Military Review

Weak power as the causative agent of the revolutionary plague

52
Weak power as the causative agent of the revolutionary plagueIn the morning of October 17 1907, the boat headed for the destroyers “Bodry” and “Skory” stationed in the port of Vladivostok. This episode in itself would have remained unremarkable - it is not enough boat life blown between the coast and the ships, but in that boat there were, as one would say now, three “activists” headed by RSDLP member Maria Maslyukova. The trio went to another “activist”, the conductor of the destroyer “Fast”, Yakov Poylov, with a very specific goal - “to make a revolution”.
The activists did not have time to board the destroyer Fast, because the commander of the destroyer Bodry, N.P. Kurosh, who correctly assessed the situation and ordered the boat to immediately depart from the ships, threatening to open fire. A day earlier, miners revolted in Diomede Bay, and navy the authorities reasonably believed that the uprising could spread to the ships. Therefore, officers were ordered to increase vigilance.


But it was too late. Seeing his accomplices, the conductor Poylov rushed to seize the destroyer - grabbing a revolver, he shot the commander of the ship, Lieutenant Stern and midshipman Yukhnovich, who turned out to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and place.

However, according to Poylov, Kurosh immediately opened fire, since it was good that both destroyers stood aboard. He began to answer. Fate saved the captain of the rank of Kurosh 2 in the Tsushima battle, but did not save on the bridge of his own destroyer, where he soon died, having received a severe wound.

This was the first act of tragedy in the family of hereditary naval officers Kurosh.

In the summer of 1906, brother N.P. Kurosh - commander of the Finn mine cruiser A.P. Kurosh - was a member of the suppression of the uprising in the fortress Sveaborg. What subsequently had fatal consequences for him. The revolutionary “activists” did not forgive him for this, but for the time being they decided not to touch him, but instead shot him in 1911, his fifth-graded son Pavel Kurosh. Admiral Kurosh's turn came in 1918 year. According to some data, he was shot in the Cheka, according to others, a barge with him and other officers was flooded near Kronstadt.

It is worth noting that the beating of naval officers by revolutionary “activists” significantly surpassed the losses of the Russian fleet in the Russian-Japanese and First World War combined. Many officers who survived the nightmare of Tsushima will be killed by their own sailors, incited by various kinds of "activists." Which didn’t give a damn about the supposedly “unfortunate sailors”, but it was necessary to inflict the greatest possible damage to the Russian fleet and finish off what was left after both wars.

It is not surprising that in the 1905-1907, rebellions broke out on the Black and Baltic seas, and in Vladivostok the sailors rebelled three times. In this case, first of all, the officers were exterminated, even those who were not “tyrants” and “bloodsuckers”, and often enjoyed the respect of sailors.

Thus, on July 20, 1906, in Kronstadt, the captain of the rank XA NUMX AA was killed. Rodionov, who commanded the Admiral Nakhimov cruiser who died in the battle of Tsushima. The heroism of Rodionov in that battle was noted even by revolutionary historians, who did not really stint on praise to the royal officers.

Not being frightened by the Japanese shells in May 1905, he was not afraid of Rodion and the rebel sailors in July 1906. Trying to reason with them, he was treacherously shot by an “unknown” from the crowd, after which Tsushima’s already dead hero was punctured with bayonets.

Got a bayonet hit in the chest and the captain of the 2 rank E.I. Krinitsky, the hero of Port Arthur and the George Knight. He survived by a miracle, and only because the sailors and the "activists" who accompanied them decided that he was dead.

But then, in 1905-1907, the murders of officers did not take such a scope, as happened after the 1917 revolution of the year. Then the bill went to thousands, and the surprise soon caused the fact that in this bloody orgy someone was able to survive.

Especially when officers were personally supervised by such odious personalities as L.Trotsky and his protege F. Raskolnikov (Ilyin). It was Trotsky who sent Admiral A. Shchastny, another member of the Russian-Japanese war, under the ax. Despite the fact that the admiral saved the Baltic fleet by organizing the famous Ice Campaign, Trotsky accused him of treason.

At the direction of Trotsky, Admiral S.V. was shot. Zarubayev, a member of the famous battle of the cruiser "Varyag" in 1904 year. He was made “extreme” for the disgraceful surrender of two Baltic Fleet destroyers to the British in 1918, although the blame for this lies entirely on Trotsky's pet, V. Raskolnikov.

If Trotsky and other “activists” who had seized upon the government so easily destroyed the loyal admirals, then what about ordinary officers?

By the way, why in Russia it all became possible? Uprisings on ships, in garrisons, killing not only officers, but even members of the imperial family - let us recall the murder by Kalyayev of Moscow Governor-General Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich in 1904 year. Why did an enchanting mess flourish in the country, when boats with “activists” quietly swam up to warships and not only swam, but many “activists” quietly held gatherings on ships where their capture was discussed.

For example, in the summer of 1906, a certain Odessa "activist" Oscar Mines conducted a gathering on the cruiser Memory of Azov, which was soon captured by rebellious sailors. Of course, many officers, including the ship's commander A.G. Lozinsky, the rebels killed. Is it possible to imagine that in our time boats with "activists" were spinning at the side of the cruiser "Peter the Great" or that there is a gathering on it that discusses its capture?

This happened because Russia was virtually not ruled since 1894. Rather, she had “the master of the lands of the Russians” - Emperor Nicholas II, but because of his character, he was engaged in anything, but not in the management of his empire.

In order not to be unfounded, let us give the floor to him and see how he reacted to the various events that shook the country:

19 May 1905: “Now the terrible news about the death of almost the entire squadron in a two-day battle has finally been confirmed. Rozhestvensky himself taken prisoner. "

As can be seen, the emperor was upset by the news of the defeat of the Second Pacific Squadron in the Battle of Tsushima. But is it strong? We read in the same place: “The day was marvelous, which added even more sadness to the soul. Had three reports. Putyusha had breakfast. Riding on horseback. Dined.

But if 19 May Nicholas II is upset and sad, then 20 May does not recall Tsushima: “It was very hot. Took many. I walked and rode in a canoe. Dined and rode in the zoo. "

Can anyone imagine Stalin quietly dining and riding in a canoe after the news of the capture of Minsk or Kiev? Or maybe the emperor so calmed his nerves? Something is different, as 22 may, he: “We walked for a long time and rode in a canoe and a boat. Dined and skated with Olga and Petya "

23 May 1905: “It's a nice warm day. I rode a new gray horse, which I liked very much. After tea, I read the whole evening for a long time. ”

24 May 1905: “I rode on horseback. They drank tea like all these days on the balcony. The weather was wonderful. Played with Dmitry Sheremetev on billiards "

25 May 1905: “The weather was excellent. Were at lunch in the Grand Palace and had breakfast with the family ... I walked and rode in a canoe. ”

29 May 1905: “Let's go to the fair and have breakfast with everyone. I walked, rode in a canoe. The weather was warm. I read a lot. Killed the crow. Dined at 8. ”

15 June 1905 of the year Nicholas II habitually “deals” with public affairs: “It's a hot, quiet day. Made a great walk in a kayak. Bathed in the sea. After lunch, ride.

But suddenly the idyll is broken in the most unpleasant way: “I received a stunning news from Odessa that the team of the battleship Prince Potemkin-Tavrichesky who had arrived there had rebelled, interrupted the officers and seized the ship, threatening unrest in the city. I just can't believe it! ”

A rebellious battleship rushing around the Black Sea, shelling Odessa, almost fighting with the entire Black Sea fleet, but the day after the start of the uprising, the “master of the Russian land” sends to Sevastopol to deal with the problems of Admiral Chukhnin, and he himself: “I slept in the afternoon, then I walked . Long read. In the evening, ride together. " After that, the "Potemkin" hardly remembers.

In November, a new insurrection takes place in Sevastopol - this time the cruiser Ochakov rebelled. The collapse of the state administration system reached such proportions that the cruiser was not captured by professional revolutionary “activists”, although it wasn’t without them, but by the mad lieutenant Schmidt.

What is Nicholas busy at this time? How does the tragic news from Sevastopol react?

November 12 1905: "In Sevastopol, riots broke out in the sea barracks and even in some parts of the garrison."

About the cruiser "Ochakov" not a word. And then, as usual: “I walked. I read after tea. Let's go to Pavlovsk in Misha's car. Dined.

To be honest, this is not the diary of the owner of a huge empire. This is a diary of the Saratov or Poltava landowner who has been penned for many years of chronic idleness. Which is engaged only in what floats in a kayak, hunts and infinitely chases teas. When in Sevastopol, Kronstadt, Sveaborg, Vladivostok, officers are shot, pierced with bayonets and smashed their heads with rifle butts, the “autocrat” doesn't care. In any case, these events are not worthy to get on the pages of his diary. Unlike dinners, receptions or shooting at crows.

Even the First World War did not change his habits, when he became the Supreme Commander of the Russian army. 23 August 19015, Nikolai takes over the reins of army control and that’s how it looks.

24 August 1915: “I woke up around 9 hours. The morning was so beautiful in the forest. After tea, I went to Mogilyov to the cathedral ... I signed a rescript and an order for the army to accept my high command ... In the afternoon I took a walk beyond the Dnieper along the Gomel highway and walked in a good forest. By the evening it was raining. Played the dice.

Can we imagine Stalin in August 1941-1944, walking in the “beautiful forest” and playing dice? Somehow difficult ...

31 August 1915: “I went to the report in 10. Then he walked in the governor's garden. After breakfast I read and finished all the papers. During the day, I made a very beautiful motorcycle ride on the Dnieper River above Mogilev. The area is very picturesque, the weather was wonderful. From there to the highway miles 6 walked. Returned to the city in an hour. Alix wrote. In the evening of dominoes.

If the leadership of the Russian army is to ride a motorboat on the Dnieper, walk in the governor's garden and play dominoes in the evenings, it is not surprising that what happened in the 1917 year. The king’s diaries on 90% consist of descriptions of how he walked, slept, drank tea, dined, read, rode cars, motorboats, horses, pheasants, ravens and even woodpeckers were meticulously counted the country is the "owner of the land of Russian" information - the cat cried.

Isn't that why various revolutionary “activists” who did what they wanted felt in Russia so freely? Who bombed the great princes, who killed the officers, who calmly decomposed the army during the war. Moreover, the security services did not particularly oppose them, as well as the king doing what the hell knows what, but not with his work. Why be surprised? What pop is the parish.

Very precisely, briefly and succinctly, General A.F. Rediger: “His kingdom was unsuccessful and, moreover, through his own fault.”

To this we can only add that when a king-kayaker or a tennesist is at the head of a country, the country is simply doomed to serious and difficult trials. The ruler of such a huge and complex country like Russia, simply by definition, should not be weak. Otherwise, all sorts of "activists" will very quickly bring the country to the handle, and even to collapse with millions of victims.

All this was already in our stories in 1917 and 1991 and, unfortunately, there is no guarantee that it will not happen again in the future. After all, there have been fewer "activists" in Russia since the time of the Russian revolutions.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.km.ru/science-tech/2016/10/29/istoriya-khkh-veka/787212-slabaya-vlast-kak-vozbuditel-revolyutsionnoi-chumy
52 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. max2215
    max2215 6 November 2016 06: 51
    +15
    Here, here is this man who, just overslept, rolled (there are words and worse, all are relevant for this person) is counted among the saints. The empire fell under the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy, and it has not been liberated to this day .... In my opinion, this is the worst of the emperors, letting it go by itself, the code had to be tough to respond to challenges. Well, you can’t, hand over power to someone who can, but not deny! Renunciation is one of the factors that led to the deaths of tens of millions of Russian people and other nationalities, too, of course. His anathema had to be betrayed.
    1. k174oun7
      k174oun7 6 November 2016 08: 32
      +6
      He was just a short-sighted person. He was unable to take care of at least the safety of his family. After his abdication, he planned to live quietly with his family as a private person in the Crimea, continuing his traditional studies.
    2. Aleksander
      Aleksander 6 November 2016 14: 41
      +7
      Quote: max2215
      Here, here is this man who, just overslept, rolled (there are words and worse, all are relevant for this person) is counted among the saints.

      If you distract from Soviet textbooks, then a lot of new and interesting things will open for you:
      for example, the fact that today's world lives by international law, FIRST TIME proposed to the world by Emperor Nicholas II and signed ALL states of the world at the Hague Conferences in 1899, 1907. The main provisions in one form or another are fixed in The charter first of the League of Nations, then the UN.
      Etc.

      Digging the author in the PERSONAL diary of the Emperor, which, like any diary, NEVER is intended for prying eyes, is indecent. The comparison with what Stalin would do was incorrect, because NOBODY knows what Stalin was doing — he did not leave such diaries.
      If the author is interested in knowing what the Sovereign was doing, that is, lists of decrees approved by him at least in these years, having fateful meaning for artwounds:

      December 12, 1904 - Decree "On the plans for the improvement of state order"
      6 August 1905 g. - The manifesto on the establishment of the State Duma, the Law on the establishment of the State Duma, the Regulation on elections to the State Duma
      17 October 1905 - Manifesto on Improving Public Order
      October 19, 1905 - Decree "On the establishment of the Council of Ministers"
      24 November 1905 - Temporary Rules on Time Editions
      December 11 1905 - Electoral Law
      February 20, 1906 - Decrees "On the reorganization of the institution of the State Council", "On the establishment of the State Duma"
      4 March 1906 g. - Interim rules on meetings, Interim rules on societies and unions
      23 April 1906 g. - The main state laws approved by decree of Nicholas II

      For example: Basic state laws- The RI Constitution gave fundamental freedoms that are in the modern Constitution of the Russian Federation — freedom of speech, assembly, unions, movement, inviolability of the person, housing, impossibility of arrest, except by court order, etc.
      And these laws were enforced, unlike the Soviet era.

      The laws bear the signature: On the authentic ones by His Imperial Majesty's own hand it is written:
      "SO BE IT".
      In Tsarskoye Selo, April 23 1906
      .
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 6 November 2016 16: 00
        +7
        for example, the fact that today's world lives in accordance with international law,

        I disagree ...
        today's world lives according to the norms of domestic law of the USA ... and the norms of international law are a screen behind which they crank up their black deeds.
      2. Ulan
        Ulan 6 November 2016 16: 50
        +4
        Exactly. He that all these laws, regulations, decrees, the Constitution, personally developed? They slipped him to sign and he stamped like a machine gun - "to be this way" or "I do not allow".
        Strongly doubt that he delved into at least one document.
        And then probably the main thing is not to put a signature, albeit under a good document. and ensure its unconditional implementation.
        1. Aleksander
          Aleksander 6 November 2016 19: 30
          +3
          Quote: Ulan
          Did he personally develop all these laws, regulations, decrees, the Constitution? They slipped him to sign and he stamped like a machine gun - "to be this way" or "I do not allow".


          Of course not. Like NOBODY of persons of this rank, they DO NOT develop and have never developed. BUT! - he gave the command to develop them in the direction he needed, APPROVED them and ordered them to be executed.
          So do ALL heads of state.
          1. novel66
            novel66 13 March 2017 09: 47
            +3
            ended with something? all his magnanimity? all his works? " I'm not guilty"
      3. tomket
        tomket 6 November 2016 23: 36
        +4
        Quote: Aleksander
        because NOBODY knows what Stalin was doing — he didn’t leave such diaries.

        What Stalin did is well known without diaries. He just did not have time to write all sorts of nonsense in notebooks. After Stalin, there remained a whole library of books scribbled with his notes. In addition, what Stalin was doing was also well known from visiting magazines in the Kremlin. Well, do not try to compare Nicholas and Stalin, even close the first is not a shadow of the second.
    3. Ulan
      Ulan 6 November 2016 16: 46
      +2
      I also think that Paul the First should be recognized as a saint, who preferred death and honor to the disgrace of renunciation, but not Nikolay the First, it was his renunciation that laid the foundation for those disasters that fell on Russia.
      What kind of emperor, what kind of commander in chief, who could not force the commanders of the Western and North-Western Fronts in the 16th year to carry out the order and his duty and launch an offensive.
      1. avt
        avt 6 November 2016 17: 09
        +4
        Quote: Ulan
        , but not Nicholas the First, it was his abdication that laid the foundation for those disasters that fell on Russia.

        wassat laughing To the captain, mana. Taki Nicky number 2. I once also unfastened with the numbering of the kings and it was on Niki number 2 laughing A kind of enchantress. . Palych 1st somehow seemed to rest with Bose and handed Sasha No. 2 And Pasha No. 1 is certainly not a saint .... idealist - yes, the sovereign who was villainously killed at the post, who did not leave at risk of death - yes. So really Pavel is the 1st Martyr. He drank this cup to the bottom and with dignity. request Not everyone was given the chance to leave, left with honor.
  2. Same lech
    Same lech 6 November 2016 07: 39
    +13
    But if 19 May Nicholas II is upset and sad, then 20 May does not recall Tsushima: “It was very hot. Took many. I walked and rode in a canoe. Dined and rode in the zoo. "


    Thousands of people died ... it was necessary to declare mourning around the country .... and he walked ... he also ate shish kebab in nature ... autocrat ... for what this is respected ... from here and tear to pieces in society and subsequent tragic the events in RUSSIA are entirely his fault ... including the death of his daughters and his wife whom I am very sorry.
    1. kalibr
      kalibr 6 November 2016 08: 22
      +11
      It is even more interesting to read the newspapers of that time. About the beginning of the Russian-Japanese message is barely noticeable on the page. And the events are described so strangely ... What is, for example, the description of "a double attack of the Japanese, that the first line goes with bayonets, and the second crouches between their legs and works with knives from below!" And the officer is asked about this - "Really?" He answers - "No!" and still write about it! Further (1906) all the shortcomings of the army and navy are described. There is only one conclusion - the king is to blame. But the conclusion is not spelled out. But everyone who can read is understandable. And this is in the state newspaper. Such materials should have been banned, right? Not forbidden, even this was not smart enough. And in the left-wing newspapers they directly wrote "the coffin is down!" That is, there was a destructive flow of information in state publications! And nobody noticed!
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 6 November 2016 09: 03
        +2
        Quote: kalibr
        And in the left-wing newspapers they directly wrote "the coffin is down!"

        Is this another slander or an unintentional slip?
        "The whitewashed coffin, that is, the 'whitewashed, painted coffin', was in the Slavic language a contemptuous symbol of an internally devastated, but seemingly decent person or society (Sl. AR, Part 4, p. 1164)."
        http://slovarionline.ru/istoriya_slov/page/grob_p
        ovaplenyiy.276
        It differs in the absence of just one letter, but the meaning is completely different. Here either the reactors of the leftist newspapers of that time were half-educated (which I deeply doubt), or your spelling "accidentally" is lame.
        1. kalibr
          kalibr 6 November 2016 13: 29
          +3
          Yes, I didn't. "P", of course, must be inserted. You're right. A habit that proofreaders will fix. But something you, dear, as a woman cling to words? It's shallow. All the same, you won't leave me. Firstly, I do not know with whom I have the honor, and secondly, so that you do not write, even if you dare to introduce yourself, this will not change my position. Not here, not elsewhere.
          1. V.ic
            V.ic 6 November 2016 14: 20
            +1
            Quote: kalibr
            Yes, I didn't. "P", of course, must be inserted. You're right. A habit that proofreaders will fix.

            For your honesty - gratitude before the formation, although I presented a hint of a possible "excuse" in the text of my commentary. They didn’t use it, therefore the gratitude was declared "for honesty"
            Quote: kalibr
            But something you, my dear, how does a woman cling to words? Fine it.

            Small? This is tantamount to the absence of a comma in the phrase "execution cannot be pardoned." A knocked-down / overturned coffin or a painted coffin / not corresponding to the inner content /, these are two ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT situations. The bread of the humanities is light, if it is always possible to use arrows on the proofreader / editor /// grandfather / grandmother / granddaughter / bug / k
            to translate a bug / mouse ...
            Quote: kalibr
            Firstly, I don’t know with whom I have the honor, and secondly, that you do not write, even if you risk introducing yourself, this will not change my situation. Neither here nor elsewhere.

            This is already "in a personal".
  3. parusnik
    parusnik 6 November 2016 08: 21
    +6
    We are looking for all the guilty .. who is to blame and what to do .. Yeah, the Tsar-Ampirator is to blame for the revolutionaries to breed .. good boyars, a bad king ... rode on a boat .. And revolutionaries began to multiply, with the grandfather of the war, the Liberator .. peasants freed without land .. hence all the problems ... by February 1917 and brought ...
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 6 November 2016 08: 32
      +3
      peasants without land freed .. hence all the problems


      The czar-priest did not dare to take the land from the landowners ... all the more so, no one would have allowed him to give the former serfs for it.
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 6 November 2016 09: 27
        +8
        Why did the Polish take a chance that they would not rebel .. but he also paid extra money to his landlords ... that apparently they would not rebel ... And lackeys, women still give birth ... By the way .. to peasants, workers. Now they don’t open the plaques ... more and more nobles ..
        1. Same lech
          Same lech 6 November 2016 09: 38
          +2
          .By the way .. to peasants, workers. Now they don’t open the plaques ... more and more to the nobles ..

          Well, so the story is changing along with the authorities ... such is the tradition.
          Mannerheim is at the hearing.
    2. Ulan
      Ulan 6 November 2016 16: 55
      +2
      But this is true, in a peasant country the land question is a question of questions. The most important and the fate of the country depended on his decision.
      Low land strangled peasants.
  4. Cartalon
    Cartalon 6 November 2016 08: 28
    +4
    The problem is that with any system we have an absolute monarchy, which means that sooner or later all this will happen again, by the way, Mr. Medvedev reminds me of Nicky and Gorbi.
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 6 November 2016 09: 10
      +3
      Quote: Cartalon
      By the way, Mr. Medvedev is quite Nicky and Gorbi recalls

      Ai-wei, a lot of honor! One was canonized in the Russian Orthodox Church, the other is completely canonized in the west as a "goat-provocateur" / admins, this is not a curse, but the name of a profession in a slaughterhouse / for the collapse of the USSR. In what capacity are you going to canonize the LADY?
      1. avt
        avt 6 November 2016 10: 23
        +4
        Quote: V.ic
        In what capacity are you going to canonize DAM?

        ,, Holy iPhone from Twitter " bully
    2. Dok133
      Dok133 6 November 2016 09: 11
      +2
      Yes, the pendulum swings from conservatism to liberalism, and vice versa.
  5. Dok133
    Dok133 6 November 2016 09: 08
    0
    I’ll write a little in defense of Nicholas. Do not forget, friends, that this was a traditional society, albeit at a kink to the modern.
    And what we are familiar with today simply did not exist: the tight control of the state over all spheres of life, Big Brother is watching you, this is a subsequent era, this was not the case in traditional society.
    Nevertheless, traditional society has existed in Russia for 1000 years, and created a huge empire.
    It was destroyed, not because Nikolai turned out to be a soft ruler, but because the religious foundations of this society were destroyed, people became adherents of another religion — socialism, communism.
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 6 November 2016 10: 29
      +4
      Quote: Dok133
      Nevertheless, traditional society has existed in Russia for 1000 years, and created a huge empire.

      Let's flash back a bit:
      1. Russia became an empire in 1721 under the bloody Peter 1, who destroyed traditional society.
      2. The ideological split in the "traditional" society occurred during the reign of his father, who joined Patriarch Nikon and doomed Archpriest Avvakum to a fiery death / however, under his son Petrusha, the patriarchate was abolished until 1918, probably in gratitude for what he had done /.
      3. In 1612, the kingdom of Moscow barely survived, thanks to the provincial suburbs and the truly Orthodox Pre-Konian church.
      4. Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vasily / in peace Vladimir Svyatoslavich / baptized Russia in 988.
      So the 1th anniversary is a very big stretch!
      Quote: Dok133
      And what we are familiar with today simply did not exist: the tight control of the state over all spheres of life, Big Brother is watching you, this is a subsequent era, this was not the case in traditional society.

      Blessed are the believers! Where will you get the third department of the Chancellery of E.I.V.? Where do you get such an institution as censorship? Even F.I. Tyutchev was a censor of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs R.I. ... Are you sure that the secret of confession was not violated, taking into account such a state body as the Holy Synod?
      Quote: Dok133
      I’ll write a little in defense of Nicholas ....
      It was destroyed, not because Nikolai turned out to be a soft ruler, but because the religious foundations of this society were destroyed, people became adherents of another religion — socialism, communism.

      Read in the writings of the tenant of the Mausoleum on Red Square what the so-called. "revolutionary situation", read again who produced the so-called the "February revolution" (I assure you that among those who forced Nicholas 1 to sign (! in pencil!) the prepared act of abdication was not a single socialist / communist!
      Nicholas is not worth 1 defense, since he could not protect himself, his family, or the Russian Empire entrusted to him by God!
      1. Dok133
        Dok133 6 November 2016 22: 39
        0
        Regarding the freedoms in the Russian Empire, a person below has already answered you when he described the conditions of Lenin's stay in exile (and not only him alone). And what a contrast to the Soviet regime, read "The Gulag Archipelago". In the cell where under the tsar there was only one prisoner, Comrade Stalin filled dozens.
        Yes, and in 1894-1917. in Russia, Nicholas II ruled (the Second, and not the first, the first rules of 2-1825). Teach the mathematical part, as they say here)))
        Regarding Nikolai’s responsibility for the collapse of the empire, I can only repeat that it was not in his power to stop the collapse. It seems to me that superhuman forces are acting in history (here I agree with Marx and Lenin, only they called public formations, I would say differently) and the individual cannot resist them.
        1. swertalf
          swertalf 7 November 2016 19: 59
          0
          IN AND. Lenin was a nobleman, so the conditions for serving his sentence are not an indicator.
    2. avt
      avt 6 November 2016 10: 36
      +4
      Quote: Dok133
      It was destroyed, not because Nikolai turned out to be a soft ruler, but because the religious foundations of this society were destroyed, people became adherents of another religion — socialism, communism.

      laughing Nothing that with Petsi # 1, who abolished the post of Patriarch Niki # 2 was the head of the Orthodox Church? Well, not only ruled the "anointed" on the throne, but also was the helm of the state religion. Remind on what basis, by no means national, they were allowed to take government posts , or guess yourself?
      Quote: Dok133
      And what we are familiar with today simply did not exist then: the tight control of the state over all spheres of life,

      laughing Imagine - the ancestors did fine by natural means. Moreover, the same murder of Rasputin was promoted at a time, without howls about Grishka Radzinsky's superpowers on TV. They quickly and easily promoted a criminal case by installing defendants from the Grand Duke and other Russian pederasts to the British residency. However, the PUNISHMENT corresponding to the deed, and even with respect to what no person close to the imperial family did, NOBODY suffered for the deed! In practice, Nkolka No. 2 gave it away - even if it pisses me on my head - nothing will happen, brush myself off and go and shoot the raven. ALL! SUCH authority over themselves WILL NOT BE ANYWHERE and did not. Though you izmiromazhatsya and break your forehead in bows.
    3. parusnik
      parusnik 6 November 2016 11: 39
      0
      Dok133
      the religious foundations of this society have collapsed
      ,
      .. They themselves have collapsed or who destroyed .. If they themselves ... then those who were not supposed to follow, if anyone helped, then too, negligence, not screening ...
    4. Rastas
      Rastas 6 November 2016 20: 03
      0
      There is the concept of religion, like following what is written in the Bible, and there is the concept of clericalism. Tsarist Russia was precisely the second. The Church was one of the pillars of the regime, supporting power in everything, instilling humility and obedience to power among the people, while the highest elite of the church itself was far from the teachings of Christ. As Blok wrote, remember "why the cathedral is full of holes"?
  6. bober1982
    bober1982 6 November 2016 10: 59
    +2
    No comments
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 6 November 2016 11: 16
      +1
      Quote: bober1982
      No comments

      "The position obliges. If the position does not oblige, then it kills, first morally, and then physically" And this applies not only to the main bloodsucker of the Russian people, but also to all officials.
    2. vanavatny
      vanavatny 6 November 2016 11: 50
      +6
      I am for an adequate attitude to this jelly
      1. RUSS
        RUSS 6 November 2016 16: 04
        +2
        Quote: vanavate
        I am for an adequate attitude to this jelly

        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 6 November 2016 17: 09
          +1
          Quote: RUSS
          I am for an adequate attitude to this jelly

          It may be enough to set up template images (it is addressed to everyone). and start judging rulers by deeds? Stalin was a revolutionary, but a statesman with a capital letter. Was Nikolai a weak-willed king who allowed the collapse of the country? Yes there was.
          Nevertheless, the monarchy is a fairer and more honest form of power than democracy. The monarch is interested in transferring his country to his son in better condition than he received from his father, and the president is not interested in this. He is only a temporary worker. hi
      2. Polkanov
        Polkanov 7 November 2016 12: 26
        0
        ... well, you, my friend, a troll. The level of your standing, your intimate affair. It is unacceptable here ...
    3. 34 region
      34 region 6 November 2016 12: 02
      +7
      10.59. Beaver! And why this poster? For Tsar Nicholas? Consider Nikolai to do the same as Gorbachev, Yeltsin, surrendered the country. But Stalin in more severe conditions showed character and twice pulled out the country. But we elevate those who surrender the country to the rank of saints and build centers. Gorbachev was given a diploma (Nobel) for the collapse. In general, during market relations, merchants (Judas) who managed to cheaply sell expensive goods are glorified. They are now the heroes of our time. hi
      1. RUSS
        RUSS 6 November 2016 19: 37
        +2
        Quote: Region 34
        Consider Nikolai to do the same as Gorbachev, Yeltsin, surrendered the country.


        Nicholas II especially trusted
        front commander, so in a critical situation he
        requested their opinion on the situation in the country (front commanders
        convinced the emperor that abdication would be the only
        a way to prevent riots and civil war
        in Russia) Communist Gorbachev handed over the country specifically, but Yeltsin also surrendered, but unlike Gorbach, he surrendered the country ... to Putin.
  7. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 6 November 2016 12: 31
    +2
    The monarchy perishes when the monarchs degenerate.
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 6 November 2016 13: 45
      0
      Quote: ALEA IACTA EST
      The monarchy perishes when the monarchs degenerate.

      Dear, the word monarchy hobbled to us from Byzantium and in a figurative sense means "one-man command", if you had contacts with army structures, then this word should explain a lot to you. In a literal translation: "MONOS" = one + "ARHontos" = leader. Crazy George 3, the king of England was a complete degenerate, but the monarchy in GB still exists in the form of a front sign.
      The monarchy ends when the "third" estate gets tired of feeding the first two.
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 6 November 2016 17: 13
        0
        Quote: V.ic
        The monarchy ends when the "third" estate gets tired of feeding the first two.

        History shows that not always. The Third Estate was often washed with blood and placed in a stall. And almost always the fault in washing with blood was not on the monarchs, but on the provocateurs, inciting people to revolts. And "branch parrots" almost always escaped punishment. hi
  8. peter-tank
    peter-tank 6 November 2016 14: 51
    +5
    For the first time "seditious" thoughts crept into my head in 1978. After the 7th grade, on summer vacation, for the first time I got to the village of Shushenskoye, to the Lenin Museum-Reserve, where he was in exile. Cognitive dissonance persistently knocked on the immature mind of the Soviet schoolchild. It was impossible there to combine the stories of teachers-historians about the bloody tsarist regime, the arbitrariness of the tsarist secret police and the conditions in which the main fighter against the autocracy was kept. And the guides were honest, they told: how much money the tsarist government allocated for the maintenance of Lenin in Shushenskoye, in whose house he served his sentence, ate a hundred and what he did in free!!!! Ilyich time, etc. And finally, how he dumped in Switzerland (or Germany, I do not remember). To Europe, Karl !!! from the Krasnoyarsk Territory !!! From a political link !!!
    1. Rastas
      Rastas 6 November 2016 19: 58
      +1
      Dear, you forget that Russia was an estate, and Lenin belonged to the nobility. And the guilty nobles in general in the monarchy were not taken seriously to punish. His brother was shot, but for preparing for the assassination attempt on the tsar, and at that time no one took Lenin himself seriously, his ideas seemed utopian - he would play and give up.
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 6 November 2016 20: 17
        0
        Quote: Rastas
        His brother was shot, but for preparing for the assassination attempt on the king,

        Damn-n-n, I thought I was crucified / mb. He was hanged on May 20, 1877, but it turned out (thanks to you, thanks for being "brought to the notice") was simply shot. Phew, what a noble death!
  9. bober1982
    bober1982 6 November 2016 17: 53
    0
    You do not please, comrades forum users, do not like posters, maybe poems from poets of the Silver Age, George Ivanov:
    What a beautiful face
    And how hopelessly pale
    Heir, empress,
    Four great princesses
    1. vanavatny
      vanavatny 6 November 2016 18: 56
      0
      the autocrat’s activity led to the fact that with these beautiful and pale faces all of Russia was littered, only bury, and your adored one didn’t even take care of his family, although what does he have to do with it? it's all dark forces ...
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 6 November 2016 19: 04
        0
        Send us, Lord, patience
        In a year of wild, gloomy days
        Demolish the persecution
        And the torture of our executioners

        Sergey Sergeevich Bekhteev
  10. Rastas
    Rastas 6 November 2016 19: 52
    +2
    Something is not very clear what exactly the author wanted to say. What in order to suppress the revolution was it necessary to burn the rebellious with a hot iron? So it was useless already, it was necessary to carry out reforms. In addition, Nicholas II was not a dandelion boy, they also shot workers under him, and introduced military courts, and suppressed peasant uprisings. In February 17th, on his orders, 8 divisions of General Ivanov were sent against Petrograd, only they refused to shoot at the people. In general, blaming everything on one emperor was very characteristic of emigration, as an attempt to blame all problems on one guilty person, and making oneself the most intelligent. In this way, they were very much like the Wehrmacht commanders who, after the war, blamed Hitler for all the defeats, who allegedly put sticks in the wheels for them.
    1. tomket
      tomket 6 November 2016 23: 50
      0
      Quote: Rastas
      What in order to suppress the revolution was it necessary to burn the rebellious with a hot iron?

      Burning is one thing, drawing conclusions is another.
      Quote: Rastas
      So it was useless already, it was necessary to carry out reforms

      Well, it’s clear that no conclusions were made after 1905, and then it was too late ...
      Quote: Rastas
      In February 17, on his orders, the divisions of General Ivanov were sent against Petrograd 8, but they refused to shoot at the people.

      Under Stalin, the divisions of Ivanov would have been refused, the divisions of Petrov and Ivanov would have been shot, along with the rebels.
      Quote: Rastas
      In general, blaming everything on one emperor was very characteristic of emigration

      Well, actually it’s logical to blame the autocrat of all the land for everything. That's why he is an autocrat, to manage everything, and be responsible for everything.
      Quote: Rastas
      In this way, they were very much like the Wehrmacht commanders who, after the war, blamed Hitler for all the defeats, who allegedly put sticks in the wheels for them.

      And who is to blame? We also now mostly blame Stalin for the defeats of 41. He didn’t believe, he didn’t alert the troops, delayed the war, etc. True, in the defeats of the Red Army closer to the 43 year, Stalin and Stavka were not blamed so eagerly, all the same they understand that it is impossible to keep track of every fool and check, like with Khrushchev near Kharkov for example.
  11. swertalf
    swertalf 7 November 2016 20: 15
    0
    A strange feeling arises when you read articles of this kind. Sailors served themselves on ships, rode like cheese in butter. The good commanders slightly weakened their control over them, and the sailors immediately fell under the influence of all kinds of bad "revolutionaries". Miracles are simple. When a person lives well, and his personal rights are respected, he will send any extremist through the forest and will not listen. And in pre-revolutionary Russia, the sailors had a very hard life. The reason for the revolution was not in a weak tsar, but in the fact that the division of people into vile and noble was cultivated in the Russian empire. Moreover, the latter received a high status without straining - by birthright. Military failures and a weak-willed sovereign only spurred the inevitable outcome.
  12. den-protector
    den-protector 9 November 2016 09: 47
    0
    Maybe Emperor Nicholas II was both a good man and a family man, but these certainly positive qualities are too few for the leader of a country like Russia. Thanks to its spinelessness and intimacy, the country was destroyed, millions of people died. The Bolsheviks can be called as pleasing (someone’s agents, bloody executioners, etc.), but they caught up to the ownerless power on time, which, incidentally, they did not overthrow, and then revived the country in the form of the USSR. It would be useful to know the newly emerging monarchists. True, in 2 all thieves still took revenge. But that's another story.