. I have no luck”... Moreover, he not only turned out to be unprepared for ruling, but also did not like state affairs, which were torment for him, a heavy burden: “A day of rest for me - no reports, no receptions... I read a lot - again they sent heaps of papers…” (from the diary). He didn’t have his father’s passion or dedication to his work. He said: “I... try not to think about anything and find that this is the only way to rule Russia.” At the same time, dealing with him was extremely difficult. Nikolai was secretive and vindictive. Witte called him a “Byzantine” who knew how to attract a person with his trust and then deceive him. One wit wrote about the king: “He doesn’t lie, but he doesn’t tell the truth either.”

KHODYNKA

And three days later [after the coronation of Nicholas on May 14, 1896 in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin] on the suburban Khodynskoye field, where public festivities were supposed to take place, a terrible tragedy occurred. Thousands of people, already in the evening, on the eve of the day of festivities, began to gather there, hoping in the morning to be among the first to receive at the “buffet” (of which a hundred were prepared) the royal gift - one of 400 thousand gifts wrapped in a colored scarf, consisting of a “food set” ( half a pound of sausage, sausage, sweets, nuts, gingerbread), and most importantly - an outlandish, “eternal” enameled mug with a royal monogram and gilding. The Khodynskoe field was a training ground and was all pitted with ditches, trenches and holes. The night turned out to be moonless, dark, crowds of “guests” arrived and arrived, heading to the “buffets”. People, not seeing the road in front of them, fell into holes and ditches, and from behind they were pressed and pressed by those who were approaching from Moscow. […]

In total, by morning, about half a million Muscovites had gathered on Khodynka, compacted into huge crowds. As V. A. Gilyarovsky recalled,

“steam began to rise above the million-strong crowd, similar to swamp fog... The crush was terrible. Many became ill, some lost consciousness, unable to get out or even fall: deprived of feelings, with their eyes closed, squeezed as if in a vice, they swayed along with the mass.”

The crush intensified when the bartenders, fearing the onslaught of the crowd, began handing out gifts without waiting for the announced deadline...

According to official data, 1,389 people died, although in reality there were much more victims. The blood ran cold even among seasoned military men and firefighters: scalped heads, crushed chests, premature babies lying in the dust... The king learned about this disaster in the morning, but did not cancel any of the planned festivities and in the evening he opened a ball with the charming wife of the French ambassador Montebello... And although the tsar later visited hospitals and donated money to the families of the victims, it was too late. The indifference shown by the sovereign to his people in the first hours of the disaster cost him dearly. He received the nickname "Nicholas the Bloody".

NICHOLAS II AND THE ARMY

When he was heir to the throne, the young Sovereign received thorough combat training, not only in the guard, but also in the army infantry. At the request of his sovereign father, he served as a junior officer in the 65th Moscow Infantry Regiment (the first time a member of the Royal House was assigned to the army infantry). The observant and sensitive Tsarevich became familiar with the life of the troops in every detail and, having become Emperor of All Russia, turned all his attention to improving this life. His first orders streamlined production in the chief officer ranks, increased salaries and pensions, and improved soldiers' allowances. He canceled the passage with a ceremonial march and run, knowing from experience how difficult it was for the troops.

Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich retained this love and affection for his troops until his martyrdom. Characteristic of Emperor Nicholas II’s love for the troops is his avoidance of the official term “lower rank.” The Emperor considered him too dry, official and always used the words: “Cossack”, “hussar”, “shooter”, etc. It is impossible to read the lines of the Tobolsk diary of the dark days of the cursed year without deep emotion:

December 6. My name day... At 12 o'clock a prayer service was served. The riflemen of the 4th regiment, who were in the garden, who were on guard, all congratulated me, and I congratulated them on the regimental holiday.”

FROM THE DIARY OF NICHOLAS II FOR 1905

June 15th. Wednesday. Hot quiet day. Alix and I took a very long time at the Farm and were a full hour late for breakfast. Uncle Alexey was waiting for him with the children in the garden. Took a long trip in a kayak. Aunt Olga arrived for tea. Swimmed in the sea. After lunch we went for a drive.

I received stunning news from Odessa that the crew of the battleship Prince Potemkin-Tavrichesky that arrived there had mutinied, killed the officers and taken possession of the ship, threatening unrest in the city. I just can't believe it!

Today the war with Turkey began. Early in the morning, the Turkish squadron approached Sevastopol in the fog and opened fire on the batteries, and left half an hour later. At the same time, “Breslau” bombarded Feodosia, and “Goeben” appeared in front of Novorossiysk.

The scoundrel Germans continue to retreat hastily in western Poland.

MANIFESTO ON THE DISSOLUTION OF THE 1st STATE DUMA JULY 9, 1906

By Our will, people chosen from the population were called to legislative construction […] Firmly trusting in the mercy of God, believing in the bright and great future of Our people, We expected from their labors the good and benefit for the country. […] We have planned major transformations in all sectors of the people’s life, and Our main concern has always been to dispel the people’s darkness with the light of enlightenment and the people’s hardships by easing land labor. A severe test has been sent down to Our expectations. Those elected from the population, instead of working on legislative construction, deviated into an area that did not belong to them and turned to investigating the actions of local authorities appointed by Us, to pointing out to Us the imperfections of the Fundamental Laws, changes to which can only be undertaken by Our Monarch’s will, and to actions that are clearly illegal, such as an appeal on behalf of the Duma to the population. […]

Confused by such disorders, the peasantry, not expecting a legal improvement in their situation, moved in a number of provinces to open robbery, theft of other people's property, disobedience to the law and legitimate authorities. […]

But let our subjects remember that only with complete order and tranquility is a lasting improvement in the people’s life possible. Let it be known that We will not allow any self-will or lawlessness and with all the might of the state we will bring those who disobey the law to submission to our Royal will. We call on all right-thinking Russian people to unite to maintain legitimate power and restore peace in our dear Fatherland.

May peace be restored in the Russian land, and may the Almighty help us to carry out the most important of our royal labors - raising the well-being of the peasantry. an honest way to expand your land holdings. Persons of other classes will, at Our call, make every effort to carry out this great task, the final decision of which in the legislative order will belong to the future composition of the Duma.

We, dissolving the current composition of the State Duma, at the same time confirm Our unchangeable intention to keep in force the very law on the establishment of this institution and, in accordance with this Decree of Ours to the Governing Senate on July 8th, set the time for its new convening on February 20, 1907 of the year.

MANIFESTO ON THE DISSOLUTION OF THE II STATE DUMA JUNE 3, 1907

To our regret, a significant part of the composition of the second State Duma did not live up to our expectations. Many of the people sent from the population began to work not with a pure heart, not with a desire to strengthen Russia and improve its system, but with a clear desire to increase unrest and contribute to the disintegration of the state. The activities of these individuals in the State Duma served as an insurmountable obstacle to fruitful work. A spirit of hostility was introduced into the environment of the Duma itself, which prevented a sufficient number of its members who wanted to work for the benefit of their native land from uniting.

For this reason, the State Duma either did not consider the extensive measures developed by our government at all, or slowed down the discussion or rejected it, not even stopping to reject the laws that punished the open praise of crimes and especially punished the sowers of trouble in the troops. Avoiding condemnation of murders and violence. The State Duma did not provide moral assistance to the government in establishing order, and Russia continues to experience the shame of criminal hard times. The slow consideration by the State Duma of the state painting caused difficulties in the timely satisfaction of many urgent needs of the people.

A significant part of the Duma turned the right to interrogate the government into a way of fighting the government and inciting distrust of it among broad sections of the population. Finally, an act unheard of in the annals of history took place. The judiciary uncovered a conspiracy by an entire part of the State Duma against the state and tsarist power. When our government demanded the temporary, until the end of the trial, removal of the fifty-five members of the Duma accused of this crime and the detention of the most incriminated of them, the State Duma did not fulfill the immediate legal demand of the authorities, which did not allow any delay. […]

Created to strengthen the Russian state, the State Duma must be Russian in spirit. Other nationalities that were part of our state should have representatives of their needs in the State Duma, but they should not and will not appear in a number that gives them the opportunity to be arbiters of purely Russian issues. In those outskirts of the state where the population has not achieved sufficient development of citizenship, elections to the State Duma should be temporarily suspended.

Holy Fools and Rasputin

The king, and especially the queen, were susceptible to mysticism. The closest maid of honor to Alexandra Fedorovna and Nicholas II, Anna Alexandrovna Vyrubova (Taneeva), wrote in her memoirs: “The Emperor, like his ancestor Alexander I, was always mystically inclined; The empress was equally mystically inclined... Their Majesties said that they believe that there are people, as in the time of the Apostles... who possess the grace of God and whose prayer the Lord hears.”

Because of this, in the Winter Palace one could often see various holy fools, “blessed” people, fortune tellers, people supposedly capable of influencing people’s destinies. This is Pasha the perspicacious, and Matryona the barefoot, and Mitya Kozelsky, and Anastasia Nikolaevna Leuchtenbergskaya (Stana) - the wife of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich Jr. The doors of the royal palace were wide open for all sorts of rogues and adventurers, such as, for example, the Frenchman Philip (real name Nizier Vashol), who presented the empress with an icon with a bell, which was supposed to ring when people “with bad intentions” approached Alexandra Feodorovna. .

But the crown of royal mysticism was Grigory Efimovich Rasputin, who managed to completely subjugate the queen, and through her, the king. “Now it is not the tsar who rules, but the rogue Rasputin,” Bogdanovich noted in February 1912. “All respect for the tsar has disappeared.” The same idea was expressed on August 3, 1916 by former Minister of Foreign Affairs S.D. Sazonov in a conversation with M. Paleologus: “The Emperor reigns, but the Empress, inspired by Rasputin, rules.”

Rasputin […] quickly recognized all the weaknesses of the royal couple and skillfully took advantage of it. Alexandra Fedorovna wrote to her husband in September 1916: “I fully believe in the wisdom of our Friend, sent to Him by God, to advise what you and our country need.” “Listen to Him,” she instructed Nicholas II, “...God sent Him to you as an assistant and leader.” […]

It got to the point that individual governors-general, chief prosecutors of the Holy Synod and ministers were appointed and removed by the tsar on the recommendation of Rasputin, transmitted through the tsarina. On January 20, 1916, on his advice, V.V. was appointed chairman of the Council of Ministers. Sturmer is “an absolutely unprincipled person and a complete nonentity,” as Shulgin described him.

Radzig E.S. Nicholas II in the memoirs of those close to him. New and recent history. No. 2, 1999

REFORM AND COUNTER-REFORMS

The most promising path of development for the country through consistent democratic reforms turned out to be impossible. Although it was marked, as if by a dotted line, even under Alexander I, later it was either subject to distortion or even interrupted. Under that autocratic form of government, which throughout the 19th century. remained unshakable in Russia, the final word on any issue about the fate of the country belonged to the monarchs. They, by the whim of history, alternated: reformer Alexander I - reactionary Nicholas I, reformer Alexander II - counter-reformer Alexander III (Nicholas II, who ascended the throne in 1894, also had to undergo reforms after his father’s counter-reforms at the beginning of the next century) .

DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIA DURING THE REIGN OF NICHOLAS II

The main executor of all transformations in the first decade of the reign of Nicholas II (1894-1904) was S.Yu. Witte. A talented financier and statesman, S. Witte, having headed the Ministry of Finance in 1892, promised Alexander III, without carrying out political reforms, to make Russia one of the leading industrialized countries in 20 years.

The industrialization policy developed by Witte required significant capital investments from the budget. One of the sources of capital was the introduction of a state monopoly on wine and vodka products in 1894, which became the main revenue item of the budget.

In 1897, a monetary reform was carried out. Measures to increase taxes, increased gold production, and the conclusion of external loans made it possible to introduce gold coins into circulation instead of paper bills, which helped attract foreign capital to Russia and strengthen the country's monetary system, due to which state income doubled. The reform of commercial and industrial taxation carried out in 1898 introduced a trade tax.

The real result of Witte's economic policy was the accelerated development of industrial and railway construction. In the period from 1895 to 1899, an average of 3 thousand kilometers of tracks were built in the country per year.

By 1900, Russia took first place in the world in oil production.

By the end of 1903, there were 23 thousand factory enterprises operating in Russia with approximately 2,200 thousand workers. Politics S.Yu. Witte gave impetus to the development of Russian industry, commercial and industrial entrepreneurship, and the economy.

According to the project of P.A. Stolypin, agrarian reform began: peasants were allowed to freely dispose of their land, leave the community and run farmsteads. The attempt to abolish the rural community was of great importance for the development of capitalist relations in the countryside.

Chapter 19. The reign of Nicholas II (1894-1917). Russian history

BEGINNING OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR

On the same day, July 29, at the insistence of the Chief of the General Staff Yanushkevich, Nicholas II signed a decree on general mobilization. In the evening, the head of the mobilization department of the General Staff, General Dobrorolsky, arrived at the building of the St. Petersburg main telegraph and personally brought there the text of the decree on mobilization for communication to all parts of the empire. There were literally a few minutes left before the devices were supposed to start transmitting the telegram. And suddenly Dobrorolsky was given the tsar’s order to suspend the transfer of the decree. It turned out that the tsar received a new telegram from Wilhelm. In his telegram, the Kaiser again assured that he would try to reach an agreement between Russia and Austria, and asked the Tsar not to complicate this with military preparations. After reading the telegram, Nikolai informed Sukhomlinov that he was canceling the decree on general mobilization. The Tsar decided to limit himself to partial mobilization directed only against Austria.

Sazonov, Yanushkevich and Sukhomlinov were extremely concerned that Nikolai had succumbed to the influence of Wilhelm. They were afraid that Germany would get ahead of Russia in the concentration and deployment of the army. They met on the morning of July 30 and decided to try to convince the king. Yanushkevich and Sukhomlinov tried to do this over the phone. However, Nikolai dryly announced to Yanushkevich that he was ending the conversation. The general nevertheless managed to inform the tsar that Sazonov was present in the room, who would also like to say a few words to him. After a short silence, the king agreed to listen to the minister. Sazonov asked for an audience for an urgent report. Nikolai was silent again, and then offered to come to him at 3 o’clock. Sazonov agreed with his interlocutors that if he convinced the Tsar, he would immediately call Yanushkevich from the Peterhof Palace, and he would give an order to the main telegraph to the officer on duty to communicate the decree to all military districts. “After this,” Yanushkevich said, “I will leave home, break the phone, and generally make it so that I can no longer be found for a new cancellation of the general mobilization.”

For almost an entire hour, Sazonov proved to Nikolai that war was inevitable anyway, since Germany was striving for it, and that under these conditions, delaying general mobilization was extremely dangerous. In the end, Nikolai agreed. […] From the lobby, Sazonov called Yanushkevich and reported the tsar’s sanction. “Now you can break your phone,” he added. At 5 pm on July 30, all the machines of the main St. Petersburg telegraph started knocking. They sent out the tsar's decree on general mobilization to all military districts. On July 31, in the morning, it became public.

The beginning of the First World War. History of Diplomacy. Volume 2. Edited by V. P. Potemkin. Moscow-Leningrad, 1945

THE REIGN OF NICHOLAS II IN THE ASSESSMENTS OF HISTORIANS

In emigration, there was a split among researchers in assessing the personality of the last king. The debates often became harsh, and the participants in the discussions took opposing positions, from praise on the conservative right flank to criticism from liberals and denigration on the left, socialist flank.

The monarchists who worked in exile included S. Oldenburg, N. Markov, I. Solonevich. According to I. Solonevich: “Nicholas II, a man of “average abilities,” faithfully and honestly did everything for Russia that He knew how to do, that He could. No one else was able or able to do more”... “Left-wing historians speak of Emperor Nicholas II as mediocrity, right-wing historians as an idol whose talents or mediocrity are not subject to discussion.” […].

An even more right-wing monarchist, N. Markov, noted: “The sovereign himself was slandered and defamed in the eyes of his people, he could not withstand the evil pressure of all those who, it would seem, were obliged to strengthen and defend the monarchy in every possible way” […].

The largest researcher of the reign of the last Russian Tsar is S. Oldenburg, whose work remains of paramount importance in the 21st century. For any researcher of the Nicholas period of Russian history, it is necessary, in the process of studying this era, to get acquainted with the work of S. Oldenburg “The Reign of Emperor Nicholas II”. […].

The left-liberal direction was represented by P. N. Milyukov, who stated in the book “The Second Russian Revolution”: “Concessions to power (Manifesto of October 17, 1905) not only could not satisfy society and the people because they were insufficient and incomplete. They were insincere and deceitful, and the power that gave them did not for a moment look at them as if they had been ceded forever and finally” […].

Socialist A.F. Kerensky wrote in “History of Russia”: “The reign of Nicholas II was fatal for Russia due to his personal qualities. But he was clear about one thing: having entered the war and linking the fate of Russia with the fate of the countries allied with it, he did not make any tempting compromises with Germany until the very end, until his martyrdom […]. The king bore the burden of power. She weighed him down internally... He had no will to power. He kept it according to oath and tradition” […].

Modern Russian historians have different assessments of the reign of the last Russian Tsar. The same split was observed among scholars of the reign of Nicholas II in exile. Some of them were monarchists, others had liberal views, and others considered themselves supporters of socialism. In our time, the historiography of the reign of Nicholas II can be divided into three directions, such as in emigrant literature. But in relation to the post-Soviet period, clarifications are also needed: modern researchers who praise the tsar are not necessarily monarchists, although a certain tendency is certainly present: A. Bokhanov, O. Platonov, V. Multatuli, M. Nazarov.

A. Bokhanov, the largest modern historian in the study of pre-revolutionary Russia, positively assesses the reign of Emperor Nicholas II: “In 1913, peace, order, and prosperity reigned all around. Russia confidently moved forward, no unrest occurred. Industry worked at full capacity, agriculture developed dynamically, and every year brought greater harvests. Prosperity grew, and the purchasing power of the population increased year by year. The rearmament of the army has begun, a few more years - and Russian military power will become the first force in the world” […].

Conservative historian V. Shambarov speaks positively about the last tsar, noting that the tsar was too lenient in dealing with his political enemies, who were also enemies of Russia: “Russia was destroyed not by autocratic “despotism,” but rather by the weakness and toothlessness of power.” The Tsar too often tried to find a compromise, to come to an agreement with the liberals, so that there would be no bloodshed between the government and part of the people deceived by the liberals and socialists. To do this, Nicholas II dismissed loyal, decent, competent ministers who were loyal to the monarchy and instead appointed either unprofessionals or secret enemies of the autocratic monarchy, or swindlers. […].

M. Nazarov in his book “To the Leader of the Third Rome” drew attention to the aspect of the global conspiracy of the financial elite to overthrow the Russian monarchy... […] According to the description of Admiral A. Bubnov, an atmosphere of conspiracy reigned at Headquarters. At the decisive moment, in response to Alekseev’s cleverly formulated request for abdication, only two generals publicly expressed loyalty to the Sovereign and readiness to lead their troops to pacify the rebellion (General Khan Nakhichevansky and General Count F.A. Keller). The rest welcomed the abdication by wearing red bows. Including the future founders of the White Army, Generals Alekseev and Kornilov (the latter then had the task of announcing to the royal family the order of the Provisional Government for its arrest). Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich also violated his oath on March 1, 1917 - even before the Tsar’s abdication and as a means of putting pressure on him! - removed his military unit (the Guards crew) from guarding the royal family, came to the State Duma under a red flag, provided this headquarters of the Masonic revolution with his guards to guard the arrested royal ministers and issued a call for other troops to “join the new government.” “There is cowardice, treason, and deceit all around,” these were the last words in the tsar’s diary on the night of his abdication […].

Representatives of the old socialist ideology, for example, A.M. Anfimov and E.S. Radzig, on the contrary, negatively assess the reign of the last Russian Tsar, calling the years of his reign a chain of crimes against the people.

Between two directions - praise and overly harsh, unfair criticism are the works of Ananich B.V., N.V. Kuznetsov and P. Cherkasov. […]

P. Cherkasov adheres to the middle in his assessment of the reign of Nicholas: “From the pages of all the works mentioned in the review, the tragic personality of the last Russian Tsar appears - a deeply decent and delicate man to the point of shyness, an exemplary Christian, a loving husband and father, faithful to his duty and at the same time an unremarkable statesman an activist, a prisoner of once and for all acquired convictions in the inviolability of the order of things bequeathed to him by his ancestors. He was neither a despot, much less an executioner of his people, as our official historiography claimed, but during his lifetime he was not a saint, as is sometimes now claimed, although by martyrdom he undoubtedly atoned for all the sins and mistakes of his reign. The drama of Nicholas II as a politician lies in his mediocrity, in the discrepancy between the scale of his personality and the challenge of the time” […].

And finally, there are historians of liberal views, such as K. Shatsillo, A. Utkin. According to the first: “Nicholas II, unlike his grandfather Alexander II, not only did not give overdue reforms, but even if they were wrested from him by force by the revolutionary movement, he stubbornly strove to take back what was given “in a moment of hesitation.” All this “driven” the country into a new revolution, making it completely inevitable... A. Utkin went even further, agreeing to the point that the Russian government was one of the culprits of the First World War, wanting a clash with Germany. At the same time, the tsarist administration simply did not calculate the strength of Russia: “Criminal pride destroyed Russia. Under no circumstances should she go to war with the industrial champion of the continent. Russia had the opportunity to avoid a fatal conflict with Germany.”

Repent people! The king is coming!

They were given to the slaughter to the Masonic Jews.
We received retribution for this.
And it is already approaching one hundred years.

God has given us so many years to repent
In the hope that we will repent for everyone.
No revolution, no war, no consciousness
They did not explain to us the gravest sin.

After all, our ancestors broke their oath,
Which they swore to Fedor the Tsar,
We have forgotten that he is the Anointed One of God.
We swore in one thousand six hundred and thirteen.

We had a King! But we killed him!
There are few years left for repentance.
We haven’t washed His blood off ourselves yet.
And They are still waiting for an answer from us.

The sun has already gone down towards sunset,
Pulsates in the dying hours.
Betrayal of God has already been accomplished,
But we did not repent of our atrocities.

But we pray and ask nevertheless:
“God, bring back the Tsar!
Murder, forgive us, God.
God, lengthen our days."

As Moses prayed for the Jews:
"Take me, but leave them alive"
So the Tsar prays: “Deliver Rus' from villains,
That they strangle the world in their arms.”

As Abraham asked: “At least the faithful
If you find ten, will you spare them all?”
But there were no worthy ones among the bad ones.
God poured fire and brimstone on them.

As Elijah cried then in the desert:
“Oh, take it! You are no longer here,
Everyone turned away. There are too many villains to count.”
God answered: “There are mine among the tares.”

The fourth Angel is already blowing - we don’t hear,
Three trumpets have already sounded, but we are deaf,
In our struggle we become quieter and quieter,
Getting ready for the fiery fish soup.

We had a King! But we killed him!
We had the Queen with her Husband and children.
Eagle was killed. The Turtle Dove is torn to pieces!
And the Children are raised on sharp bayonets!

Who killed them?! We are by our betrayal,
By his corruption and cowardice.
And we became a Masonic shift,
Serving killers in the darkness of days.

We had a King! But we killed him!
They killed him easily. With His entire Family.
We did not forbid His killing
And they did not wash themselves with a tear of repentance.

But their bodies were famously dismembered,
The heads of the heir and his father were cut off
And they placed it in a bottle of alcohol,
Bringing an account to the minions of Satan.

They were shot, stabbed, dismembered,
They doused it with acid and carefully burned it...
And, ritually, they drank Their blood and ashes...
We allowed them that in those days.

And we still allow it
Opponents of Russia of all stripes.
Ivans, we don’t know the relationship,
And we give our children to demons!

We are sleeping! Deep sleep and drunk.
And we wait - who will pour acorns for us?
Come to your senses, Ivans - Ioannas!!!
Very few days left!

They will kill you, how did you allow it?
With His King and His entire Family.
They disingenuously: “Your Tsar has been killed.” Didn't argue?!
And the Tsar was killed by them and you.

Now they have crucified Christ again.
They were preparing, mocking you.
They killed us, and we slept,
Covered in a veil of indifference.

So little time! And the field turned yellow.
Waiting for the harvest. Where are his reapers?!
Ascend boldly with the King and God.
And remember that the Forefathers are with us!

But the King is coming! A wanderer of the last times.
The people will be saved, the Anointed One is the Chosen One!
Repent people! God is waiting for us!
Without this, no one will save us.

After all, God is with us! We just need to decide.
Without this He will not be able to help.
And the All-Heavenly Queen is with us...
Let there be Light! And let the night perish.

r.B. Gennady. Simferopol.

Nicholas 2 - the last emperor of the Russian Empire (May 18, 1868 - July 17, 1918). He received an excellent education, spoke several foreign languages ​​perfectly, and rose to the rank of colonel in the Russian army, as well as admiral of the fleet and field marshal of the British army. He became emperor after the sudden death of his father - the accession to the throne of Nicholas 2, when Nicholas was only 26.

Brief biography of Nicholas 2

From childhood, Nicholas was trained as a future ruler - he was engaged in a deep study of economics, geography, politics and languages. He achieved great success in military affairs, to which he had a penchant. In 1894, just a month after his father’s death, he married the German Princess Alice of Hesse (Alexandra Fedorovna). Two years later (May 26, 1896) the official coronation of Nicholas 2 and his wife took place. The coronation took place in an atmosphere of mourning; in addition, due to the huge number of people wishing to attend the ceremony, many people died in the stampede.

Children of Nicholas 2: daughters Olga (November 3, 1895), Tatyana (May 29, 1897), Maria (June 14, 1899) and Anastasia (June 5, 1901), as well as son Alexey (August 2, 1904 .). Despite the fact that the boy was diagnosed with a serious illness - hemophilia (incoagulability of blood) - he was prepared to rule as the only heir.

Russia under Nicholas 2 was in a stage of economic recovery, despite this, the political situation worsened. Nicholas's failure as a politician led to internal tensions growing in the country. As a result, after a meeting of workers marching to the Tsar was brutally dispersed on January 9, 1905 (the event was called “Bloody Sunday”), the first Russian Revolution of 1905-1907 broke out in the Russian Empire. The result of the revolution was the manifesto “On the Improvement of State Order,” which limited the power of the tsar and gave the people civil liberties. Due to all the events that occurred during his reign, the tsar received the nickname Nicholas 2 the Bloody.

In 1914, the First World War began, which negatively affected the state of the Russian Empire and only aggravated internal political tension. The failures of Nicholas 2 in the war led to an uprising breaking out in Petrograd in 1917, as a result of which the tsar voluntarily abdicated the throne. The date of abdication of Nicholas 2 from the throne is March 2, 1917.

Years of reign of Nicholas 2 - 1896 - 1917.

In March 1917, the entire royal family was arrested and later sent into exile. The execution of Nicholas 2 and his family occurred on the night of July 16-17.

In 1980, members of the royal family were canonized by the foreign church, and then, in 2000, by the Russian Orthodox Church.

Politics of Nicholas 2

Under Nicholas, many reforms were carried out. The main reforms of Nicholas 2:

• Agrarian. Assignment of land not to the community, but to private peasant owners;
• Military. Army reform after defeat in the Russo-Japanese War;
• Management. The State Duma was created, the people received civil rights.

Results of the reign of Nicholas 2

• The growth of agriculture, ridding the country of hunger;
• Growth of economy, industry and culture;
• Growing tension in domestic politics, which led to revolution and a change in the government system.

With the death of Nicholas 2 came the end of the Russian Empire and the monarchy in Russia.

Nicholas 2nd (May 18, 1868 - July 17, 1918) - the last Russian emperor, son of Alexander 3rd. He received an excellent education (he studied history, literature, economics, law, military affairs, mastered three languages ​​perfectly: French, German, English) and ascended to the throne early (at the age of 26) due to the death of his father.

Let's supplement the short biography of Nicholas II with the history of his family. On November 14, 1894, the German princess Alice of Hesse (Alexandra Feodorovna) became the wife of Nicholas 2nd. Soon their first daughter, Olga, was born (November 3, 1895). In total, there were five children in the royal family. Daughters were born one after another: Tatiana (May 29, 1897), Maria (June 14, 1899) and Anastasia (June 5, 1901). Everyone was expecting an heir who was supposed to take the throne after his father. On August 12, 1904, Nikolai’s long-awaited son was born, they named him Alexei. At the age of three, doctors discovered he had a severe hereditary disease - hemophilia (incoagulability of blood). Nevertheless, he was the only heir and was preparing to rule.

On May 26, 1896, the coronation of Nicholas II and his wife took place. During the holidays, a terrible event occurred, called Khodynka, as a result of which 1,282 people died in a stampede.

During the reign of Nicholas II, Russia experienced rapid economic growth. The agricultural sector strengthened - the country became Europe's main exporter of agricultural products, and a stable gold currency was introduced. Industry was actively developing: cities grew, enterprises and railways were built. Nicholas II was a reformer; he introduced a rationed day for workers, provided them with insurance, and carried out reforms in the army and navy. The Emperor supported the development of culture and science in Russia.

But, despite significant improvements, popular unrest occurred in the country. In January 1905, it happened, the stimulus for which was. As a result, it was adopted on October 17, 1905. It talked about civil liberties. A parliament was created, which included the State Duma and the State Council. On June 3 (16), 1907, the Third June Revolution took place, which changed the rules of elections to the Duma.

In 1914, it began, as a result of which the situation within the country worsened. Failures in battles undermined the authority of Tsar Nicholas 2nd. In February 1917, an uprising broke out in Petrograd and reached enormous proportions. On March 2, 1917, fearing mass bloodshed, Nicholas II signed an act of abdication.

On March 9, 1917, the Provisional Government arrested everyone and sent them to Tsarskoye Selo. In August they were transported to Tobolsk, and in April 1918 - to their final destination - Yekaterinburg. On the night of July 16-17, the Romanovs were taken to the basement, the death sentence was read out and they were executed. After a thorough investigation, it was determined that no one from the royal family managed to escape.

• The growth of agriculture, ridding the country of hunger;
• Growth of economy, industry and culture;
• Growing tension in domestic politics, which led to revolution and a change in the government system.

With the death of Nicholas 2 came the end of the Russian Empire and the monarchy in Russia.

The aggravation of contradictions within the country and the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War led to a serious political crisis. The authorities were unable to change the situation. Causes of the revolution of 1905 - 1907:

• the reluctance of the highest authorities to carry out liberal reforms, the projects of which were prepared by Witte, Svyatopolk-Mirsky and others;
• the lack of any rights and the miserable existence of the peasant population, which made up more than 70% of the country's population (agrarian question);
• lack of social guarantees and civil rights for the working class, the policy of non-interference by the state in the relationship between entrepreneur and worker (labor issue);
• the policy of forced Russification in relation to non-Russian peoples, who at that time made up up to 57% of the country's population (national question);
• unsuccessful development of the situation on the Russian-Japanese front.

The first Russian revolution 1905 – 1907 was provoked by the events that took place in early January 1905 in St. Petersburg. Here are the main stages of the revolution.

• Winter 1905 – autumn 1905. The shooting of a peaceful demonstration on January 9, 1905, called “Bloody Sunday,” led to the start of worker strikes in almost all regions of the country. There were also unrest in the army and navy. One of the important episodes of the first Russian revolution of 1905 - 1907. There was a mutiny on the cruiser "Prince Potemkin Tauride", which occurred on June 14, 1905. During the same period, the workers' movement intensified, and the peasant movement became more active.
• Autumn 1905 This period is the highest point of the revolution. The All-Russian October strike, started by the printers' trade union, was supported by many other trade unions. The Tsar issues a manifesto on the granting of political freedoms and the creation of the State Duma as a legislative body. After Nicholas 2 granted the rights to freedom of assembly, speech, conscience, the press, the Union of October 17 and the Constitutional Democratic Party, as well as the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, announced the end of the revolution.
• December 1905 The radical wing of the RSDLP supports an armed uprising in Moscow. There are fierce barricade battles on the streets (Presnya). On December 11, the regulations on elections to the 1st State Duma are published.
• 1906 - first half of 1907 Decline in revolutionary activity. Start of work of the 1st State Duma (with a Cadet majority). In February 1907, the 2nd State Duma was convened (left-wing in its composition), but after 3 months it was dissolved. During this period, strikes and strikes continued, but gradually the government's control over the country was restored.

The result of the revolution of 1905 - 1907, which was bourgeois-democratic in nature, was a number of serious transformations, such as the formation of the State Duma. Political parties received the right to act legally. The situation of the peasants improved, since redemption payments were canceled, and they were also granted the right to free movement and choice of place of residence. But they did not receive ownership of the land. Workers won the right to legally form trade unions, and the working hours in factories were reduced. Some workers received voting rights. National policies have become more lenient. However, the most important significance of the revolution of 1905 - 1907. is to change the worldview of people, which paved the way for further revolutionary changes in the country.

The first semblance of parliament in Russia were legislative bodies - the Boyar Duma of the 16th-17th centuries, the council of associates of Peter I, the “circle of young friends of the emperor” under Alexander I.

As a result of the zemstvo reform of Alexander II, unique provincial parliaments-zemstvos appeared, which had legislative deliberative rights. But the emperor was categorically against the creation of an all-Russian zemstvo, seeing this as a limitation of the principles of autocracy.

However, due to the intensification of terror, Alexander II, who believed that the zemstvos were loyal to state power, issued an order to join the assembly of zemstvo representatives to the State Council.

This meeting was supposed to have only a legislative character, but later it could become a full-fledged parliament. The plans were interrupted by the assassination of Alexander II in March 1881.

The next emperor, Alexander III, pursued a policy of counter-reforms in order to strengthen the autocracy.

Nicholas II, who came to power in 1894, continued his father’s policies.

However, in January-February 1905, the first Russian revolution began in Russia (1905-1907). It demonstrated that the autocratic period in the history of the Russian state is ending and the period of practical constitutionalization and parliamentarization of the country begins.

The first, at first moderate, steps towards parliamentarization were associated with the adoption by Nicholas II of documents dated August 6, 1905: “The Highest Manifesto on the Establishment of the State Duma”, “The Law on the Establishment of the State Duma” and “Regulations on Elections to the State Duma”.

However, these acts established the status of the State Duma as a legislative advisory body under the monarch.

In addition, the documents of August 6, 1905 on the elections contained a lot of restrictions and qualification requirements that prevented wide circles of Russian society from taking part in the work of even such a powerless Duma.

The State Council was supposed to function in tandem with the State Duma. The status of a legislative body under the monarch was given to the State Council at the time of its creation - in 1810. The manifesto of August 6, 1905 only confirmed this status.

The starting point for the formation of parliamentarism in Russia was the Highest Manifesto, signed by Tsar Nicholas II on October 17, 1905, “On the improvement of public order” and a whole series of acts developing the provisions of the Manifesto and also approved by the emperor’s decrees, issued in 1905-1906: Decree of 11 December 1905 “On amending the Regulations on elections to the State Duma (dated August 6, 1905) and the legislation issued in addition to it,” Manifesto of February 20, 1906 “On amending the establishment of the State Council and revising the establishment of the State Duma” , Decree of February 20, 1906 “Establishment of the State Duma” (new edition), etc.

The Manifesto of October 17, 1905 occupies a special place among these documents. It said: “To establish as an unshakable rule that no law can take effect without the approval of the State Duma, and that those elected by the people are provided with the opportunity to truly participate in monitoring the regularity of the actions of the authorities appointed by us.”

This meant that the State Duma was transformed from a legislative body into a legislative body. The rights in legislative activities of not only the State Duma, but also the State Council were expanded. He, like the State Duma, was also endowed with legislative, rather than advisory, powers.

Under the authoritarian regime that existed in Russia, when all fateful decisions for the country were made exclusively by the emperor, no reforms could be carried out without his consent and approval. In a crisis situation requiring the adoption of quick, energetic and effective measures to save the monarchy and the country, a leader like P. A. Stolypin was needed. A talented, proactive and fairly independent administrator who proposed a comprehensive program of state and economic reforms became no longer needed by the monarch as soon as the situation in Russia stabilized somewhat. Moreover, this stabilization was achieved largely thanks to the efforts of the same P. A. Stolypin.