"There is treason, cowardice and deceit all around"

23 022 99
"There is treason, cowardice and deceit all around"
Abdication of Nicholas II on March 2, 1917. In the royal carriage: Minister of the Court Baron Fredericks, General N. Ruzsky, V. V. Shulgin, A. I. Guchkov, Nicholas II.


General situation


The elite conspirators, the future Februaryist revolutionaries, planned a coup for the beginning of 1917 with the aim of overthrowing Emperor Nicholas II and forming a new regime – a constitutional monarchy or a republic following the example of “dear Europe” (How old Russia was broken).



For this purpose, the activities of the state security organs of that time were sabotaged: signals and information about the conspiracy, together with the names of the leading conspirators, went to the top, but did not reach the tsar. In particular, the Minister of Internal Affairs, Alexander Protopopov, not only did not take any measures against the conspirators, but also did not report all the information to the tsar in full.

A "street element" was also being prepared. In particular, a food shortage in the capital with a general abundance of food products in the country. Petrograd and its environs were filled with reserve battalions, whose soldiers did not want to go to the front. They were already beginning to disobey, did not follow the orders of officers, and resisted the police and the Cossacks. Another huge revolutionary nest became the Baltic fleet, whose crews practically did not fight and were greatly disorganized. Up to the point of anarchist sentiments dominating. A strike movement was also provoked.

At first, the coup did not take off. The Tsar promised to disperse the State Duma, the police broke up a couple of demonstrations. Law enforcement officers made preventive arrests of agitators at factories, and threw the workers' section of the Military-Industrial Committee into prison.

These measures were weak and inconsistent. The main conspirators were not touched. However, they showed that with decisive action, if at the head of the country at that time there was a person like Napoleon or Suvorov, who was not afraid of a little bloodshed in order to avoid a lot, then the conspiracy could have been crushed.

On February 22 (March 8), 1917, Nicholas II left Petrograd for Headquarters. The Petrograd Bolshevik Committee believed that the momentum had run out, gave orders to end the strikes and prepare for new actions. The Liberal Democrats were also bored. The leadership of the Cadets (constitutional democrats) celebrated the anniversary of their newspaper Rech in the Medved restaurant. Champagne flowed like a river, but they considered the latest round of the struggle against the autocracy to be lost.

The Bolsheviks generally believed that revolution in Russia during this period was still impossible. Their leaders were abroad, and their activists were in exile and prison.

Main sponsors and organizers


However, the then collective West needed a coup. Germany needed the collapse of the Russian Empire simply to survive. To get the opportunity to send divisions and resources from the Eastern (Russian) Front to the Western Front. To pump out material resources, gold and food from Russia. But the Germans believed that a coup in Russia could not happen before the autumn of 1917.

The Russian Empire was opposed by its "allies-partners" in the Entente - France, Britain and the USA. They first used Russia's potential to stop the German "steamroller" and save France. They used Russia as "cannon fodder", betting with the German world, and a "cash cow", pumping gold out of it.

At the same time, from the very beginning, Paris and London did not intend to share the “skin” of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey with Russia. To give the Russians Galician and Carpathian Rus (as part of Austria-Hungary), parts of Poland (as part of the Second Reich and Austria-Hungary), the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits, Constantinople, the lands historical Armenia and Georgia (Ottoman Empire). After the victory, Russia's power was to increase sharply in several strategic directions at once - in Central and Southern Europe, the Black Sea (it was turning into a Russian lake), the Caucasus, Anatolia and the Eastern Mediterranean. The French and the British used the Russians and at the same time feared the enormous power of the Russian Empire.

In the final stages of the First World War, using Russia's resources to contain the onslaught of the German world, the Westerners planned to overthrow the autocracy, dismember and rob Russia. To create in its place a series of colonial bantustans and banana republics dependent on the Western great powers. Russian wealth was needed to overcome another crisis of capitalism, to create a new world order led by England and the United States.

The coup was carried out in early 1917, since Germany was on the verge of defeat, and Austria-Hungary and Turkey had already been defeated and were holding the front only with the help of the Germans. It was impossible to allow Tsarist Russia to win and thereby gain a chance to carry out internal modernization.

Therefore, the Westerners, with the help of official diplomats, their agents and a network of Masonic lodges, prepared and organized the revolution in Russia. Among the conspirators were ministers and grand dukes, aristocrats and church hierarchs, large bankers and industrialists, representatives of leading parties and generals. Financing was provided through a branch of several banks, and the Russian Minister of Finance Pyotr Bark covered them up. The conspirators – the then Russian elite – were directed by the British and French ambassadors Buchanan and Paleologue. The American ambassador Francis kept to the side, but kept the situation under control.

A major role in the future revolution was also played by a major American businessman, banker Charles Richard Crane, an adviser to US President Woodrow Wilson on Russia. Crane acted in Russia as the personal representative of the American president. According to former ambassador to Germany William Dodd, Crane "did much to bring about the Kerensky revolution, which gave way to communism."

The Petrograd Conference of the Entente Allies in January-February 1917 was organized mainly for the purpose of preparing a coup. Along with the British Minister of War and banker Alfred Milner, a whole team of British intelligence officers arrived - Lockhart, Cromie, and others. The British also brought large sums of cash with them. The Hotel France, where the British delegation was accommodated, practically became the headquarters of the revolution. Russian conspirators came here for consultations.


Alfred Milner, 1st Viscount Milner (1854 - 1925) - British statesman, major industrialist and banker, Minister of War. One of the organizers of February

"Spontaneous Revolt"


Comrade (Deputy) Minister of Railways Lomonosov worked efficiently. There were snowdrifts on the roads, then frosts hit. The Ministry sent out instructions on the lines on what mode to keep the locomotives in. 1200 locomotives broke down (their pipes burst). Thousands of carriages, including those with food, were stuck at the stations. Petrograd was not threatened by famine. However, there were shortages with black bread.

Agents with British and American money began to stir up trouble in the queues. The city's "bottom", corrupted by the previous impunity, joined in. They robbed shops, stopped trams, and carried out wine cellars. Revolutionary activists joined in, stirring up the workers.

On February 24, General Sergei Khabalov, commander of the Petrograd Military District, received full power in the capital. The man, who had virtually no combat experience and had made a career as a staff officer and chief of the military education system, was confused and did nothing. Or he himself was involved in the conspiracy. The head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Protopopov, sent the tsar cheerful reports for three days, holding back information. The activities of the "siloviki" were sabotaged. There were no decisive leaders, as well as loyal units. Golitsyn's weak government was paralyzed.

Only on February 25 (March 10), 1917, information about the rebellion in the capital reached the Tsar from private individuals and officers who had arrived at Headquarters. Nicholas II ordered Golitsyn to dissolve the Duma and Khabalov to stop the unrest.

But it was too late. On the night of February 27, the reserve battalions of the Pavlovsky and Volynsky regiments rebelled. An armed mass of many thousands poured down the street, killing those officers and policemen who did not understand the situation at the time. They were joined by workers, students, and residents of the city's "bottom". They smashed police stations and prisons. Criminals joined the riot. The rebels occupied the arsenal, stealing tens of thousands of rifles and ammunition.

Khabalov had 150 thousand soldiers, military schools, but he fell into prostration. He considered the regiments unreliable and ordered them to sit in the barracks. It is possible that this was deliberate sabotage.


One of the organizers of the February Revolution, Charles Richard Crane (1858 - 1939), a major American businessman and banker, advisor to US President Woodrow Wilson on Russia.

The end of autocracy


The government did nothing. Protopopov suggested "self-dissolution". The ministers submitted a collective resignation and went home.

There was complete chaos in the capital. The Duma refused to disband, but there was also confusion in it. The majority of deputies believed that the elements and pogroms had to be stopped. The Chairman of the State Duma Rodzianko believed that the monarchy had to be preserved, he wandered around the city, spoke at rallies.

The socialist deputies believed that the coup should be led, and formed the Petrograd Soviet. Nikolai Chkheidze, the leader of the Social Democratic (Menshevik) faction, became the head of the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet, and the comrades (deputies) of the chairman were the Menshevik Matvei Skobelev and the Socialist Revolutionary Alexander Kerensky (all three were members of the IV State Duma and Masons).

The liberal democrats were quite ready for the coup and created their own center of power. On February 27 (March 12), the Provisional Committee of the State Duma was formed ("Committee of members of the State Duma for the establishment of order in the capital and for communication with persons and institutions"), headed by Rodzianko. It included N. V. Nekrasov (Cadet), I. I. Dmitryukov (Duma Secretary, Left Octobrist), V. A. Rzhevsky (Progressive), N. S. Chkheidze (at the same time Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, Social Democrat), A. F. Kerensky (at the same time Deputy Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet, Socialist Revolutionary Trudovik), P. N. Milyukov (Cadet), A. I. Konovalov (Progressive), M. A. Karaulov (Independent), S. I. Shidlovsky (Chairman of the Bureau of the Progressive Bloc, head of the Left Octobrist faction), V. V. Shulgin (leader of the "progressive Russian nationalists" faction in the Duma), V. N. Lvov (Chairman of the Center faction in the Duma), and B. A. Engelhardt (commandant of the Petrograd garrison).

They began to form their own government, to seize control. Commissars were appointed to manage the ministries, military, food and other commissions were formed. The Provisional Committee assumed the rights of a legitimate monarch.

On March 1 (14), Rodzianko appealed to the active army and navy to continue the fight. On the same day, the Provisional Committee received de facto recognition from the governments of Great Britain and France.


Members of the Provisional Committee of the State Duma. Sitting (from left to right): V. N. Lvov, V. A. Rzhevsky, S. I. Shidlovsky, M. V. Rodzianko. Standing: V. V. Shulgin, I. I. Dmitryukov, B. A. Engelhardt (commandant of the Petrograd garrison), A. F. Kerensky, M. A. Karaulov.

Renunciation


In general, nothing had been lost yet. Petrograd is far from being the whole of Russia. And several reserve regiments are not the whole army. To disperse the soldiers who did not want to fight, the city crowd, one or two regular divisions were enough while the unrest was still in its infancy. It is enough to remember how the Paris Commune was crushed in France.

All the levers of control were concentrated at Headquarters. Nicholas II entrusted his favorite, General Nikolai Ivanov, to lead the punitive expedition to Petrograd. He was given the St. George Battalion, and four regiments were sent from each front.

However, the Tsar himself made a mistake - he decided to leave Headquarters and go to Tsarskoe Selo. There was a family there, for whom Nikolai Alexandrovich was very worried. And there, on the approaches to the capital, loyal troops were supposed to arrive.

This was a fatal mistake. The Tsar immediately lost control, decisions were already being made behind his back. General Ivanov hesitated. The Tsar's echelon was sent not to the capital, where it was possible to gather loyal forces, but to Pskov, the headquarters of the Northern Front. To the conspirator Ruzsky.

On the way and at the headquarters of the Northern Front, Tsar Nicholas was properly processed. They reported that all commanders and troops were against him, although this was a deception. The Tsar could well have gathered loyal forces, and those who wavered in such a situation simply would not have dared to act against, to break their oath.

At first, Nikolai agreed to a "responsible ministry." From the Dno station (a symbolic name), the tsar sent a telegram to the Duma, inviting Rodzianko along with Prime Minister Golitsyn and a candidate for the post of head of government. The telegram did not reach Rodzianko, it was intercepted. Guchkov and Shulgin went to the tsar, bringing a list of the government, which the entire Duma had allegedly approved.

Ruzsky, Guchkov and Shulgin put pressure on the Tsar. They said that the Fatherland had to be saved, the crowd had to be pacified. The only way was abdication. This was the demand of the Duma, the public and the people. They lied that the uprising was taking place throughout the country. The Tsar's connections were cut off, they went through Ruzsky's headquarters, where they could correct any information.

The bluff was brazen and assertive, and Nikolai Alexandrovich broke. On March 2 (15), 1917, in Pskov, while in a train carriage, Nikolai II abdicated the throne in favor of his brother Mikhail Alexandrovich. At the same time, the emperor signed decrees appointing Prince Lvov as head of government, and Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich as supreme commander-in-chief. Nikolai II also abdicated the throne for his heir, Alexei Nikolaevich, in violation of the coronation manifesto of Emperor Paul I of April 5, 1797, which provided for the possibility of abdication only for the ruler, but did not provide for the possibility of abdication for the heir.

On this day, Nikolai made an entry in his diary:

“In the morning, Ruzsky came and read his long conversation with Rodzianko over the telephone. According to him, the situation in Petrograd was such that the ministry from the Duma was now powerless to do anything, since the Social Democratic Party, represented by the workers’ committee, was fighting against it. My abdication was needed. Ruzsky passed this conversation on to headquarters, and Alekseyev to all the commanders-in-chief. By 2:1 p.m., responses had arrived from everyone. The gist of it was that in the name of saving Russia and keeping the army at the front calm, it was necessary to decide on this step. I agreed. Headquarters sent a draft of the manifesto. In the evening, Guchkov and Shulgin arrived from Petrograd, with whom I had a talk and gave them the signed and revised manifesto. At one o’clock in the morning, I left Pskov with a heavy feeling of what I had been through. There was treason, cowardice, and deceit all around!”

No one arrested Nikolai. He freely returned to Headquarters and personally announced his abdication.

Negotiations were also held with Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. He was afraid to take power, to become "bloody" by suppressing unrest in the capital. They proposed the idea of ​​a Constituent Assembly, which would express the will of the people. On March 3 (16), the Grand Duke renounced supreme power until the Constituent Assembly made a decision. In the meantime, power was transferred to the Provisional Government. Supreme Commander-in-Chief Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich called on the army to wait for "the expression of the will of the Russian people." At that time, many believed that Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich would become the new tsar.

The last bond had fallen, Pandora's box was open. The Great Russian Time of Troubles began in the country, which destroyed the great power and took millions of lives.


Abdication of Emperor Nicholas II. March 2, 1917. Typescript. In the lower right corner, in pencil, the signature of Nicholas II: Nicholas; in the lower left corner, in black ink over the pencil, the certification inscription by V. B. Frederiks: Minister of the Imperial Court, Adjutant General Count Frederiks.
99 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    26 May 2025 04: 12
    It would be very good for the current leadership of Russia to repeat the extracurricular reading of historical materials and facts of that time. In order not to repeat the mistakes of the past ... Otherwise, very vivid analogies with modern times come to mind
    1. +1
      12 September 2025 13: 07
      Quote from: FoBoss_VM
      extracurricular reading of historical materials and facts

      The article is more reminiscent of the fairy tales of the khrustobakovniks than historical materials. The context of the events is quite distorted, some facts that do not fit into the desired picture are simply discarded, unfounded statements without references. Well, such facts. I especially liked the ode about the abundance of food in the cities. Let me remind you that the tsar had already applied the food tax by this time, because there was not enough food.
  2. +6
    26 May 2025 04: 30
    However, the then collective West needed a coup
    With Germany and Austria-Hungary everything is clear. А Russia's allies - the Entente, why was the coup needed? So that the entire Eastern Front of Germany would move to the West? wink
    1. +6
      26 May 2025 06: 37
      Quote: Luminman
      And why did Russia’s allies, the Entente, need a coup?
      At the very least, Germany needed him. As they say now, "agents of foreign influence", there were many Germans in Russia, and it was possible to influence how and by whom, among other things. In addition, the evil irony is that the Russian tsarinas were German, and the emperors were half-breeds. It would seem that we should be friends with Germany, but no. The fact that Russia ended up in the Entente, and not in an alliance with Germany, is the merit of the Anglo-Saxons. It is amazing that literally not long ago, Britain was bullying Russia, arming the Japanese and pitting them against each other in war, and our emperor, after the war lost to Japan, the revolution of 1905, harnesses himself for Britain, gets into the Entente. This is "talent". Witte's activities can also be considered Russia's misfortune, with dragging Russia into the gold standard, again under England, with the rejection of the stable and prosperous silver ruble, which was under Alexander III. In any case, by 1914 a world conflict was brewing, where Germany and Britain were supposed to fight for leadership in capitalism, and blocs were being put together for this purpose. And, in any case, tsarist Russia was in no way pulling to encroach on the primacy in the world of strengthening capitalism, and, in any case, a strong Russia was not needed by anyone in this rivalry, and it would not have been able to sit out this "grandiose mess" in the redistribution of the world. All those toasting to the "golden, log Rus'", with the Tsar-father and the "raspberry ringing" of bell towers, must understand that what happened was natural. We are lucky that the pro-Western February Revolution was replaced by October, otherwise, Chubais, Gaidars and Yeltsins would have appeared not in 1991, with the legacy of a space and nuclear superpower, but already in 1917, in a war-ravaged, semi-literate country, with technical dependence on the West, from which the Tsar-father also took out pre-war and war loans. If we had no longer had Mother Russia, everything would have collapsed. And now, the Soviet margin of safety is running out, and the renegades have not created anything fundamentally new, they are eating up Soviet achievements, under fireworks and holidays. Although the West taught them to feign success and promote themselves. Who are our main agents of foreign influence? Those who have money in foreign banks and foreign currency, who have everything in the West and with the West. So you think about how we can win with such an "elite" that a new February 1917 or March 1801 is looming...
      1. +3
        27 May 2025 08: 43
        The fact that Russia ended up in the Entente, and not in an alliance with Germany, is the merit of the Anglo-Saxons.

        This is a very controversial issue. The German Empire was formed at the time when the Russian Empire did not pay attention to Europe, after the defeat in the Crimea. Although the Anglo-Saxons tried to drag it into the quarrel. After the Russian Empire, they gave the go-ahead for the revival of the Black Sea Fleet and some other goodies.
        But that's not even the point. Wilhelm dreamed of unification with Austria-Hungary. And that's what put an end to friendship with the Russian Empire, because we were at loggerheads with the Austrians.
    2. +6
      26 May 2025 10: 16
      Quote: Luminman
      And why did Russia’s allies, the Entente, need a coup?

      Germany's defeat was already a matter of not too long. So why share the spoils, and robbing a former ally for them is also not bad at all, and there are many other goodies. The Entente has only pluses and not a single minus.
      1. +5
        26 May 2025 11: 25
        Quote: qqqq
        Germany's defeat was no longer a matter of time.

        Yeah... so close that the Allies traditionally put pressure on Russia in the spring of 1917, demanding another major offensive. In February, at the Petrograd Conference, the French directly demanded: as soon as possible and with maximum resources begin the offensive no later than March 15.
        The campaign of 1917 must be waged with the utmost effort and with the use of all available means in order to create a situation in which the decisive success of the Allies would be beyond any doubt.

        Well, that's a cool strategy: first demand that the eastern ally launch a major offensive, and then immediately arrange a revolution there - just before the Nivelle Massacre and before the Yankees arrive.
        1. +2
          26 May 2025 14: 15
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Yeah... so close that the Allies in the spring of 1917 traditionally put pressure on Russia, demanding another major offensive.

          And why not? Why sacrifice your soldiers when you can force others to do the same.
          1. +1
            26 May 2025 15: 21
            Quote: qqqq
            And why not? Why sacrifice your soldiers when you can force others to do the same.

            Oh yeah...
            In culture and development, the French and Russians are not on the same level. Russia is one of the most backward countries in the world. Compare our army with this ignorant and unconscious mass: all our soldiers are educated, the front ranks are occupied by young forces who have proven themselves in science and art, talented and refined people, they are the cream of humanity. From this point of view, our losses are much more sensitive than Russian losses.
            © Maurice Paleologue. Ambassador's Diary. 1916. Saturday, April 1.

            But there is one question: if the collective West decided not to share the goodies and to stage a coup in Russia, then who will attack? Who will shed their blood instead of the talented and refined people of the West?
            1. +1
              26 May 2025 15: 57
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Who will shed their blood instead of the talented and refined people of the West?

              Everything that could be spilled has already been spilled. History has confirmed this. Russia has practically left the war and nothing terrible has happened for the Entente. Once again, only goodies. What the collective West, or rather Britain, can do is plan for the future. All history and the present confirm this.
              1. +1
                27 May 2025 10: 21
                Quote: qqqq
                Everything that could be spilled has already been spilled.

                Of course. There was enough blood in Russia for the June offensive and the Civil War.
                And if they helped suppress the elite, then the June offensive in Tsarist Russia would have gone as always - they would have pulled back the Germans and shed blood for the enlightened West.

                And most importantly, why would the West need to organize a revolution in Russia if it already has a great way to put pressure on the Empire:
                1. +2
                  27 May 2025 13: 52
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  And most importantly, why would the West need to organize a revolution in Russia if it already has a great way to put pressure on the Empire:

                  Don't disturb the imperialists from raving about the straits. It's better not to disturb the sick.
                  1. 0
                    27 May 2025 16: 05
                    Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                    Don't stop the imperialists from raving about the straits.

                    Yes, yes, having fallen apart into small regions-states, we will immediately start living like in a fairy tale. After all, it is already possible to compare life in the empire and on its ruins. With all the disadvantages of the first option, it is still much better and safer than the second option. Well, only if you yourself are not in the ranks of the marauders of the ruins.
                2. +1
                  27 May 2025 16: 01
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  And most importantly, why would the West need to organize a revolution in Russia if it already has a great way to put pressure on the Empire?

                  The idea was to bring liberals to power so that they would help (not interfere) to rob the country, which, by the way, February demonstrated. It's just one idea, but the result may be different. Others came to power, who revived the empire. In the 90s it worked out and immediately the empire fell apart, we still can't clean it up. Looking at the 90s, you can see the idea of ​​the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917. And for this it was necessary to throw us out of the ranks of the victors. Letting the war end on this list would stifle any revolution at its roots.
                  1. 0
                    27 May 2025 18: 45
                    Quote: qqqq
                    And for this it was necessary to throw us out of the list of winners. Letting the war end on this list would stifle any revolution at its roots.

                    The end of the war in the camp of the victors would still have created a revolutionary situation. Because the land issue has not been resolved, and we have tens of millions of men who know how to not only shoot, but also kill. And to them - the same men in the junior officer corps, who replaced the gentlemen from the upper classes, knocked out during the war.
                    So either a revolution from above, which Familia and the fat cats won't agree to. Or a redistribution of lands from below, which will quickly develop into that very Pushkin "Russian rebellion".
                    And with such a Russia, the Allies have no reason to keep the agreements. They will quickly convene another "Berlin Congress" and redistribute the Versailles legacy.
                    1. +1
                      27 May 2025 22: 43
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      The end of the war in the victors' camp would still have created a revolutionary situation.

                      The revolutionary situation was generated by the policy of tsarism, victory or defeat could not have generated it in any way. Victory would have postponed the revolution for some period of time, during which it is quite possible that many things could have changed. Defeat made revolutionary actions inevitable at the current moment in time.
            2. -1
              27 May 2025 08: 42
              In terms of culture and development, the French and Russians are not on the same level. Russia is one of the most backward countries in the world.
              Maurice Paleologue. 1916

              French Greyhound pride.

              And this was written when we already had Leo Tolstoy, P.I. Tchaikovsky and D. Mendeleev!
      2. +1
        26 May 2025 16: 36
        Quote: qqqq
        So why share the loot, and robbing a former ally for them is also not bad at all, and there are many other goodies
        The plot you describe should have happened after the war, but not during it! Russia, in all likelihood, was destined to suffer the fate of Italy, which was promised mountains of gold before the war, and then at the Versailles Conference it threw, without fulfilling even half of their promises...
        1. 0
          26 May 2025 22: 14
          Quote: Luminman
          The plot you describe should have taken place after the war, but not during it!

          After the war, this will no longer work, Russia is not Italy, and the contribution of the Russian Empire is much greater. It is for this reason that the empire must be broken during the BD in order to legally exclude it from the list of winners. From the point of view of the West, everything was done very timely.
        2. +1
          26 May 2025 22: 18
          Russia, in all likelihood, was destined to suffer the same fate as Italy, which was promised mountains of gold before the war and then abandoned at the Versailles Conference

          The Treaty of Versailles provided for the right of Russia (and the countries that emerged in place of Russia) to receive reparations from Germany.
          1. 0
            20 June 2025 20: 37
            Well, of course, under the Treaty of Versailles, the allies would have given Russia more than themselves.))) Yeah, we see the face of the West.
            The idea of ​​how Russia should have annexed Constantinople without annexing Bulgaria and Romania is extremely interesting...
            And they would have fought with Ataturk and the Turks for him after WWI. Yeah, and to the right of the statue of Ataturk in Istanbul would have been not Voroshilov and Aralov, but some Curzon and Churchill.
    3. +3
      26 May 2025 10: 36
      Quote: Luminman
      However, the then collective West needed a coup
      With Germany and Austria-Hungary everything is clear. А Russia's allies - the Entente, why was the coup needed? So that the entire Eastern Front of Germany would move to the West? wink

      Well, the Februaryists in terms of war quite continued the course of the empire - war to a victorious end. Another thing is that the Petrograd Soviet got involved in this issue, and no one could have taken this factor into account in advance)
      1. +2
        26 May 2025 15: 25
        Quote: Trapper7
        Well, the Februaryists in terms of war quite continued the course of the empire - war to a victorious end. Another thing is that the Petrograd Soviet got involved in this issue, and no one could have taken this factor into account in advance)

        Well... February was made by fairy-tale wise men. They decided to use the armed people to break the state apparatus and the system of coercion, naively assuming that after everything was over, these people would calmly go home or go to die further at the front.
      2. 0
        26 May 2025 16: 15
        Well, the Februaryists in terms of war quite continued the course of the empire - war to a victorious end. Another thing is that the Petrograd Soviet got involved in this topic,
        Is the Petrograd Soviet really to blame? And when in the summer of 1917 Brusilov became commander in chief, introduced the death penalty at the front for failure to follow orders and tried to advance, his attempts ended in nothing. And he resigned, there was such a medical fact.
        1. +1
          26 May 2025 18: 32
          Quote: Aviator_
          Is the Petrograd Soviet really to blame? And when Brusilov became commander-in-chief in the summer of 1917

          The decay from Order No. 1 has already metastasized too deeply
          1. 0
            26 May 2025 18: 39
            The decay from Order No. 1 has already metastasized too deeply
            The disintegration occurred because of the unresolved land issue. The peasants were obliged to pay land redemption payments until 1925, only the revolution of 1905 freed them from this. But there was no solution to the land issue. There was only the food tax of 1916.
    4. +1
      26 May 2025 13: 42
      In order not to share with Russia the "goodies" received from victory. In order not to give it the straits, Transcaucasia, the western part of Poland.
      1. +1
        26 May 2025 16: 38
        Quote: Vik_Vik
        In order not to share with Russia the "goodies" received from the victory. In order not to give it the straits, Transcaucasia, the western part of Poland
        They would certainly have done all this, but only after the war...
        1. 0
          26 May 2025 22: 16
          Quote: Luminman
          They would certainly have done all this, but only after the war...

          After the war they could have thrown us out, but if we had wiped ourselves with the missing part of Poland, then if they had had enough determination they would not have been able to prevent us from taking the straits ourselves. Moreover, with the end of the war the window of opportunity to divide Russia itself would have closed.
    5. 0
      27 May 2025 08: 28
      It is not the students and nihilists, nor the soldiers, etc. who are the danger. The danger for the government, as always, is in the so-called elite (which is usually not an elite) who are ready to betray both the Emperor and the General Secretary for profit and money, and no matter what the name of the first person in the state is, it does not matter. They will give up, betray, forgetting that they ate from their hands, looked into their eyes, and grabbed money - in a word, scum. Only a ruler who is ready to shed the blood of the elite is able to maintain power.
  3. +6
    26 May 2025 04: 39
    The enemies of the USSR are adjusting the history of our country and people and their anti-Soviet period, starting with their Perestroika, to suit what is beneficial to them - they slandered the Soviet period, the October Revolution, and cowardly shifted the responsibility for their seizure of the USSR onto those from whom they took it.
    For the sake of profit, in their lying anti-Sovietism they falsified the reign of Nicholas II, throwing out from it all the same facts that they, with their hypocritical “righteous anger” and “philanthropy,” presented as the crimes of those from whom they took the USSR.
    Now they have gotten to the "Februaryists". And they, by the way, are that very "gene pool and the cream of the nation" - the rich and the richest, who are so praised by the enemies of the USSR.
    No one forced Nicholas II to abdicate; he voluntarily abandoned the country and the people, whom he had plunged into the First World War in order to help France and Serbia.
  4. +5
    26 May 2025 04: 42
    Kerensky and his government did not "give way to the communists" at all. Such nonsense can only occur to historians today. Or maybe the military in February 1917 simply understood the true position of Russia on the fronts and the internal situation in the country better than Nicholas and believed that their road was the main one, and did not dream of "giving way" to someone?

    The author "forgot" about an important event - the December 1917 conference of the Entente countries in Paris. Which opened the lines of financing to all forces and organizations ready to act against Lenin's government. And divided Russia into zones of responsibility between the members of the Entente.
    Germany also pursued a similar policy... At one time, Denikin’s government even had its own representative office in Berlin.
    1. +1
      26 May 2025 04: 57
      Yes, it turns out that the enemies of the Bolsheviks, the White Guards, were not only collaborators, cooperating with the invaders who occupied their country, but also enemies of Russia, accomplices of those who wanted to dismember Russia and plunder it.
      From the "Book of Memories" of Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich:
      “Apparently, the 'Allies' are going to turn Russia into a British colony,” Trotsky wrote in one of his proclamations to the Red Army. And was he not right this time? inflict a fatal blow on Russia by distributing the most flourishing Russian regions to the allies and their vassals.
    2. +3
      26 May 2025 10: 39
      Quote: sidorov
      Or maybe the military in February 1917 simply understood Russia's true position on the front lines and the internal situation in the country better than Nicholas did.

      Then it would be military coup, and not the bourgeois nonsense that actually happened.
    3. +2
      26 May 2025 11: 52
      Such nonsense can only come to the minds of historians today.

      Pop Shevkunov defended his doctoral dissertation on the basis of this nonsense. laughing
    4. +1
      26 May 2025 22: 26
      Which opened up funding lines to all forces and organizations ready to oppose Lenin’s government.

      But should they have been for the government of Lenin, who arrived in Russia with the help of the Germans and wanted to make peace with the Germans?
      At one time, Denikin’s government even had its own representative office in Berlin.

      Denikin's government already existed after the end of the world war- in 1919-20.
  5. -1
    26 May 2025 04: 56
    It was not for nothing that Rasputin warned Nicholas II not to enter into war with Germany by any means. He also tried in every way to convince him to conclude a separate peace with Germany and almost convinced him, for which he was killed. After that, they took on Nicholas II, who showed himself to be a very weak and trusting leader.
    1. 0
      26 May 2025 22: 40
      He also tried in every possible way to convince him to conclude a separate peace with Germany and almost convinced him, for which he was killed.

      Rasputin was openly pro-German and was in favor of handing over Russian territories to Germany. Some people really didn't like that.
  6. +4
    26 May 2025 05: 00
    The revolution in Russia was a natural consequence, not a natural occurrence. The civil war showed this. Hunger and slavery pushed the people to fight against the autocracy. The heroism of the workers during the civil war only confirms this idea.
    1. +1
      26 May 2025 15: 58
      The opinions of former leaders of the White movement (P.N. Wrangel, A.I. Denikin, A.P. Budberg), who had monarchist views, are interesting. A.I. Denikin: "The revolution was inevitable, it is called nationwide... the revolution was the result of dissatisfaction with the old government of absolutely all strata of the population." This is where the main reason lies.
      For this reason, there was a "conspiracy" of generals, and the leadership of the State Duma worked to remove the emperor. Was the food shortage created artificially? Yes, just like the USSR. But the "shell famine" is a cost of the system. Yes, foreign intelligence services participated in the conspiracy. But why during the Great Patriotic War did the population of the rear of the USSR also live in hunger on ration cards, but the whole country supported I. Stalin? Then there was a binding idea, but in 1917 there was none. The government lost the trust of society.
      1. +1
        27 May 2025 14: 05
        Quote: Alexander Odintsov
        But why during the Great Patriotic War did the population of the USSR's rear also live in hunger on ration cards, but the whole country supported I. Stalin?

        But what about the legendary penal battalions, penal detachments, dispossession, famines, gulags, Cheka, NKVD, SMERSH commissars, etc.?
        1. -1
          11 July 2025 13: 27
          Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
          But what about the legendary penal battalions, penal detachments, dispossession, famines, gulags, Cheka, NKVD, SMERSH commissars, etc.?

          back then it was not accepted to talk about it and it was simply dangerous
  7. +7
    26 May 2025 05: 14
    For some reason, the Author did not mention the Russian Orthodox Church, which literally changed its tune and immediately stopped the prayerful mention of the "Anointed of God" and his family in churches. I wonder if the churchmen were privy to the conspiracy, since the Church in Russia at that time had a great influence on society.
    1. +3
      26 May 2025 05: 28
      And at the same time, the churchmen also declared the February Revolution to be "the will of God." Just a week after the abdication of Nicholas II, they issued an appeal to the people with the words "the will of God has been done, Russia has entered a new path..."
    2. +1
      26 May 2025 14: 52
      The exchange of non-interference of the church in changing the political structure of society in exchange for non-interference of the new government in changing the structure of the church. The restoration of the patriarchate began to be discussed in the summer of 1917 at the All-Russian Local Council and on November 17 a decision was made to restore the patriarchate
  8. + 11
    26 May 2025 05: 48
    The author did not mention that in 1916 the food tax was introduced, that large producers hid grain expecting prices to rise, and even more so about the numerous hunger riots of women in grain regions, in the same 1916. The "Masons, Spudents and Sicilians" are to blame for everything (c). And finally, why did the numerous monarchist organizations sponsored by the government not come out to defend the autocracy?
    1. +2
      27 May 2025 14: 10
      Quote: parusnik
      And finally, why didn’t the numerous monarchist organizations that were sponsored by the government come out to defend the autocracy?

      The machinations of reptilians from the German General Staff on the payroll of British intelligence, nothing less.
  9. +6
    26 May 2025 06: 12
    The weak king suddenly found himself without a single strong figure nearby who could support and reason with the king during his abdication. There were only swindlers and enemies around.

    This, in particular, intersects with the current expression: the tsar is good, the boyars are bad.
    The only difference is that back then the bad boyars were against the tsar. Now they are for him. They are doing well.
    1. man
      +2
      26 May 2025 08: 36
      This, in particular, intersects with the current expression: the tsar is good, the boyars are bad.
      The only difference is that back then the bad boyars were against the tsar. Now they are for him. They are doing well.

      Putin, to his credit, turned out to be smarter than Nikolai and 10 years ago began generously "greasing" the boyars... he took into account the mistakes of the last emperor... time will tell whether this is good or bad...
    2. +2
      26 May 2025 09: 41
      This, in particular, intersects with the current expression: the tsar is good, the boyars are bad.

      This is not only current. This is one of the pillars of faith in Russia since time immemorial.
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Вера_в_доброго_царя
    3. -4
      26 May 2025 11: 00
      However, the difference now is simply colossal, there is no such monstrous inequality between different strata of the population, there are no classes enshrined in law. Take the average Russian citizen and a hypothetical Rotenberg, the difference will only be in the amount of money, but at the same time they will have more or less the same level of education, the average Russian citizen has most likely traveled abroad at least once (in 2024, according to the Russian Union of Travel Industry, 22 million Russian tourists traveled abroad), the average Russian citizen does not suffer from malnutrition, has access to more basic needs (housing, hot water, medicine, transportation, etc.).
      And now let's compare the average citizen of the Russian Empire and the hypothetical Grand Duke Georgy Mikhailovich Romanov, the difference will be not only in money, but also in the availability of basic needs, so in my opinion, in the Russian Empire, the revolution was inevitable and the collapse of the dynastic monarchy and class society, but now in Russia the maximum that can happen is the so-called "color revolution", where not the state system changes, but some elites will displace others.
    4. +1
      26 May 2025 15: 59
      Who did not warn Emperor Nicholas II that the country was heading for the abyss: philosophers, economists, members of the Duma, generals, diplomats, ambassadors, and even members of the royal family. "To avoid a catastrophe, it was necessary to change the principle of governing the country by calling to power those who enjoyed the people's trust.... As terrible as it is, the government... is preparing a revolution,... is using all possible measures to make as many dissatisfied people as possible..." Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, from an address to Emperor Nicholas II (4.02.1917. XNUMX). Well, what in response? Here is the opinion of philosopher Vasily Vasilyevich Rozanov: "Rus' disappeared in two, three days at most. There was no kingdom left, no Church left, no army left, and no workers left. What was left? Strangely enough, literally nothing."
  10. +4
    26 May 2025 06: 35
    The last bond had fallen, Pandora's box was open. The Great Russian Time of Troubles began in the country, which destroyed the great power and took millions of lives.
    - Samsonov should write a libretto for the opera.
  11. +2
    26 May 2025 06: 54
    Everything started spinning in the autumn of 1916, when Nicholas II, via Sweden and Switzerland, began to test the waters through diplomatic and intelligence channels in the direction of concluding a separate peace with Germany (for the information of those who believe that the Russian Empire almost won WWI). The reaction of the Entente was immediate - a stake on an anti-monarchist conspiracy in the circles of Russian liberals and the industrial bourgeoisie, support - through diplomatic channels and Masonic structures (Freemasonry as an elite political club, without the prefix "Jewish" and other stereotypes). By that time, Nicholas II enjoyed near-zero authority and near-zero support (the result of 20 years of rule) - everyone turned away from him, except for the dyed-in-the-wool Black Hundreds: the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie, the army, the church, liberals and democrats, the proletariat and the peasantry. At the same time, Nicholas II assessed the situation quite soberly - realizing that the throne could no longer be saved, he rushed to Tsarskoe Selo to save his family. Yes, and the Tsar had no loyal troops.
  12. -6
    26 May 2025 07: 56
    Elite conspirators, future Februaryist revolutionaries, appointed at the beginning 1917 coup

    The "conspiracy" documents- where? Oh, they don't exist... Just like the "conspiracy": Februaryists caught up events, trying to take control of the elements. The author should take the chronology of events and make sure of this...

    At the same time, from the very beginning, Paris and London did not intend to give the Russians the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits, Constantinople, the lands of historical Armenia and Georgia (the Ottoman Empire

    The author should have known that the Allies guaranteed Turkey's territorial non-conformity from the very beginning if it did not enter the war.

    The Emperor's mistake, yes, was leaving Headquarters.
    1. man
      0
      26 May 2025 08: 45
      The author should have known that the Allies guaranteed Turkey's territorial non-conformity from the very beginning if it did not enter the war.

      But she still joined, didn't she?
      1. 0
        26 May 2025 10: 21
        Quote: mann
        But she still joined, didn't she?

        the author writes: "from the very beginning". So from the very beginning it was completely opposite to the author: the allies guaranteed the territorial non-consensus of Turkey if it did not enter the war, the straits were not promised to anyone and they were not fought for.

        And indeed, the Ottomans hesitated and attacked only after 2 months.
        1. man
          +1
          26 May 2025 11: 20
          Quote: Olgovich
          Quote: mann
          But she still joined, didn't she?

          the author writes: "from the very beginning". So from the very beginning it was completely opposite to the author: the allies guaranteed the territorial non-consensus of Turkey if it did not enter the war, the straits were not promised to anyone and they were not fought for.

          And indeed, the Ottomans hesitated and attacked only after 2 months.

          October 30th, according to Wikipedia, but that doesn't matter. smile
      2. 0
        26 May 2025 10: 22
        Quote: mann
        But she still joined, didn't she?
        No. She was forced there by Germany in 1915.
        1. +4
          26 May 2025 11: 00
          Quote: Dutchman Michel
          Quote: mann
          But she still joined, didn't she?
          No. She was forced there by Germany in 1915.

          In October 1914, they attacked Sevastopol and other ports and officially entered the war.
          1. +1
            26 May 2025 14: 45
            Quote: Trapper7
            In October 1914, they attacked Sevastopol and other ports and officially entered the war.
            The crews were German!
            1. +2
              26 May 2025 15: 28
              Quote: Dutchman Michel
              The crews were German!

              Yeah... at the same time, the Germans wrote that the initiative to start the war came from the Turkish side, specifically from Enver Pasha.
    2. +2
      26 May 2025 10: 49
      The Emperor's mistake, yes, was leaving Headquarters.


      The Emperor's mistake was to ignore the living conditions of 90% of his empire's subjects; such a monstrous division between people does not exist even now in advanced capitalist countries. At that time, the collapse of the empire was inevitable, on the one hand, the old class elite, which would not want to voluntarily "share" on the other hand, at least 80% of people who lived in houses with earthen floors.
      The Russian Empire of those years was generally a country of “paradoxes”: on the one hand, there was good technological development and potentially good opportunities for growth, on the other hand, there was a catastrophically poor population with a low level of education; all this represented an explosive mixture.
    3. 0
      26 May 2025 11: 02
      Quote: Olgovich
      Where are the "conspiracy" documents? Oh, they're not there...

      so comrades-gentlemen, come and sign the document of familiarization with the protocol on the date of the coup))))
      1. 0
        26 May 2025 15: 58
        Quote: Trapper7
        so comrades-gentlemen, let's come

        Citizens! — said Ostap, opening the meeting. — Life dictates its own laws, its own cruel laws. I will not tell you about the purpose of our meeting — you know it. The purpose is sacred. We hear groans from everywhere. From all corners of our vast country they are calling for help. We must extend a helping hand, and we will))(c) lol
    4. +1
      26 May 2025 19: 50
      Quote: Olgovich
      The Emperor's mistake, yes, was leaving Headquarters.

      Nicholas II's mistake was to abdicate under pressure. It's mind-boggling: to abdicate power in the third year of a world war! I just can't understand that. Where and when did it happen that a supreme ruler resigned during a war?
      If someone had suggested that Peter the Great abdicate during the war with Sweden, they would have cut off his head on the spot.
      And this one signed a piece of paper with a pencil. And that's it... HOW?... Why?.... It's incomprehensible. What was he thinking, what was he hoping for?...
      Why didn't you give the order to the convoy to arrest and immediately shoot this entire delegation? The convoy would have carried out such an order without question and without thinking. He would have ruined himself and his entire family.
    5. DO
      -1
      27 May 2025 14: 06
      Quote: Olgovich
      The Emperor's mistake, yes, was leaving Headquarters.

      Nicholas II's mistake was to leave the capital for Headquarters.
      Because, firstly, if the tsar were in the capital of the Russian Empire, he would have in his hands all the tools to prevent a rebellion.
      Secondly, the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief at Headquarters, Adjutant General Alekseyev, was among the conspirators and was one of the main organizers of the isolation of Nicholas2. Having arrived at Headquarters, Nicholas2 found himself in the power of traitors, and essentially drove himself into the trap of a classic Russian palace coup. From which, ultimately, there were only two ways out - abdication, or being killed by the conspirators like Paul1.
      And the isolation of Nicholas II during his departure from Headquarters to the capital was just one, the most convenient option for the conspirators for a palace coup of all possible ones.
      1. 0
        28 May 2025 10: 08
        Quote: DO
        conspirators

        Please list the so-called conspirators, when the conspiracy was created, documents, evidence 1 to March.
        1. DO
          0
          28 May 2025 16: 31
          Quote: Olgovich
          Please list the so-called conspirators, when the conspiracy was created, documents, evidence (...).

          Conspirators? For starters, just Google the list of people who forced Nicholas II to abdicate (there is even a photo of the Tsar against the backdrop of this gang). Documents? Google telegrams to the Tsar from generals, demanding his abdication. Google the atmosphere about a year before the palace coup, when regicide was openly discussed at many aristocratic tables.
          About the Generals of the Headquarters:
          Quote: https://spb.tsargrad.tv/articles/imperator-nikolaj-ii-v-stavke-i-ego-otezd-v-carskoe-selo_51523
          It can be assumed that late in the evening of February 27, Nicholas II realized the existence of a military conspiracy against him at Headquarters. According to General A.S. Lukomsky, the Tsar, “while in Mogilev, did not feel solid support in his chief of staff, General Alekseev.” The Emperor decided to break through to Tsarskoye Selo at any cost, where the loyal units he was sending from the front were supposed to arrive.
          As soon as the General Staff learned that Nicholas II wanted to leave immediately, powerful pressure began to be put on him not to leave Mogilev. Late in the evening, Lukomsky went to Alekseyev and began to insist that he go to the Tsar and dissuade him from returning to Tsarskoye Selo. Alekseyev immediately went to the Tsar, but he firmly decided to go.
          V. N. Voeikov recalled that, having learned from him about the Tsar's upcoming departure, Alekseev, with a "sly expression on his face" and a "sly smile," asked: "But how will he travel? Will a whole battalion really follow in front of the train to clear the way?". Voeikov immediately went to the Tsar and told him about the “mysterious conversation with Alekseev,” trying to “dissuade His Majesty from going under such circumstances,” but “was met with an unwavering decision on the part of the Tsar to return to Tsarskoye Selo at all costs.”
          Emperor Nicholas II considered it necessary to misinform Alekseyev before leaving, telling him that he had decided to stay in Mogilev. This news satisfied General Alekseyev. But the Emperor, without informing the Chief of Staff, left for his train at night.
          General P.K. Kondzerovsky recalled that on the night of February 27, he "was still awake when I heard a loud roar from the rapid movement of several cars. Rushing to the window, I saw the Tsar's car rushing past at full speed in the direction of the station, followed by all the cars with the Retinue. It was clear that the Tsar was leaving Headquarters. This departure in the dead of night made a terrible impression."
          No less unusually gloomy was the impression made by the Imperial train itself, which stood at the station platform “in complete darkness, without a single light, with the windows tightly curtained.” There was no sign of the usual security on the platform. The Emperor, accompanied by Voeikov and the duty aide-de-camp arrived at his own train at about 1:15 a.m. on February 28. It was obvious that the Tsar's departure was hasty and as secret as possible.

          In world history, for such betrayal of a monarch, especially in wartime, in any state the punishment was the gallows, if not something worse.
          Alas, Nicholas II did not want to shed a little blood of traitors for the sake of saving millions of his subjects (according to various estimates, from 2 to 7 million).
          Or at least abdicate not in favor of Prince Mikhail, who was even more weak-willed than he was, but transfer power to someone who had the character and determination to at least try to prevent the catastrophe of the Russian Empire.
          1. 0
            29 May 2025 10: 20
            you confirmed - no conspirators, no documents (there are no telegrams to the Tsar), no evidence - NOTHING before March 1.
            1. DO
              0
              29 May 2025 10: 51
              Quote: Olgovich
              you confirmed - no conspirators, no documents (there are no telegrams to the Tsar), no evidence - NOTHING before March 1.

              Quote: Google
              "Conspiracy" may mean:
              A secret agreement to act together against someone:
              Usually against the government or the existing order, with the aim of seizing power or committing other organized actions

              The key word here is SECRET. What documents should remain about the palace conspiracy, its goals and participants, written and signed BEFORE ITS COMMITMENT? After all, for such a thing one could end up in a noose, like the Decembrists.
              The Tsar was isolated at a remote railway station and forced to sign an abdication. There are a dime a dozen documents and testimonies about who organized the isolation and forced Nicholas II to abdicate (when it became a safe occupation).
              Therefore, your position seems very strange to me personally. In your opinion, if before March 1 the conspirators did not draw up a document about their goals and did not sign it in blood, then there was no conspiracy? Like Nicholas II got lost on the way from Headquarters to Tsarskoe Selo, and tired of being the emperor, sent the empire to hell and wrote an abdication? :)))
              1. 0
                30 May 2025 12: 08
                Quote: DO
                In your opinion, if before March 1 the conspirators did not draw up a document about their goals and did not sign it in blood, then there was no conspiracy?

                there was none. Because there were no actions, movements, agreements before March 1st - NOTHING
                1. DO
                  0
                  30 May 2025 13: 26
                  Olgovich, your assertion is unsubstantiated. Because "actions, movements, agreements" for the purpose of a coup d'etat, before its commission, are documented only by madmen participants.
                  But most importantly, your statements, reminiscent of theories about the “random origin of life”, are devoid of any logic and common sense.
                  Be healthy.
  13. man
    0
    26 May 2025 08: 41
    The Great Russian Time of Troubles began in the country, which destroyed a great power and took millions of lives.
    But as a result of which the Greatest... was built.
  14. +5
    26 May 2025 09: 23
    The author exaggerated about the food abundance in the country, not just exaggerated a little, but wrote a complete lie. Anyone interested, digging through the vastness of the Internet, will find both historical and archival materials showing that both the rear and the front were on the verge of famine.
    1. +4
      26 May 2025 11: 33
      Quote: Simplication
      The author exaggerated about the food abundance in the country, not just exaggerated a little, but wrote a complete lie. Anyone interested, digging through the vastness of the Internet, will find both historical and archival materials showing that both the rear and the front were on the verge of famine.

      The devil is simply in the details. Along the shaft There was food in the country. But by 1917, transport was clearly unable to cope with the shipments, so the food was in one place, and the eaters were in another.
      And it was the same not only with food, but also with weapons and ammunition. The production and supplies from abroad on paper more than covered the expenses at the front, but only a little bit reached the front. A good example is Arkhangelsk: so much stuff was stuck in the warehouses there that it was enough for the Bolsheviks to arm their forces in the North-West, and then for the Whites to fight off the Bolsheviks. And the British had to destroy the rest so that it wouldn't fall into the wrong hands.
      1. 0
        26 May 2025 12: 02
        The British had to destroy the rest so that it wouldn't fall into the wrong hands.

        Into what wrong hands? There was a third force in Arkhangelsk. According to the meaning of your comment, it turns out that first the Reds robbed the English, then the Whites.. But then the English saw a third force.. and acted as in the play The Dowry, "so don't let anyone have you" (c) laughing
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. +3
    26 May 2025 09: 38
    https://pda.iarex.ru/articles/54713.html
    Dry squeeze on food.
  17. +6
    26 May 2025 10: 06
    Is the West to blame again for the fact that the French rolls have run out? How many times do I have to repeat: revolutions are not exported or imported. They are not a commodity, but a mechanism for changing the economic, social and political foundations of society. Revolutions only occur when there are prerequisites and conditions for their implementation. Here, social classes, led by their political organizations, act, and not sponsors from anywhere. Only state coups (pseudonym - "color revolutions") are carried out for money, when one group of the class in power pushes another group away from this power.
    1. +2
      26 May 2025 11: 03
      Well, February 1917 is a classic coup.
      1. +4
        26 May 2025 11: 19
        February and October are just months and dates of some events, and not revolutions themselves. After the events of February, a bourgeois-democratic revolution was supposed to begin, that is, the reorganization of society for life under the conditions of bourgeois democracy, but the Russian bourgeoisie actually did not change anything in the life of society. Not a single bourgeois party led the process of transition to a new bourgeois order. And the bourgeoisie themselves preferred the life of the "new aristocracy and landowners" and did not make efforts for the so-called "democratization". That is why the proletariat, in alliance with the peasantry and under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party, were able to overthrow the government of the bourgeoisie, and then begin to create their new world.
        1. -1
          26 May 2025 11: 39
          How well written good

          The text of my comment is too short and, in the opinion of the site administration, does not carry useful information.
      2. +1
        26 May 2025 14: 56
        Well, February 1917 is a classic coup
        This is exactly what it was called until 1927, until Stalin came up with a name for it: Great October, etc.
        1. -5
          26 May 2025 15: 12
          You are not even able to understand what you have read. And those who call the October Revolution a coup are not able to explain what a revolution is.
          And to your counter-revolution with the goal of returning to what was before the October Revolution, all of you, to a man, have "nothing to do with it"
          Well, there is nothing normal about you, neither in the history of our country and people, nor in your anti-Soviet period. Because you yourselves, the enemies of the USSR, are an anomaly.
          1. +4
            26 May 2025 17: 31
            Quote: tatra
            And those who call the October Revolution a coup are not able to explain what a revolution is.
            This is exactly what the leader V. I. Lenin called it, the revolution – the October Revolution. wink
  18. +2
    26 May 2025 11: 03
    He was more concerned about his family than the state.
    Neither saved one nor the other.
    If he had saved the state, he would have saved the family.
    But the chicken logic of fussing over eggs is most unsuitable for a statesman.
    We all see another example, the tragic story of Stalin’s family, who never resolved state issues in favor of the family.
  19. -1
    26 May 2025 12: 43
    Alexander II was a good-natured man, he understood people, was ready for changes and did not want to spend much time on state affairs. His reign is an era of great reforms.
    Alexander III wanted to establish order. He worked hard and knew how to "build" his subordinates. Order was established, but contradictions were not resolved.

    Nicholas II was lazy, had no understanding of people. He trusted no one except his wife, was convinced of his messianic role and sought to control everything. A model combination of incompetence and conceit.

    Balmont was right:
    Our king is a blind wretchedness,
    Prison and whip, trial, execution,
    King of the gallows, twice as low
    What he promised, but did not dare to give.

    He is a coward, he feels with a hesitation,
    But it will happen – the hour of reckoning awaits.
    Who began to reign - Khodynka,
    He will end up standing on the scaffold.
  20. 0
    26 May 2025 13: 31
    "There is treason, cowardice and deceit all around"
    .
    To identify and punish traitors, to organize the country and the people, to select honest assistants is the direct responsibility of the supreme power. If the supreme power does nothing, but by its very existence blocks all political initiatives from below, then only foreign-financed politicians will sprout.
    The struggle for power never ends. Nikolashka first gave power to his entourage de facto, and then this situation was formalized de jure during the February Revolution.
    The trouble is that power went to foreign-funded weaklings... who were then replaced by other foreign-funded, even worse destroyers of Russia.
    1. -2
      26 May 2025 13: 46
      You can immediately see a person with the mentality of enemies of the USSR, who had nothing and no one in the history of our country and people, and they themselves cowardly “had nothing to do” with their seizure of the USSR, and their dismemberment, de facto, of centuries-old Russia, and everything that they did after that, who really like to blame others, but never admit guilt for their crimes.
  21. +1
    26 May 2025 14: 24
    One to one with today
  22. 0
    26 May 2025 15: 58
    The Tsar could well have gathered loyal forces, and those who wavered in such a situation would simply not have dared to speak out against him and break their oath.
    What are these interesting?!
  23. +1
    26 May 2025 16: 40
    Hmm?! Well, well...
    Ignatiev, "Fifty Years in Service":
    "The high dark blue nose of the Shtandart at that moment already appeared from behind the rock.
    - They are transmitting from the yacht: "Do not accept the envoy on board!" - the commander of one of the Swedish destroyers transmits in Swedish.
    Petrov conveys this "order" to Budberg in a gentle manner. The proud but disciplined baron remains silent and only turns even redder. We hold a naval council and decide to follow in the wake of the Shtandart, which is not particularly pleasant because of the wave it raises.
    As it turned out later, they didn’t want to let us into the highest breakfast.
    This is how Nicholas II received his representative."
    Nikolai Alexandrovich was showing off so much that no one even thought to stand up for him.
  24. +1
    27 May 2025 01: 07
    When it becomes clear from the first lines that the author basically denies the objectively materialistic approach to explaining such complex and comprehensive phenomena of social life as revolutions, and reduces everything to a primitive "conspiracy of the Judeo-Masons under the leadership of the reptilians from Nabiru", you understand that the whole point is in reading the comments, and not the article itself. It's somehow strange to post such gems on such a site, it's not like this is a forum of alternative historians, here they can throw them in a Panama hat.
    1. +1
      12 October 2025 21: 57
      Materials like these are a way to manipulate public opinion with the goal of "the Soviets screwed everything up and are generally crap, but the Tsar-father was awesome!"
  25. +2
    27 May 2025 07: 06
    Quote: Silhouette
    Quote: Olgovich
    The Emperor's mistake, yes, was leaving Headquarters.

    Nicholas II's mistake was to abdicate under pressure. It's mind-boggling: to abdicate power in the third year of a world war! I just can't understand that. Where and when did it happen that a supreme ruler resigned during a war?
    If someone had suggested that Peter the Great abdicate during the war with Sweden, they would have cut off his head on the spot.
    And this one signed a piece of paper with a pencil. And that's it... HOW?... Why?.... It's incomprehensible. What was he thinking, what was he hoping for?...
    Why didn't you give the order to the convoy to arrest and immediately shoot this entire delegation? The convoy would have carried out such an order without question and without thinking. He would have ruined himself and his entire family.

    And do you seriously think that this would change anything?
  26. +1
    27 May 2025 12: 31
    In particular, there is a food shortage in the capital despite the general abundance of food products in the country.

    Oops...it turns out there was plenty in Russia in 1917...what a country we lost...complete madness
  27. 0
    18 August 2025 10: 32
    "There is treason, cowardice and deceit all around"

    It's strange, but it looks like 2024-2025.
  28. 0
    12 October 2025 21: 55
    Another fantasy on the theme of "the Holy Tsar and the worthless people"! And would you care to take into account the previous 300 years under the Romanovs, author? Your premise is a bit short.
  29. 0
    20 October 2025 15: 45
    Holy Tsar Nikolai Other Romanovs are shipped and valued in Srbia (whose breed of Romanovs is still alive throughout the world). We honestly pray for them.