Military Review

Drop restraint

92
The abdication of Nicholas II from the throne did not save the empire. On the contrary! It opened the way for the fall of monarchies in Europe and the arrival of Nazism. Power seized demons totalitarian regimes.


Drop restraint

On the eve of the abdication. Painting by artist V.R. Alekseeva


On March 14, 1917, the royal train stopped at Dno station. There was only a few hours to Petrograd. Messages from the capital were becoming more alarming. What was going on there exactly was not completely clear. It looks like a rebellion. Chairman of the State Duma Rodzianko argued that the capital of the empire had come out of obedience, and demanded the abdication of Nicholas II as the only means to calm the rebellion.


Table in the king's train. Here everything happened - now you can't cut it with an ax


However, a hastily assembled military expedition of General Ivanov was moving to Petrograd. Still could be fixed. If you show perseverance and hardness. It was the most critical moment in the life of the king and the whole country. The war with the Germans was in full swing. A big offensive of all fronts is planned for April, from the Baltic to the Black Sea. To change power in such conditions is meaningless, death is like. The worst madness can not even be imagined. However, this is exactly what the liberals from the Duma demanded. Go away, Your Majesty, and everything will be fine! Without you.


Nicholas II and Tsarevich Alexei. The choice of privacy was a mistake


But the worst thing was that the front commanders and the chief of the General Staff, General Alekseev, were ready to renounce the tsar. Almost all of them were in a conspiracy inspired by Russian masons, who officially took the form of bourgeois-democratic parties. Their leaders — Milyukov, Rodzianko, Guchkov — planned to take advantage of a little mess in Petrograd, and, removing the tsar, introduce a constitutional monarchy — the so-called “responsible ministry,” that is, the Cabinet appointed by the Duma.

AT THE BOTTOM. It was really the bottom. Not just a station with that name. But the bottom in every sense. The station, too, was in turmoil. The soldiers of the local garrison were overwhelmed and outraged. However, General Ivanov, armed, according to his contemporaries, "just with a beard", jumped out of the car and with a loud shout: "On your knees!" Pacified the rebels. In the same way Petrograd could be pacified. There would be a desire. Tsar's train moved to Pskov. It seemed the damn place had passed. But this was not the case.


General Alekseev. Pretend the king


Telegrams from the front commanders killed in the emperor the will to resist. They fell in the middle of the day on March 15 one by one. The commander of the Caucasian front, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich - the Tsar's uncle: “Adjutant General Alekseev informs me of the unprecedented fateful situation and asks me to support his opinion that the victorious end of the war, so necessary for the good and future of Russia and the salvation of the dynasty, causes the adoption of supermeasure. I, as a faithful, consider it my duty to take the oath and the spirit of the oath, it is imperative for my knees to pray to your Imperial Majesty to save Russia and your Heir, knowing your sense of holy love for Russia and for him. When you sign yourself with the sign of the cross, give him your heritage. There is no other way out. ”

Commander of the South-Western Front, General Brusilov: “I ask you to report to the Emperor my most gracious request, based on my love and devotion to the Motherland and the royal throne, that at this moment the only outcome that can save the situation and give an opportunity to continue to fight the external enemy, without what Russia is lost is to abandon the throne. ”

Approximately the same content was sent by telegrams by the commander of the Romanian front, General Sakharov and the Western - General Evert. The commander of the Northern front, General Ruzsky, who was in Pskov next to the king, expressed the same opinion to the emperor personally. What was Nicholas II to do?


The king does not just hold the scepter and the orb in his hands. He is holding the world from the coming of the Antichrist


In Orthodoxy, the king is "holding". His mission is to keep the people entrusted to him by God from the extreme manifestations of the satanic principle. The king does not just hold the scepter and the orb in his hands. He is holding the world from the coming of the Antichrist.

This concept was born at the dawn of Christianity - in the days of the Roman Empire. It was expressed by the fathers of the church. The Antichrist will not come into the world as long as there is a truly Christian Orthodox Tsar. With his power, he smoothes and balances the sinful promptings of people seeking to rise above others. After all, everyone secretly wants to be above all.

Until the middle of the 15th century, the emperor of the Romais, the people that today's historians call the Byzantines, served as a deterrent (in Greek, “catechon”). After the separation of the churches, he alone retained the spirit of the original Christianity. The West could not forgive this to the emperors of Byzantium. Time after time the Catholics stabbed the Orthodox in the back. In 1204, the Crusaders went to Jerusalem, and got ... to Constantinople. And two hundred years later, when the Turks moved to Constantinople, the Pope of Rome set a renunciation of Orthodoxy as the only condition for helping the Byzantines.

And the emperor of Byzantium renounced! In 1439, John VIII Palaeologus accepted the papal ultimatum in exchange for a promise of military assistance. The Council of Florence proclaimed the reunification of the churches. Byzantium became Catholic. Moreover, even Russia should have become a Catholic! The protege of pro-Western circles, Metropolitan Isidore, a Bulgarian by birth, violating the promise given to the Moscow Grand Duke, also put his signature on the resolution of the Council in Florence.

According to political calculations, everything went right. Dad even fulfilled his promise and organized a new crusade against the Turks. But the army gathered from all over Europe, led by the Polish king Vladislav, suffered a crushing defeat near Varna in 1444. And in less than a decade — in 1453 — Constantinople fell. The god of the Orthodox did not accept help in exchange for renunciation of the faith! Politics was defeated by Providence.

Byzantium did not die as an Orthodox state. In the Cathedral of St. Sophia on the eve of the fall of the city a Catholic Mass was served. At the same time a famous phrase was born among the Orthodox Greeks: “Better the Turks than the Pope!”

And Russia, who overthrew the traitor Isidore, withstood. In spite of everything. And the function of the restraint passed to the Third Rome. “Take a look around yourself,” the elder Filofey of Pskov wrote to Father Ivan the Terrible, Vassily II, “you are no great prince! You are the only Orthodox king! ”

"THE VIEWS ARE THE VEHICLE OF YOURSELF!" But it was so! By the beginning of the XVI century, when these words were written, Russia remained the only Orthodox "kingdom". All other Orthodox states - Bulgaria, Serbia, Wallachia - were conquered by the Turks. And in general they stood near Vienna. The Byzantine shield, which had covered the West from hordes from the East for a thousand years, now lay in the mud. Hagia Sophia became a mosque. And the same mosque could be St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna.

To repel the Turks, Catholics had to give up pressure on Orthodoxy. Only by entering into an alliance with Russia in 1686, did Austria manage to stop the Ottomans as a result of century-long wars. But now, 15 March 1917, the Christian world was again in the depths of discord. World War was in full swing. The Austrian empire became an ally of Turkey and the enemy of Orthodoxy. And the Orthodox Tsar in Pskov faced a difficult choice: to renounce him and become just a man or continue to carry the heavy cross of the restraint. Did he remember the words of the Pskov elder, transmitted to his distant predecessor from the same place? Probably not.

Nicholas II allowed himself for a moment to forget about the duties of the anointed of God. He succumbed to the entreaties of General Alekseev and his ilk, instead of saying: "You can kill me, gentlemen, but I am your emperor, and I will not deny, and let my blood be on you!"

This is exactly how the great-great-grandfather of the last king, the Emperor Paul, acted. On the eleventh of March, 1801, locked up by conspirators in the Mikhailovsky Castle, he chose to die, but did not put his signature on the text of the abdication. It is unlikely that Nicholas II would repeat his fate if he chose the same decision. The weak-willed Evert, Brusilov, Alekseev, the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich did not at all resemble the violent Guards noblemen who had killed Paul I by the blow of a snuff box. It is impossible even to imagine the same General Ruzsky in such a role - in just a year he will kill himself as a hostage to a gang of Bolsheviks. And do not even try to resist.

If 15 in March, Nicholas II simply dismissed him from his post and appointed another commander of the Northern Front, the revolution would have been suppressed. If, in the same way, the king resigned the rebellious generals and appointed others instead, he would have won the war in the summer of 1917. The simple "easy" decision to leave himself turned out to be the most difficult and difficult - it was he who eventually led Nicholas II to the Yekaterinburg basement, under Yurovsky’s bullets.

Renunciation caused chaos. Now everyone thought of the king himself. “The great country,” wrote the historian Anton Kersnovsky, “took control of people who had no idea about the structure of the state mechanism. The passengers took control of the locomotive according to the self-instruction manual, and began by destroying all the brakes ... The Provisional Government abolished the entire Russian administration with one stroke of the pen. All governors and vice-governors were expelled. All political exiles and criminal convicts were returned, and the police and the gendarmes corps were abolished. All defeatist emigrants, agents of the enemy, were called to Russia, and counterintelligence was abolished ... “War to the bitter end” was proclaimed and discipline in the army was destroyed ”...

The renunciation of Nicholas II, at first glance, looked like a great triumph for Germany, Turkey, and Austria-Hungary. Exactly a year later, the German troops were already under the very Pskov, in which the Russian tsar “handed over the guard”. But it was worth the fall of the monarchy in Russia, as the crowns of Germany and Austria collapsed after it. The German general staff sent Lenin to Petrograd, as it turned out, to his doom. For there was no restraining. Not only in Russia. Not all over the world. The night of Nazism has covered Europe!

FROM BOHROV TO HOLOCAUST. Lit fireboxes concentration camps. How much loosened the monarchy in Russia! How many have invested over the decades in the revolution! And as a result, what happened? Hitler and the Holocaust. Here it is - the mystical connection between the Jewish terrorist Mordechai Bogrov, who shot Stolypin, the prime minister of the Orthodox Tsar, - and his nameless fellow tribe who burned in the Dachau furnace. Cause and investigation. Bogrov's shot helpfully opened ... the door of the gas chamber and the door of the crematorium cleared the way for Hitler. The bullets of Yurovsky and his henchmen, who stopped the earthly life of the Orthodox emperor and his family members in Yekaterinburg, is the first gust of Providence wind that will drive the ice ax into Trotsky’s iron head.

The abdication of Nicholas II will open the gates of the Kremlin to the red Tsar, Stalin, who will put an end to the Leninist Guard. The Masonic impudence of the Chief of the General Staff Alekseev, who demanded the sovereign to repudiate in February, would lead him to the shameful death of a fugitive in a denikin army, and not to the glory of the victor in the Second World War, as Russia was called in World War II. Unfinished due to a treacherous stab in the back Second World War will turn into 1941 in the Great Patriotic. Sons who left the front in 1917 will pay for the sins of their fathers. Nothing will be left without punishment.

This tragedy, which happened on 15 March 1917, was prophesied by Nikolai Gogol. "So merged and became one and one with the subordinate ruler, that we all now see a general misfortune — whether the sovereign will forget his subject and abandon him, or the subject will forget his sovereign and abandon him." All the troubles that happened to us in the 20th century and continue to this day have one reason - the mutual renunciation of the king and the people.

The Archbishop of Constantinople John Chrysostom, who was one of the first who formulated the Orthodox doctrine of restraint at the end of the 4th century, believed that this concept has two interpretations. On the one hand, the one holding is the Orthodox Tsar. But on the other hand, it is the grace of the Holy Spirit, which can be selected only because of the impoverishment of love for each other. How many we see outstanding scoundrels, ascending to the very top with a sly thought to deceive both people and God, and then sliding into the dirt from which they came out. When there is no king on the throne, holding is the king in the head.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.buzina.org
92 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. FC SKIF
    FC SKIF 21 March 2013 08: 08
    15
    Facts emerged that the abdication was a FAKE. The signature of the tsar and the fact that the epoch-making "squiggle" was made with a pencil, and all the rest - exclusively with a pen, raises doubts.
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco 21 March 2013 08: 18
      +8
      However, this does not relieve him of responsibility for the country. He reminds me of Gorbachev’s MS. The same reformer.
      1. FC SKIF
        FC SKIF 21 March 2013 08: 33
        +5
        Yes, I agree. He turned out to be an indecisive person, he very much trusted the wrong people (Rasputin, wife). At a critical moment in history, the "man with iron eggs" should be the ruler. The most interesting thing is that we ALWAYS have a "critical moment".
        1. Perch_xnumx
          Perch_xnumx 21 March 2013 08: 51
          +8
          Yes, I agree. He turned out to be an indecisive person, he very much trusted the wrong people (Rasputin, wife). At a critical moment in history, the "man with iron eggs" should be the ruler. The most interesting thing is that we ALWAYS have a "critical moment".
          Everything was predetermined. Why? Yes, because Russia is an Orthodox believing country left from faith and God. And she came to debauchery, fornication, houses of tolerance, witchcraft, spiritualism, unbelief, godlessness, false teachers, false prophets and anti-Christ, revolutionaries, terrorists, etc.
          1. Orik
            Orik 21 March 2013 09: 40
            +6
            I would like to add, for admonition, the excellent article "The Feat of Confession of the Passion-Suffering Tsar Nicholas II in His Denial of the Throne" http://www.pravoslavie.ru/jurnal/60110.htm
            Many with "iron eggs" and without a tsar in their heads are not in the house, that by the time of the abdication of the sovereign, all of Russia, and not just the general's elite, had rotted. All the people fell away. Yes, there is more demand from the higher ones, but in the 17th all estates departed from the king and God. Read Mikhail Babkin "THE RELIGION OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH AND THE OVERCOMING OF THE MONARCHY (BEGINNING XX CENTURY - END 1917)" and this spiritual class! From the elite for the Tsar during the abdication of Count Keller and Khan of Nakhichevan. It is also difficult to talk about the middle class, the merchants financed the revolution (for example, Savva Morozov), the bourgeoisie, who does not know the commoner of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the workers cut off from their roots and the basis of the revolution, who remains the peasants ?! Yes, they endured a lot and the injustice of the tax since the 18th century (when the tax was removed from the nobles), and not the justice of the redemption payments for the land, but unfortunately selfishness (yes, instilled by the elite) seized them too. If they were not tempted to support the Tsar (as the largest group in the state), there would be no revolution, but they could not stand this test of the Lord (and for Christians it is more important than above) and left the sovereign too. For a more complete "portrait" I advise the books by S. Nilus in 6 volumes, Met. John (Snychev) "Russian Symphony" and "Life and Work of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow" (in 3 parts), Vol. Zhevakhov "Memories", "History of Russia. Textbook for teachers." http://rusrand.ru/public/public_592.html
            1. radio operator
              radio operator 21 March 2013 10: 40
              +7
              Quote: Orik
              Many with "iron eggs" and without a tsar in their heads are not in the house, that by the time of the abdication of the sovereign, all of Russia, and not just the general's elite, had rotted. All the people fell away. Yes, there is more demand from the higher ones, but in the 17th all estates departed from the king and God.

              And later, L. Trotsky said: “If, after the revolution, the Russian people put forward the slogan“ For Faith and Fatherland ”and followed it, we would be dared.” So, based on the words of Trotsky, people lacked faith - neither generals nor ordinary peasants.
              Barsanuphius of Optina said that the revolution came out of the walls of the seminary. True, he wrote about the events of 1905, but applicable, with good reason, to 1917. And A.I. Osipov writes that the atmosphere of the whole 19th century was the same as now.
            2. baltika-18
              baltika-18 21 March 2013 13: 00
              +8
              Quote: Orik
              EXPLOIT OF THE CONFESSION OF THE KING-PASSENGER NICHOLAS II

              You know, Alexander, in hindsight it is possible to declare both a patient and a martyr.
              This does not change the essence. Nicholas 2 was an ordinary, normal person. All his life in the first place he had a family, love for Alice, Princess of Hesse-Darmstadt, and from his youth, mutual love, children. This is quite natural and normal from the point of view of the ordinary a person, but not the head of state. The head of state should have in the first place a country, not a family, not relatives and material wealth. From this point of view, the ideal type of leader of the state, like Stalin.
              1. Orik
                Orik 21 March 2013 16: 33
                +2
                Dear Nicholas, the Emperor was indeed a very gentle and delicate person, strikingly different from his father Alexander III, but he was not a weak-willed fool, as liberals and other enemies of the Russian people like to paint him. He loved our Motherland and carried out his ministry with full responsibility. He even tried to restore the patriarchate, leave the throne, take monasticism and become the first patriarch after a 200-year hiatus (read Babkina). For him, a kind, gentle and honest person, it was painful to see the simmering passions among the nobility and people. A martyr and passion-bearer, this is a spiritual assessment, not a worldly one, and only from a spiritual point of view can one assess his feat. The closest example is Jesus Christ, who, having performed, over several years of his earthly ministry, numerous miracles and benefits for the Jewish people, was rejected by the elders and the people, condemned and crucified. Think, could not the almighty God call, as it is written in the Gospel, 12 legions of angels? I could, but did not call. Why? Because the one who loves his people does not manipulate them (like Putin and Edros), does not deceive, but wants to get the free choice of the people, their free will, similar to the end of the turmoil in Russia in 1613. You can't make love, understand. And it was not in vain that such a Tsar was on the throne. As it is written in the article to which I refer (read for broadening your horizons, like other books, this was not taught in the Soviet school), St. Nicholas was figuratively the "son" that the Lord sent to the Russian people, he could not be formidable! God wanted his people to repent, and the people to kill the kind and gentle anointed one who was called to lead the people to repentance by his example. Love cannot be forced! God wants love for him not by compulsion, but as the free choice of a free person. Repentance was the only way out. Moreover, this is not the first example in Russian history; there is another last representative of the ruling dynasty of St. Fedor I Ioannovich. In my opinion, both of these sovereigns were sent by God to the Russian people as a moral authority in a time of spiritual fall, as a spiritual beacon, as an example of meek service. Unfortunately, in both cases, the people did not heed, the turmoil became only a logical continuation for the betrayal of the people.
                In our assessment of Stalin, we are very much alike, in my opinion he became the grace of God to the Russian people, like Moses removing him from the Egyptian captivity (Trotsky and K). There were no options without a thunder because corrupted during the years of the revolution and fratricidal war, the deserted people had to be mobilized as soon as possible to create a strong state. And in the Stalin system, there is so much from the Orthodox worldview, from the prohibition of abortion to the Stalinist justice and cult.
                BUT I repeat once again that these are assessments from a spiritual point of view. With a rational, yes, a weak manager and everything fell apart, but the theory of management is not fully applicable to the Russian state. We are Rome the third, and there will be no fourth. The "retainer" is taken away and you and I live in today's bestiality and chaos, when pi..s demand their rights. Think this is a spiritual problem!
                1. baltika-18
                  baltika-18 21 March 2013 18: 26
                  +4
                  Quote: Orik
                  The emperor was indeed a very gentle and delicate man, very different from his father Alexander III,
                  Alexander 3 is closer to the ideal of a leader.
                  Quote: Orik
                  St. Nicholas was figuratively that "son" whom the Lord sent to the Russian people, he could not be formidable! God wanted his people to repent, and the people to kill the kind and gentle anointed one who was called to lead the people to repentance by his example

                  And what was the Russian people supposed to repent of?
                  He is more sinful than all other nations.
                  Why is there a one-goal game?
                  Why is the punishment of the Romanov dynasty for their sins not considered?
                  Quote: Orik
                  In our assessment of Stalin, we are very much alike, in my opinion he became the grace of God to the Russian people,

                  There would be no 1917, there would be no Lenin, there would be no Stalin. Everything is interconnected.
                  And in conclusion, the question is: what social system is the fairest Romanov capitalism or Leninist-Stalinist socialism?
                  1. Orik
                    Orik 21 March 2013 20: 45
                    +1
                    And what was the Russian people supposed to repent of?
                    He is more sinful than all other nations.
                    Why is there a one-goal game?


                    You have a certain stereotype in your mind and you live for it; I cannot change it, so the answers to your questions are useless. We speak different languages. To the last parable, not Christian:

                    "A university professor came to the master Nan Ying (Meiji era 1868 - 1912) with a request to tell him about Zen. The master began to pour tea. Pouring a full cup for the guest, he continued pouring on. The professor looked at the tea overflowing for a while. and then he said:

                    - The cup is full, is no longer included!
                    "Like this cup, you are filled with your opinions and judgments," replied Nan Yi, "can I show you Zen if you have not emptied your cup?"
                    1. alexandr00070
                      alexandr00070 22 March 2013 22: 08
                      0
                      Quote: Orik
                      can I show you Zen if you haven't emptied your cup? "

                      someone has zen over the edge
                2. Ascetic
                  Ascetic 21 March 2013 20: 51
                  +1
                  Quote: Orik
                  The "retainer" is taken away and you and I live in today's bestiality and chaos, when pi..s demand their rights. Think this is a spiritual problem!

                  The spiritual should not be isolated from the MINISTRY to material society. This is the king’s trouble. one-way skew
                  What do you order to consider the “great reforms” of Tsar Nicholas II? Witte's idea of ​​the golden ruble, which put Russia in economic dependence on world capital? Or maybe the establishment of the State Duma, wrested from the Tsar by the revolution and then become a hotbed of revolution? Or, perhaps, the Stolypin agrarian reform, which destroyed the community, which the modern monarchists considered P.A. Stolypin to be almost an anti-state crime of Stolypin, which prepared the social ground for the revolution? And entry into a war unnecessary for Russia? What about Tsushima?
                  And so everywhere anti-state anti-Russian policy is thrown everywhere, so when the trouble came, ALL LAYERS OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIETY turned away from the Tsar, unable with a firm hand to rely on the Orthodox people and not at the prompt of freemasons and little wife (than Gorbachev and Raisa) to keep the country from collapse in view of his own pernicious reforms. A direct analogy with Gorbi, only he did it consciously, and Nikolai .. I don’t know what to say, you must go deep into your spiritual world so as not to see all this.
                  Therefore, he was in tragic loneliness.
                  1. Grishka100watt
                    Grishka100watt 21 March 2013 23: 48
                    0
                    sadly, but it is.
                3. alexandr00070
                  alexandr00070 22 March 2013 22: 02
                  0
                  Quote: Orik
                  St. Nicholas was figuratively that "son" whom the Lord sent to the Russian people, he could not be formidable! God wanted his people to repent, and the people to kill the kind and gentle anointed one who was called to lead the people to repentance by his example. Love cannot be forced! God wants love for him not by compulsion, but as the free choice of a free person. Repentance was the only way out.

                  That is, in your opinion, the king-rag was called according to God's providence. ............. I haven’t heard such insanity for a long time, 160 years of serf slavery, 50 years as this slavery was abolished, financial crisis, Russian-Japanese war, the First World War, one revolution, another (they call one saint Vladimir Krasno Solnyshko, another Nikolai the Bloody) his mismanagement caused so much misfortune, so much human blood was shed and it turned out that this was done by God so that the people would repent (where the Russian people had done so much so that so many sins were blotted out). They killed the good king, and that’s after of the foregoing, he is kind, repentance should have been with the people oppressed to the baseboard, or the tsar should have repented before the people, over the years of torment, and be engaged in improving the life of the people. Remember how many times Ivan the Terrible left the reign, but the people went and called him back, and here no one stood up - that says a lot. REALLY NIKOLAI THE SECOND IS THE GORBACH OF OUR TIME. You again translate everything into religious dregs, but everything just Stalin defended Russia from the Leninists, Yeltsin from the Gorbachevites, Putin from the Yeltsinists
            3. Mikhail3
              Mikhail3 21 March 2013 14: 51
              +4
              We read it. "I read the old economic dictionary ..." It was. Only now ... if you talk for half an hour with the workers of some kind of serious business, and you can already get an idea of ​​what their chapter is. People have everything. There is always everything - and holiness and feat and cowardice, and rage and weakness and gaiety and melancholy. And what is shown by their leader.
              If the leader commands how long it takes, his features become visible, as if they appear on paper. And if the leader does not command or orders weakly, is it not enough? Then rubbish starts to climb out of people. Going up is hard, down is easier. It’s hard to do good and less profitable, bad is easy and at first very profitable ....
              The Romanovs, led by the last tsar, bear full responsibility, first of all, for this - for the roll of filth on Russian society. It was their main duty, duty, honor ... and they rotted ahead of everyone and were terribly happy about it. Traitors ...
              1. Selevc
                Selevc 21 March 2013 21: 44
                -3
                Mikhail3 - very good and I think the most balanced words !!! Keep raising !!!

                Nikolai the 2nd can be opposed to his anti-hero - Peter the 1st ... One started beautifully but squandered everything and lost the trust of all, and the other started out of dirt and defeat and lifted his country and people to previously unheard-of heights !!!

                One depended on the venal environment, was henpecked and dependent on the opinion of the crowd - and the other was to give a damn about the opinion of his wife, he personally sent the traitors to the rack and did not give a damn about the opinion of the crowd !!!

                Both kings and the results of the reign of both are evident !!!
          2. alexandr00070
            alexandr00070 22 March 2013 21: 34
            0
            Quote: Perch_1
            Everything was predetermined. Why? Yes, because Russia is an Orthodox believing country left from faith and God.

            yes, in my opinion, Nikolai was the most devout of the last Romanovs, just instead of praying for the country, it was necessary to govern it, and he is no business executive. Apparently I forgot what the ancestors taught "Trust in God, but don't make a mistake yourself." It's a pity for Stolypin, but the Zionists clearly calculated each blow
        2. Sirocco
          Sirocco 21 March 2013 08: 57
          +4
          Quote: FC Skif
          The most interesting thing is that we ALWAYS have a "critical moment".

          This is our national feature. laughing And as always for the mistakes of those in power, the common people are cruelly paying the price (((
      2. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 21 March 2013 08: 35
        +4
        Quote: Sirocco
        However, this does not relieve him of responsibility for the country. He reminds me of Gorbachev’s MS. The same reformer.

        He was not just a reformer. He was a conservative. He was kind. Too much. Instead of driving all the "revolutionary trash" behind a thorn with machine guns (as the Bolsheviks did later), he forgave them all the time ...
      3. SASCHAmIXEEW
        SASCHAmIXEEW 21 March 2013 12: 06
        +2
        A hunchbacked traitor from the beginning, he walked towards this purposefully and was led by Andropov! And Nikolai is a victim of circumstances!
      4. Grishka100watt
        Grishka100watt 21 March 2013 14: 12
        -1
        I do not think that he was an outright traitor like Gorbachev.
        Just weak, could not get away from getting involved in the First World War. He scored cretites from the French - so he had to give Russian blood.

        But weakness probably does not diminish his sin.
      5. ia-ai00
        ia-ai00 22 March 2013 01: 41
        +1
        An equal sign between Nicholas II and Gorbochev cannot be put. If Nicholas II was a mediocre tsar, for example, participation in World War I, or at least the tragedy on the Khadynskoye field, which claimed 1360 human lives, but at the same time did not prevent Nicholas II from celebrating the coronation, then the gorbochev is a TRAITOR to Russia! And if, in my opinion, Nicholas, after renouncing power with his family, should have simply been left alone, even under house arrest for 10 years, then this g.a.d. is a grudge, one should be called to account, and tried for High treason. It was not for nothing that this "servant" of the peoples of the USSR was awarded the Nobel Prize - he completed the TASK.
    2. Sasha 19871987
      Sasha 19871987 21 March 2013 08: 34
      +1
      Nicholas the second was weak-minded, it ruined him ....
      1. ia-ai00
        ia-ai00 22 March 2013 18: 13
        +1
        And the weak-willed is not incompetent? Weak - that's putting it mildly! You read the literature about "Nikolashka" and you may also have the feeling that he had "not all houses" at all!
    3. baltika-18
      baltika-18 21 March 2013 09: 21
      +4
      Quote: FC Skif
      Facts appeared that renunciation was FALSE.

      What is the difference now?
      Fake ...... Not Fake .......
      What to call some Kirilych to the kingdom?
      There are enough of their parasites ........
      In general, life is a harsh thing, they came through blood, through blood they left.
      Mystery ...... Ipatiev Monastery in Kostroma, wedding to the kingdom of the first Romanov ..... Ipatiev House, shooting of the last ....... I think in vain they in 1613 hanged a 4-year-old boy at the gates.
      God does not forgive such fun ......
      1. avt
        avt 21 March 2013 09: 52
        +1
        Quote: baltika-18
        Mystery ...... Ipatiev Monastery in Kostroma, wedding to the kingdom of the first Romanov ..... Ipatiev House, shooting of the last .....

        No mysticism, just knowledge of history and the administration of a prescribed ritual.
        1. baltika-18
          baltika-18 21 March 2013 10: 23
          0
          Quote: avt
          No mysticism, just knowledge of history and the administration of a prescribed ritual.

          Well, about the rituals of the Romanovs were also masters.
          Kostroma was the estate of Godunov, and in the Ipatiev Monastery the family tomb of Godunov.
          So the wedding to the kingdom of the first Romanov in Kostroma, and even in the Ipatiev Monastery, also looks like a ritual.
        2. alexandr00070
          alexandr00070 22 March 2013 22: 32
          0
          Quote: avt
          No mysticism, just knowledge of history and the administration of a prescribed ritual.


          The following fact attracts attention. On the eve of the murder, a man with the appearance of a rabbi "with a beard as black as pitch" arrived from Moscow to the place of execution from Moscow in a separate train, which consisted of one carriage. The representative of which center was this person, who came to ascertain and accept the perfect, and did he not leave inscriptions on the walls of the room where the murder took place? [2]

          The first of the inscriptions reads: "Belshazzar was killed that night by his servants" (a saying from the poem of Heine).

          At some distance from it, on the wall-paper, some signs were written with the same ink and the same thick lines.

          The full disclosure of the secret meaning of the inscription is expressed as follows: "Here, by order of the dark forces, the king was sacrificed to destroy the state. All nations are notified of this."

          R. Wilton "The Last Days of the Romanovs"

          The ritual murder of the Tsar - the Anointed of God and his Family was committed by those behind-the-scenes forces that, even in Gospel times, consciously chose their own path: "His blood be on us and on our children" (Matt. 27,25).

          These are the ones about whom the Lord said: "Your father is the devil; and you want to fulfill the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and did not stand in the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and father of lies. " (John 8.44).
          There is no doubt that the inscriptions left at the place of the murder were made by those who understood the ritual meaning of this action in the Jewish meaning. One of the inscriptions, in German, is a paraphrase of Heine's poem about the murder of the last Babylonian king, Belshazzar, because he defiled the Jewish sacred vessels with his lips (Dan. 5). Do undeciphered digital designations have a similar meaning? Enel's careful and balanced interpretation of the meaning of the third, kabbalistic inscription, made with the same ink in letters from three languages, is quite plausible: “Here, by order of secret forces, the Tsar was sacrificed to destroy the State. All nations are notified of this ”[152]. There is a similar inscription left by Jews at the site of a political assassination in Palestine in 1942 [153]; Jews have long accepted the inscription "the guilt of a criminal" at the place of execution - it was made in three languages ​​and on the cross of the crucified Jesus Christ (Matt. 27:37; Luke 23:38: John 19: 19-22).
          In the Jewish tradition, the main sacrifices are performed by burning. The organizers of the murder also decided to burn the royal family, although there was no practical need for this (so that the whites would not find the remains, it was easier to take them away from the city and hide them separately in different places: deep in the ground, in a bog, etc.). According to the "Jewish Encyclopedia", in the Jewish sacrifice only the killing of the victim "can be performed by any Israelite, for the rest of the actions a priest is indispensable" [154]. Did a certain "Jew with a pitch-black beard", whom eyewitnesses saw in those days in the area of ​​destruction of bodies together with the Red Army men who had arrived from Moscow, have anything to do with this?
          It is difficult to ignore the three boxes mentioned, which Goloshchekin took to Sverdlov. Published a lot of evidence [156] about the head of the Sovereign and other family members brought to Moscow: from the testimony of P.Z. Ermakova [157], who participated in the destruction of bodies, until a recent report on the discovered inventory of things stored in the Lenin’s room in the Kremlin, which mentions “a can with the alcoholized head of Nicholas II” [158].
    4. Goga
      Goga 21 March 2013 09: 38
      +4
      FC Skif - A colleague, fake or not, in general, is not so important, because all his subsequent behavior shows a complete lack of will and responsibility to the country and people. he himself bred these village masons - Rasputin and his wife had a personnel department - appointed ministers, added generals to posts. And Rasputin’s secretary was not an unknown Simanovich, so he really steered frames, which is why such a Masonic dominance would be surprised.
      The fact that all these Jewish developments led to the Holocaust for the Jewish elite does not matter much (they don’t even consider their common people), even at the height of the extermination of Jews by the Nazis, the Jewish financial elite did not stop working closely with Hitler.
    5. avt
      avt 21 March 2013 09: 49
      0
      Quote: FC Skif
      Facts emerged that the abdication was a FAKE. The signature of the tsar and the fact that the epoch-making "squiggle" was made with a pencil, and all the rest - exclusively with a pen, raises doubts.

      No, well, do not repeat nonsense. The document about "abdication" was exhibited in Pushkinskoye together with telegrams from the commanders of the fronts that merged Nikolashka. Everything is simpler and meaner. The Rodzianki and other subsequent mourners across Russia in emigration arranged a banal palace coup. They lured the Tsar out of the headquarters. - “Although Nikolashka is an alcoholic, to the Chief of the General Staff. This is practically a cry for help. Maybe someone thinks that Nikolka did not know how to write manifestos ??? This was later on in the printing house. And there was also a second letter where he disavowed Alekseev First, according to the recollections of the same Alekseev, he simply put it in his pocket. The noblemen forgot the old folk truth - they don’t change horses on the crossing! So they fell under the “Proletarian ax”. Well, then everything is like in a fairy tale - a lesson for good fellows.
    6. radio operator
      radio operator 21 March 2013 10: 24
      +5
      Absolutely.
      The renunciation was written in pencil, without a signature, and, most importantly, only 15-20% of the graphologists' confidence that this was written by the hand of the Russian monarch.
      However, that is, that is. History cannot be returned, and Nicholas II was canonized as a new martyr, although millions of people shared the same fate with him.
      1. avt
        avt 21 March 2013 10: 40
        -2
        Quote: radio operator
        Renunciation was written in pencil, without a signature and, most importantly,

        No, I thought so myself, there are specific inks, eventually fade and look like a pencil. And at the exhibition his census questionnaire was also, well, where did he write that the owner of the Russian Land and his native language is German.
      2. Shkodnik65
        Shkodnik65 21 March 2013 14: 35
        +1
        Quote Radio operator:
        Nicholas II was canonized as a new martyr, although millions of people shared the same fate with him.

        Nicholas II was conized as a stronghold, and thousands of people with him.
    7. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 21 March 2013 14: 38
      +4
      Rave. Was he, the traitor, killed right after renunciation ?! How much more then dangled, like a bloom in an ice hole ... He ruined the country, ruined his family ... As soon as he said a word about a false abdication - Alexeyev would be pulled up at the nearest bitch. There were enough people. Only he betrayed them all, deprived the Russian people of the main thing - the fulcrum. We found someone to announce to the saints ...
    8. speedy
      speedy 21 March 2013 18: 58
      0
      Quote: FC Skif
      Facts emerged that the abdication was a FAKE. The signature of the tsar and the fact that the epoch-making "squiggle" was made with a pencil, and all the rest - exclusively with a pen, raises doubts.

      Quite right - after all, it was not an hour or a day that he was "harassed" when he realized that the train had been seized by the conspirators and there was no communication, the sovereign went to the trick - he sent a telegram to Alekseev's headquarters that he was required to renounce - it was a hidden call for help to the faithful troops. Instead of help, he received telegrams demanding the renunciation of the commanders of the fronts and armies. Then the signature appeared with a PENCIL, and in the diary there was an entry "treason, cowardice and deceit are everywhere."
  2. Sirocco
    Sirocco 21 March 2013 08: 15
    +3
    Frankly, I do not understand the actions of Nicholas 2. All the same, he was weak as a master AT HOME his. I will call a spade a spade. Rag. He was busy with family, children, but not the state. He had a power crisis when he couldn’t and didn’t want to rule the country and he let it go. It's my opinion. Nicholas II allowed himself for a moment to forget about the duties of the anointed of God. He succumbed to the entreaties of General Alekseev and his ilk, instead of saying: "You can kill me, gentlemen, but I am your emperor, and I will not deny, and let my blood be on you!" That's it he forgot about everything. Most importantly, he forgot about his people. One of his predecessors answered his son that power should be in his fist and expressed himself firmly.
    1. Bigriver
      Bigriver 21 March 2013 08: 41
      +2
      Quote: Sirocco
      ... Nicholas II allowed himself for a moment to forget about the duties of the anointed of God. He succumbed to persuasion ...

      This moment is the logical result of all his mediocre rule.
      It was necessary to think about Russia before. Much earlier!
      Able to succumb - will succumb.
      1. Sirocco
        Sirocco 21 March 2013 08: 50
        +1
        Here I am about the same.
    2. Perch_xnumx
      Perch_xnumx 21 March 2013 08: 56
      -7
      Frankly, I do not understand the actions of Nicholas 2. All the same, he was weak as the owner of his HOUSE. I will call a spade a spade. Rag. He was busy with family, children, but not the state. He had a power crisis when he couldn’t and didn’t want to rule the country and he let it go.
      And I’ll say sorry - you yap. And who are you that you have made outstanding and heroic for the country. Show your deeds and I will say who you are. You pokryshkin, leather jacket, queens, kurchatov .......
      1. Sirocco
        Sirocco 21 March 2013 09: 19
        +3
        Start with yourself !!! I do not agree - mind. Mind - offer. Suggest - do it. So, If you are not yap, then please your exploits in the studio.))) You apparently inattentively read the comment.IT'S MY OPINION, but not AN EXPLOIT, and continue to read carefully, please !!!
        1. Perch_xnumx
          Perch_xnumx 21 March 2013 09: 47
          +2
          Start with yourself !!! I do not agree - mind. Mind - offer. Suggest - do it. So, If you are not yapping, then please your exploits in the studio.))) You apparently inattentively read the commentary. THIS IS MY OPINION, NOT AN ACKNOWLEDGE, continue to read carefully, please !!!
          You will occupy an official position in the fatherland, we will look at your ministry and exploits, just do not forget to show up so that we can evaluate you from the outside, how you care about your country and serve your country. So far, in general, neither the end nor the edge is visible, the Suvorovs are not visible - although there are a lot of siloviks flashing here, if everyone will work not for money but for conscience, and not to hide the Stalin’s archives more deeply, then the homeland will be useless and useful.
          1. Sirocco
            Sirocco 21 March 2013 10: 07
            +2
            You somehow spatially write, but God be with him, I asked for your exploits in the studio. Or are you the one who called me? laughing
            1. Perch_xnumx
              Perch_xnumx 21 March 2013 15: 38
              0
              I asked the first one. Frets. You will answer I will answer. I didn’t start to blame the king, but if you find yourself in a situation or similar to that of the king, especially when there are nests of foxes and deceivers around you, then let's see what you are capable of.
    3. Shkodnik65
      Shkodnik65 21 March 2013 14: 43
      0
      Quote Sirocco:
      Frankly, I do not understand the actions of Nicholas 2.

      There is a well-known expression: "Everyone imagines himself a strategist seeing the battle from the outside." But what courage one must have, as a KING, to abdicate the throne. But he was offered to run for the cordon. But he remained in Russia, with his people, to certain death. One would like to compare with the current politicians.
      1. strannik595
        strannik595 21 March 2013 15: 49
        +2
        Tsarevo’s heart in the hand of God ................ do not judge the Tsar, join the feat of Jacob Yurovsky, it’s always easier to judge from the side, anyone imagines himself D. Artagnan and Solomon in one person
        1. alexandr00070
          alexandr00070 22 March 2013 22: 38
          0
          Quote: strannik595
          anyone imagines himself D.Artagnan and Solomon in one person

          a nightmare that's under his nose
      2. explorer
        explorer 22 March 2013 06: 51
        0
        And what is courage?
        This is stupidity (if not more), an escape from responsibility (the family man and whom did he save from his family?) - this is an analogue of the stupidity of the commander of a large military unit, who instead of controlling him personally goes on the attack - gets a bullet in the forehead - well, glory to the hero ... total connection is defeated.
  3. Was mammoth
    Was mammoth 21 March 2013 08: 19
    +3
    "Elderberry in the garden ....". Apparently, nightmares tormented the author before writing such an opus. Everything is mixed in one heap.
    1. dmb
      dmb 21 March 2013 15: 27
      +2
      Well, thank God. And then I really thought that I got to a meeting of the Supreme Monarchical Council, where Mr. Buzina, as a whole, boringly once again told us the history of Russia, such as Buzina himself sees it. At the same time, giving characteristics to political and military leaders according to his "elder" habit, he proceeds from the principle: "I think so." Considering that "the head is a dark subject and cannot be studied" (and the Elder's head in particular ", society is hardly given to know what these thoughts are based on. Sometimes it seems to me that ignorance multiplied by arrogance. (Well, the time is now). in particular, it would be curious to know where in Orthodoxy it is said that the tsar keeps the world from the coming of the antichrist. (I remind you that the tsar had to exist long before Christianity in general and Orthodoxy in particular). No less curious is the conclusion about the weakness of Brusilov, Evert , Alekseev and Uncle Nikolasha., That is, practically all the commanders of the fronts. And how would Mr. Buzina expect to achieve victory in WWI, for which he so stands up. With weak-willed, then. In an excerpt about Bogrov, Hitler, ice ax and ovens the author has surpassed himself; whether the second bottle of vodka was drunk already without a snack, or spring, you know, an aggravation.
      1. opkozak
        opkozak 21 March 2013 16: 52
        0
        Quote: dmb
        In the passage about Bogrov, Hitler, the ice ax and stoves, the author surpassed himself; whether the second bottle of the vodka was drunk without a snack, or spring, you know, an aggravation.


        Elderberry thrower. Not a dreamer, but a thrower - rushing from one extreme to another. At first he was a pro-Yushchenko and an orange revolutionary, and now ...
  4. nokki
    nokki 21 March 2013 08: 20
    +7
    "... On the one hand, the one who holds back is an Orthodox tsar. But on the other hand, it is the grace of the Holy Spirit, which can be taken away only because of the impoverishment of love for each other. How many outstanding rogues we see ascending to the very top with a crafty thought to deceive and people, and God, and then rolling down into the mud from which they came out. When there is no king on the throne, the one who holds is the king in the head ... "

    Remarkably true conclusion! When lawlessness is happening all around, the main thing is not to lose the Spark of God in your soul - CONSCIENCE, not to fall into the abyss of total condemnation and despondency with a mixture of hatred, literally, for everyone!
    1. Black
      Black 21 March 2013 08: 54
      +6
      When there is no king on the throne, the one holding is the king in the head ... "

      Quote: nokki
      When lawlessness is happening all around, the main thing is not to lose the spark of God in the soul

      "Sparks" are extinguished instantly if there is no Fire.
      As soon as strong power disappears, human society instantly slides into the level of consciousness of the herd. Alas.
      The man who was called to maintain this fire - the Russian Tsar - was slandered, betrayed, killed and not understood by the leading layer of his people.
      He was betrayed by everyone !!!! - close circle, generals, high clergy. The tsar did not renounce the people — this is the people, first of all in the person of the leading stratum, betrayed his most Orthodox Sovereign, having violated during the days of Great Lent both his Orthodox duty of obedience, the state oath, and the oath of 1613.
      We here at the forum talk a lot about the role of "liberalism". Nikolai understood this and fought against liberalism to the end. But the "genie" of liberalism launched by Peter, Freemasonry, anti-Christian Judaism, shattered society, overthrew the monarchy and plunged Europe into the abyss of the XNUMXth century Armageddon.
  5. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 21 March 2013 08: 28
    +7
    Good article. But here many will not understand. Unfortunately...
  6. Urrry
    Urrry 21 March 2013 08: 29
    +1
    All such rulers - Nicholas II, Gorbachev, Medvedev - usually have one thing in common: they are under the influence of their "second halves", their wives ... this unites them all - hence their common style of government, leading to destruction: irresponsibility and ill-considered decisions, chaos in the management of the country, spontaneity of measures, attempts to neglect the "logic of circumstances" ... and a natural result :(
    1. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 21 March 2013 08: 33
      +5
      Don't lump them together. There may be many questions to Nicholas 2, but he NEVER allowed himself to betray his Motherland. And he refused to flee to England when offered. And look at Gorby. One of his "anniversary" in Gondon (oh, in Logdon that is) is worth a lot.
      1. explorer
        explorer 21 March 2013 09: 42
        0
        Quote: Trapper7
        Don't lump them together. There may be many questions to Nicholas 2, but he NEVER allowed himself to betray his Motherland. And he refused to flee to England when offered. And look at Gorby. One of his "anniversary" in Gondon (oh, in Logdon that is) is worth a lot.


        And how about:
        1907 - the signing of the [[English-Russian agreement 1907 | the Russian-English agreement] on the Entente.
        - An agreement with their geopolitical adversary, those who helped Japan fight with Russia for another two years, etc.
      2. explorer
        explorer 21 March 2013 09: 48
        0
        quote = Trapper7] Don't pile them up. There may be many questions to Nicholas 2, but he NEVER allowed himself to betray his Motherland. And he refused to flee to England when offered. And look at Gorby. One of his "anniversary" in Gondon (oh, in Logdon that is) is worth a lot. [/ Quote]
        And how about:
        Signing [English-Russian agreement 1907 | on the Entente.
        - An agreement with their geopolitical adversary, those who two years ago helped Japan fight against Russia, etc.
      3. explorer
        explorer 21 March 2013 09: 49
        0
        Quote: Trapper7
        Don't lump them together. There may be many questions to Nicholas 2, but he NEVER allowed himself to betray his Motherland. And he refused to flee to England when offered. And look at Gorby. One of his "anniversary" in Gondon (oh, in Logdon that is) is worth a lot.


        And how about:
        Signing [English-Russian agreement 1907 | on the Entente.
        - An agreement with their geopolitical adversary, those who two years ago helped Japan fight against Russia, etc.
        1. Trapperxnumx
          Trapperxnumx 21 March 2013 10: 32
          +2
          Quote: explorer
          And how about:
          Signing [English-Russian agreement 1907 | on the Entente.
          - An agreement with their geopolitical adversary, those who two years ago helped Japan fight against Russia, etc.

          Immediately after the signing of the said Agreement, the revolution subsided. As if on command. It’s even strange ... Probably, the "revolutionaries" have run out of pounds sterling for Swiss rifles ...
          1. explorer
            explorer 21 March 2013 13: 34
            -3
            If the signing of the agreement was forced (and therefore actually imposed from outside by force), then following it in 14 was a double crime on the part of Nikolai.
  7. predator.3
    predator.3 21 March 2013 08: 33
    -1
    Nicholas himself was to blame, there was no sticking around in the headquarters, but being in the capital and managing the empire, otherwise he took refuge in Mogilev, leaving the board to his German wife and Grishka Rasputin!
    1. bairat
      bairat 21 March 2013 09: 33
      +4
      These are all consequences. The main mistake is that it allowed itself and the country to be drawn into the world war of 1914, all our troubles of the 20th century went from this.
      1. igordok
        igordok 21 March 2013 19: 32
        +1
        Quote: bairat
        These are all consequences. The main mistake is that it allowed itself and the country to be drawn into a world war


        The main mistake is that it allowed itself and the country to be drawn into a world war on the side of the Entente. Why quarreled with Germany?
  8. Avenger711
    Avenger711 21 March 2013 08: 38
    -4
    Another Orthodox little libel, full of shameless lies and myths. Immediately minus and five minutes of hatred.
    1. nokki
      nokki 21 March 2013 09: 08
      +4
      Quote: Avenger711
      five minutes of hatred.


      Hatred is not an argument in argument. Hatred is unproductive. Hatred incinerates not only enemies, but also its carrier! Power is in the truth! Read carefully the Sermon on the Mount of Christ, and you will understand a lot!
      1. baltika-18
        baltika-18 21 March 2013 11: 11
        +3
        Quote: nokki
        Power is in the truth

        What is the truth?
        What is the truth?
        Everyone has his own? Who is stronger and right? Who has more money? Who has more power?
        Beautiful words rush well ......
        But the sense of this is not enough ....
      2. wax
        wax 22 March 2013 01: 12
        0
        Namely, power is in truth. But there is no truth in the article, for it is mixed with lies and primeval delusions.
  9. pa_nik
    pa_nik 21 March 2013 09: 01
    0
    Quote: FC Skif
    Facts appeared that renunciation was FALSE.


    Probably...

    Quote: Sirocco
    However, this does not relieve him of responsibility for the country. He reminds me of Gorbachev’s MS.


    Yes, he did not want to do anything ... including the country and the people. Try looking for information about Nicholas II on the Web. You will not find anything about that: what a cool engineer, artist, or anyone else ... He just lived .. however, like many of us lol
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco 21 March 2013 09: 21
      +3
      Like now just lives royal family in england. Such are just Mary. laughing I hope Andrey that many of us present here, not only live, but work, for the good of our beloved and our country.
  10. nokki
    nokki 21 March 2013 09: 02
    +3
    Quote: Chen

    "Sparks" are extinguished instantly if there is no Fire.


    But what about "Time of Troubles"? But what about Minin and Pozharsky? Faith strengthens a person and gives him strength to fight for Truth and Justice! The spark will not go out if a person sincerely believes in Christian ideals and in his own life, by his example proves their universal significance!
    1. Black
      Black 21 March 2013 09: 43
      +5
      Quote: nokki
      But what about "Time of Troubles"? But what about Minin and Pozharsky?

      Stalin became Minin and Pozharsky.
      Quote: nokki
      Faith strengthens a person and gives him strength to fight for Truth and Justice! The spark will not go out if a person

      Are you about INDIVIDUAL? All right.
      Are you talking about society? There are other laws. I repeat, people without a guide turns into a crowd. And there is no "spark", there is a leader and all the rest. The Leader has a moral, good, and if he is a God, then the crowd is at the shaboosh.
    2. alexandr00070
      alexandr00070 22 March 2013 22: 43
      0
      Quote: nokki
      But what about Minin and Pozharsky? Faith strengthens a person and gives him strength to fight for Truth and Justice!

      and confused, they defeated the Poles, but as always the authorities raped the heroes, Pozharsky became the king, or Minin, no king appointed the youngest son of the patriarch and the Romanov trouble began for three hundred years
  11. amp
    amp 21 March 2013 09: 21
    +6
    Nikolai was one of the most mediocre Russian tsars.
    Masons plotted? And who is to blame? Who lit these masons in Russia? Who drove the country into a debt hole? The Russian Empire at the end of the war was completely bankrupt, and after a victory for any, it would have turned into a French semi-colony. Nicholas was a few idiots. The first revolution taught him nothing.
    1. alexandr00070
      alexandr00070 22 March 2013 22: 45
      0
      Quote: amp
      Masons plotted? And who is to blame? Who lit these masons in Russia? Who drove the country into a debt hole?

      but weren’t the kings a masson, google under Alexander 1 the dawn of massonism began in Russia, etc.
  12. Begemot
    Begemot 21 March 2013 09: 29
    +5
    Milyukov, Rodzianko, Guchkov - impostors without any moral principles, dullness, imagining itself to be the arbiter of fate. Adventurers and tyrants who did not shun any vileness for enrichment. How much in common between the tsar’s Duma and the current State Duma. The same thousands of laws per year that it is impossible to execute, and if you execute, everything stops and collapses, the same booth at meetings, the same undisguised lobbyism of individual oligarchs in matters of budget distribution, corruption and unceremonious rejection of the interests of the country's population, and even countries. Parliament for Russia is evil. I will never believe that a deputy will express my interests, the interests of my relatives, acquaintances, friends and just strangers. He will represent the interests of the one who pays him. Nicholas II made many tragic mistakes, but the most important is the Decree of the 6 of August 1905 of the year “The Establishment of the State Duma” and “The Regulation on the Elections to the State Duma”. From this began a series of continuous tragedies in the history of the country.
  13. djon3volta
    djon3volta 21 March 2013 09: 30
    +6
    The Russian and English monarchy fought quietly for 300 years. England back then felt the power of Russia in the 17-18 centuries, well there weren’t any articles here, is it really difficult to understand that England has always been and will be our enemy? They needed to tear Russia apart , so they came up with all sorts of revolutions, Lenins, etc. spies. And still England hates Russia, it’s not for nothing that all sorts of Berezovsky run there and they do not give them away.
    I repeat once again, all this with envy, England understands perfectly well that they have only a dull rainy piece of land, and Russia has 1/6 of the land and a huge number of minerals. All this is ordinary envy, just at the political level.
  14. Fox
    Fox 21 March 2013 09: 34
    +3
    another whimper-whimper about good Nikolashka ... everything around is conveyed, and he is d artanyan ... in A. Bushkov's book "The Red Monarch" this prototype of Yeltsin and his entourage is normally shown. There is only (for some) one bad thing, bukaff a lot.
  15. optimist
    optimist 21 March 2013 09: 37
    +2
    Another opus on the theme "For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland". As the people say: if my grandmother had x ..., she would be a grandfather. The fall of tsarism and the collapse of the empire is a natural process. Just at that time, the existing socio-economic system outlived its usefulness, and the unnecessary war for Russia served as a catalyst. Historical parallels are very clearly traced: God forbid now there is a war (in the sense of a serious, and not a "Georgian walk in 2008), the situation will repeat itself again and some new" Lenin "will get out on an" armored car ".
    1. ultra
      ultra 21 March 2013 10: 44
      +4
      Quote: optimist
      Another opus on the theme "For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland". As the people say: if my grandmother had x ..., she would be a grandfather. The fall of tsarism and the collapse of the empire is a natural process. Just at that time, the existing socio-economic system outlived itself,
      Just like from the Soviet history textbook! But I didn’t put anything in the article, an oversimplified assessment of the events of those days! hi
      1. optimist
        optimist 21 March 2013 10: 48
        +2
        The fact of the matter is that it is easy to complicate, but it is difficult to simplify ... Reread the fable of grandfather Krylov "Kunstkamera". The problem of the bulk of the population of our country is that they do not notice the "elephant".
        1. Begemot
          Begemot 21 March 2013 11: 43
          0
          optimist
          Plusanul replica. very accurate.
          V. Yan has a good episode in "Genghis Khan": Sabudai's intelligence service captured the first Russians and is trying to interrogate them. Pointing to the dog, Sabudai asked what it was. The first prisoner replied that it was a kabyzdoh, the second was a void, the third was that it was a dog's muzzle. Having listened to them, Sabudai thought: all the Uruses are confusion, any Mongol would say that this is nohoy, and everyone would understand him.
  16. Alex65
    Alex65 21 March 2013 09: 55
    +4
    There is no document in the archives called “Renunciation”. There is a typewritten text entitled “To the Chief of the General Staff”. It was allegedly signed by the king, although Nikolai never used pencils. The text itself on the sheet resembles a telegram, not a renunciation, it happened on March 02, ,,, and order No. 1 on the collapse of the army was issued by impostors on March 01, 1917 ,,, / according to the old style /
    ,,, an application for work and dismissal is accepted only in written form, and here the abdication ,,, on a typewriter
  17. elmi
    elmi 21 March 2013 11: 00
    +2
    Nikolai 2 lacked rigidity and endurance, ruined by his excessive softness
  18. user
    user 21 March 2013 11: 05
    -2
    The man was out of place.
    And when the family was shot, she had to say thanks to PAPA and HUSBAND for that.
  19. maxvet
    maxvet 21 March 2013 11: 43
    -1
    Nicholas abdicated for a reason, but in favor of his younger brother, okay Rodzianko and Milyukov and the entire army generals turned away from the tsar, but why did the Cossacks abandon him? Russian machine gun battalion "
    Read his diaries from the Russo-Japanese War, that his autocrat was interested in what he lived with?
  20. apro
    apro 21 March 2013 12: 46
    +3
    Too much betrayal, too many enemies, the Tsar’s displacement was conceived and carried out by our allies brilliantly and impeccably quick recognition of the provisional with Kerensky confirmation of this. In general, the nobles squandered all these holitsins and Obolensky duty did not fulfill their holy duty of protecting the Tsar and Motherland.
    1. user
      user 16 July 2013 12: 23
      0
      Apr 2 (RU) March 21, 2013 12:46

      Too much betrayal, too many enemies, the Tsar’s displacement was conceived and carried out by our allies brilliantly and impeccably quick recognition of the provisional with Kerensky confirmation of this. In general, the nobles squandered all these holitsins and Obolensky duty did not fulfill their holy duty of protecting the Tsar and Motherland.

      I think it is the KING that betrayed the empire and the subjects when he signed his abdication is not important in whose favor.
      Slug in one word
  21. Khamsin
    Khamsin 21 March 2013 12: 48
    +1
    I believe Nicholas 2 betrayed the empire because of his weakness as a leader. And reckoning him as a saint is a mistake. He may have suffered martyrdom with his family, but because of his actions, millions have accepted death. The empire fell from the stupidity of Nicholas 2, whatever he wrote in his diaries, whatever he lived ... It was necessary to make clear decisions, even if cruel
    1. maxvet
      maxvet 21 March 2013 13: 21
      +1
      In my opinion, not saints, but martyrs, and, it seems, as a symbol of all those killed in the civil war. I agree with the children, but he and Alex, in my opinion, were ranked there in vain, they are one of the main culprits of what happened
    2. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 21 March 2013 13: 21
      +1
      Quote: Hamsin
      I believe Nicholas 2 betrayed the empire because of his weakness as a leader. And reckoning him as a saint is a mistake. He may have suffered martyrdom with his family, but because of his actions, millions have accepted death. The empire fell from the stupidity of Nicholas 2, whatever he wrote in his diaries, whatever he lived ... It was necessary to make clear decisions, even if cruel

      With a backward mind, we are all, as they say ... And why do you think Stalin was so tough already? Because he saw the inside of the revolution. And I couldn’t allow such a thing. Everything is here, absolutely ALL are shouting - go away and everything will work out, you alone are bothering us. What would you do in his place, seeing that no one supports you?
      1. maxvet
        maxvet 21 March 2013 14: 52
        0
        And again, personally, my opinion is, instead of Nikolai 2, IS Stalin is king, then .... But unfortunately history does not know the subjunctive mood, and in the West they are now equalizing Stalin with Hitler because they were afraid of Stalin to convulsions, and now they are acting out
      2. Selevc
        Selevc 21 March 2013 22: 04
        0
        Trapper 7 and you did not think about why at the beginning of the reign of Nicholas EVERYTHING supported him and at the end of the reign of NOBODY?
  22. shurup
    shurup 21 March 2013 14: 30
    0
    The abdication of Gorbachev, and then Yeltsin did not save the empire.
    On the contrary! It paved the way for the degeneration of democracies in Europe and the advent of radical Islamism.
    The construction of a mosque is also planned on the territory of the Kremlin.
    And what about Putin? Putin and his interim government wash five times a day, facing the ... ceiling and prepare for the Olympics.
  23. igordok
    igordok 21 March 2013 19: 38
    0
    Just documents.

    1. Selevc
      Selevc 21 March 2013 21: 57
      +4
      But actually, if Nicholas II was at least a little patriot of his country, he could at least end the war first and then abdicate ... Or at least promise to abdicate to the people but after the war ... He is one of the main the culprits of Russia’s entry into the world war ... And if millions of people died on the fronts, it was not clear that the state was on the edge of the abyss, especially to those who run this state? !!!

      No - the tsar’s abdication became the crown of his mediocre rule - the culmination of his insolvency as a tsar, as a leader and as a military leader and even just as a Russian person !!!
  24. Azzzwer
    Azzzwer 21 March 2013 21: 32
    0
    Author Oles Buzina

    but I thought that Ukraine is a separate state
  25. Comrade1945
    Comrade1945 21 March 2013 22: 07
    +4
    Gentlemen, good health to all.

    As for Nicholas II ... Ask any school teacher (I'm not talking about historians) what he / she thinks about this ruler, how he characterizes him in terms of managing our Russian State. So the answer you will receive, in the vast majority of cases, is concrete and direct as a cane: Nicholas II was a disgusting ruler, a worthless reformer and generally a weak-minded person, which for the Tsar, excuse me, is unforgivable at all.
    So all the talk about "oh, if only, and what would be," I consider absolutely useless, because this monarch would not have kept power in any case (no one knows how it could turn out).

    PS
    By Senka and hat.

    Good luck to everyone.
  26. tomket
    tomket 21 March 2013 23: 07
    0
    The situation that developed by 1917 cannot be called a mutual "scammer". In prayers for health, the church STEPS to mention the tsar and his family, the tsar then renounces, in fact, sends the church away, the military who took the oath to the tsar themselves are the reason for his abdication, since they, not Lenin, dissuaded him from abdicating. And the tsar, accepting the renunciation, essentially throws this very army to the mercy. The Cossacks are the king's support, in general they look at all this with their fingers, they would be home on the Don. Well, as a result, everyone paid for their mutual betrayal. The tsar was shot, the conspiratorial generals either died or were shot, the church was destroyed, the army devoured itself in the civil war. The Cossacks, the support of the tsar, without the tsar became useless to anyone, and the same was destroyed as an estate. Lenin and the Bolsheviks look against the background of all this as an instrument of retribution for the lie, betrayal and renunciation of the church by the people and the army.
    1. ia-ai00
      ia-ai00 22 March 2013 19: 59
      0
      First, the tsar for himself "replaced" the church with Rasputin's sermons, and in response, the church stopped mentioning the tsar and his family with his wife, who fiercely hated Russia and its people.
  27. studentmati
    studentmati 21 March 2013 23: 56
    0
    "The abdication of Nicholas II from the throne did not save the empire. On the contrary! It opened the way for the fall of monarchies in Europe and the arrival of Nazism. Power was seized by the demons of totalitarian regimes."

    Or maybe everything was inche? Aging monarchies simply could not keep power among the young Nazis? Everything has its time. If the ancestor failed to raise his outburst, then he gives way to him with all the ensuing consequences .... Dialectics ....
    1. tomket
      tomket 22 March 2013 00: 03
      +1
      in fact, there was a change in the signboards of these empires and the principle of the inheritance of power. The Russian empire reincarnated in the USSR and amazingly fast, Germany lagged a bit, but then unwound the expansion flywheel so that they couldn’t stop half the world, the Ottoman empire also got a second chance, but didn’t use it could.
      1. studentmati
        studentmati 22 March 2013 00: 06
        0
        Is something similar happening today? USA, European Union, Islamic world, Russia ....?
        1. tomket
          tomket 22 March 2013 00: 12
          0
          something is clearly happening, one place on the map is not enough (Turkey), others need to write off debts (America) and unfortunately many stories of small victorious wars do not teach anything, the fact that Libya got away with the European Union does not mean that the wick to the barrel of gunpowder under them ass put out.
  28. I think so
    I think so 22 March 2013 00: 08
    +2
    Nicholas is the weakest and most stupid king in history, well, also a bloody one (from stupidity). And the fact that the country threw him only for the benefit ... In recent history, its analogue - Gorbachev, who also foolishly plunged the country into the abyss of yet another chaos ...
    1. tomket
      tomket 22 March 2013 00: 17
      +1
      By the way, analogies are appropriate, and here and there the people and society were struggling with liberal freedoms, which led to the self-destruction of these very societies. Interestingly, well, some kind of siminarist-suffragette got the right to shout "Tsar-bloodsucker!" and threaten her fist in the direction of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. And in the morning her sailors pinned her like a counter with bayonets, and who got better from this?
  29. studentmati
    studentmati 22 March 2013 00: 23
    0
    Weakness, as a phenomenon, that in the body, that in politics, by definition, the process is growing, everything has its time ....
  30. darkman70
    darkman70 22 March 2013 01: 37
    +1
    The revolution would still have been, regardless of Nikolai's personality. It just would have happened either later or earlier. Do not forget that at the same time there were revolutions in many other European countries (and there was no Nicholas there) and if the wave of revolutions in Europe in 1848 swept Russia, then in 1917 it was the strongest. Revolutions do not happen just like that, it is a natural result of the socio-economic development of society, as Lenin put it "when the lower classes no longer want, but the upper classes can no longer," in other words, when the power hangs an anchor on the neck of progress and does not allow society to develop further .. And sooner or later people throw off this anchor. Autocracy by the beginning of the 20th century has outlived its usefulness.
    The article did not like, written in the spirit of primitive bourgeois idealism. Materialism is much more accurate in evaluating historical events.
  31. wax
    wax 22 March 2013 01: 45
    0
    It was necessary to renounce three years before the year, and not when the piece of paper on the abdication became a fact by a simple squiggle.
  32. Selevc
    Selevc 22 March 2013 09: 36
    0
    But actually, if Nicholas II was at least a little patriot of his country, he could at least end the war first and then abdicate ... Or at least promise to abdicate to the people but after the war ... He is one of the main the culprits of Russia’s entry into the world war ... And if millions of people died on the fronts, it was not clear that the state was on the edge of the abyss, especially to those who run this state? !!!

    No - the tsar’s abdication became the crown of his mediocre rule - the culmination of his insolvency as a tsar, as a leader and as a military leader and even just as a Russian person !!!
  33. wax
    wax 22 March 2013 11: 29
    0
    The German General Staff sent Lenin to Petrograd

    If on March 15, Nicholas II simply dismissed him and appointed another commander of the Northern Front, the revolution would be suppressed. If, in the same way, the king had dismissed the rebellious generals and appointed others in their place, he would have won the war already in the summer of 1917.

    FROM BOGROV TO THE HOLOCAUST. The furnaces of concentration camps were lit.

    Schizophrenia is of interest in itself as a disease, but its mental products are not of interest as sources of knowledge of reality.
  34. Selevc
    Selevc 22 March 2013 23: 13
    0
    Tsarist Russia has been a country of absolute monarchy for hundreds of years - that is, a country where much depended on the personal will of the tsar - vivid examples are Peter the 1st, Catherine the 2nd, Nikolai the 1st ... But by the beginning of the 20th century, absolute monarchy was like the system of power has completely degenerated in Russia, and other institutions of power such as parliament (the State Duma) were too weak and unpopular ... Therefore, a complete decomposition of the authorities and their inability to restore order in the country turned out to be the source of all the reasons for the 1917 revolution and its consequences. ..