Military Review

The last Emperor

200



“Fate was not as cruel to any state as it was to Russia. Her ship went to the bottom when the harbor was already in sight. ”
Winston Churchill


20 August 2000 year in the Moscow Cathedral of Christ the Savior in the presence of numerous representatives of the Orthodox Churches passed the catholic glorification of the royal family, as Russian confessors and martyrs of the twentieth century. The act of this reads: “To glorify ... the royal family: Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexander, Tsarevich Alexy, the great princes Mary, Olga, Anastasia and Tatiana. In the last Russian monarch and members of his family, you can see people who sincerely tried to translate the commandments of the Gospel into life. ”

Despite the fact that more than one year has passed since the adoption of this decision, discussions about whether the last emperor of our country should be considered holy should continue in Russian society to this day. Often, various experts express their statements that, perhaps, the Russian Orthodox Church “was mistaken” by taking Nicholas II and his family in full strength to the name of saints.

History the life of the sovereign served as the basis for a huge amount of research conducted by professional historians. On the basis of the collected material was written many wonderful articles and books, filmed documentaries and programs. Nevertheless, taking into account the enormous amount of myths created by Soviet historiography with the aim of denigrating autocracy, the personality of the last Russian tsar still remains extremely controversial. Despite all the achievements of the state activity of Nicholas II, even contemporaries attributed to him "weak-willed and weak character", the inability to lead a huge country, the blame for the tragedy of the shooting of workers and "Bloody Sunday", the defeat in the Russian-Japanese war and World Power Invasion.

The last Emperor
Grand Duke Nikolai Aleksandrovich at the age of 3


Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov was born on May 6 of 1868 in Tsarskoye Selo. He is the eldest son of Alexander III and his wife, Empress Maria. After Nicholas was eight years old, his homework began. At the heart of the curriculum lay a modified program of the classical gymnasium. It covered an eight-year general education course, as well as a five-year cycle of higher sciences. The future king studied zoology, mineralogy, botany, physiology, anatomy, history, Russian literature and foreign languages. The higher education course included law, political economy, strategy, military law, the service of the General Staff and military geography. In addition, there were classes in fencing, music, drawing, bearing, good manners, riding and dancing. Alexander III and his wife themselves found teachers and educators. It is therefore not surprising that among them were the most prominent scientists, military and government leaders of their time: M.I. Dragomirov, K.P. Pobedonostsev, N.N. Obruchev, N.H. Bunge, N.K. Girs and many others. Chemistry Nicholas taught famous Beketov, Cui read the theory of fortifications.

Tsarevich Nikolai Aleksandrovich. 1889 year


As a young man, Nikolai Alexandrovich, he was Nicholas II, resolutely refused to grow up. Contemporaries noted with surprise, like a crown prince, having exchanged the third ten years, he played hide and seek in the palace, rushing about the rooms, sweeping away everything in its path. Alexander III himself said to the Minister of Finance Witte: “Sergei Yurievich, you see, my son was late in his development. He is a blockhead, what to look for. ” In spite of the fact that the future emperor was a very capable student, General Dragomirov, who gave tactics lessons to the Tsarevich, sometimes openly angrily stated: “Not in horse feed. He is fit to sit on the throne, but he is not free to stand at the head of the state ... ”


From an early age, Nikolai paid a lot of attention to physical improvement. All my life, the last Russian tsar was distinguished by excellent health and remarkable strength, he loved to swim in icy water and never got sick. He was small — one meter seventy centimeters. It is well known that, despite his excellent physique, surrounded by his tall relatives, Nikolai felt some awkwardness, even inferiority.

Coronation of Emperor Nicholas II. Held on Tuesday 14 (26) May 1896, in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. Chevalier Guardsman to the left of the Emperor - K. Mannerheim


By the age of majority, the future king brilliantly knew Russian classical literature and European languages. From the clothes he chose the Russian style, he often quoted Pushkin, he considered Gogol to be his favorite writer. He also appreciated the ballet, adored listening to Tchaikovsky and Wagner, independently put the “Ring of the Nibelungs” on the imperial stage. And the young tsar was experiencing a strange craving for military affairs: he knew perfectly not only military regulations, but also numerous traditions of the officer environment. In his youth, Nicholas did not miss a single officer's party, hunting or military parade. He treated the soldiers patronizingly, did not avoid contact with them, easily endured the inconvenience of military life at gatherings or maneuvers.
He took the throne on October 21 on October 1894 at the age of twenty-six, one day after the death of his father. On the eve of his coronation in May 1896, posters were posted to inform residents that there would be free festivities on the Khodynka field. The royal presents were wrapped in calico kerchiefs, inside were pieces of sausage, codfish, gingerbread and a mug with a date in order to preserve the memory of Nicholas among the people forever. People were invited to ten in the morning, but local tramps and beggars began to gather on the field in the evening. Behind them to the onset of darkness, ordinary citizens, eager for gifts, also caught up. During the night, the crowd grew to enormous size, according to police, at midnight more than five hundred thousand people settled on Khodynka. At dawn, seeing the huge crowd of people, the police, as well as soldiers and officers of the regiments, specially sent to maintain order during the festivities, were confused. In violation of the program, the royal presents were decided not to distribute at eleven o'clock in the afternoon, but at six in the morning. There was also a rumor in the crowd that the bartenders were hiding gifts for “their own”. The crowd reacted immediately. Crushing temporary wooden barriers, people rushed to the buffets, they grabbed presents and ran away. Accidentally fallen instantly choking on the pressing masses. The result of the "festivities" on the Khodynka field was more than one thousand two hundred dead people. About the same number received terrible injuries.



Clever people asked the king to declare mourning and transfer the coronation, but her husband, Alexandra Fedorovna, was against it. Perhaps it was because of her influence that Nicholas II continued the celebration. Despite the fact that many at the court of the king did not approve of the actions, the magnificent series of fine dinners and balls was not canceled. It is still unclear what prompted the king to make such a decision: indifference to the people, limited mind or "blind" love.
However, from 1897-th to 1914-th year, the growth of Russia's population increased by a huge number of fifty and a half million people. For the same time, the budget of public education has increased by six hundred percent, the number of higher schools has increased by one hundred and eighty percent, secondary schools - by two hundred thirty, and public schools - by one hundred percent. Surprisingly, in Russia of those years, ten thousand schools were opened every year, and more newspapers and magazines were produced than in the 1988 year in the USSR. Despite all this, Nicholas II got the nickname "Bloody" among the people. And to the wine for the horrible events of Khodynka, was added Bloody Sunday and Lensky shooting.

According to the historical data of January 9, the workers of the Putilov factory with banners, icons and royal portraits headed in a procession to Palace Square. Their goal was to meet the sovereign and worship him. They were filled with joy, made prayer chants. The meeting with the emperor was prepared and organized by the Social Democrats, apparently with the goal of publicizing their own political demands through the mouths of the workers. But on that day, Nicholas II was not in Petersburg, on January 8 he left for Tsarskoye Selo. People gathered in the square naively waited for the king to appear. Time passed, no one left, the people began to worry and get angry. It is not known for certain who first opened fire on that day: provocateurs from the crowd or gendarmes. There was panic, confusion and crush. As a result, the tragedy played out, according to various estimates, from one hundred to one hundred thirty people died, three times more wounded. Shocked by Nicholas II ordered to allocate fifty thousand rubles to the families of the victims and injured, a special commission was organized to investigate the case.

Adhering to the generally accepted scientific point of view, we can say that the Russian tsar was the "sovereign" of more than one hundred and eighty million "subjects." Legally, this is quite true, but psychologically not quite. The emperor is the only person in Russia who did not have the freedom of conscience. He could not accept any other religion besides Orthodoxy, could not openly speak his thoughts, for his every word “created history”. Even the freedom of movement he did not have. Of course, he lived in a palace and did not stand in line for bread. However, people who have palaces on duty, for some reason often prefer to run away from them. Nicholas II, most likely, was the richest man in the world. Revolutionary propaganda showed his civil list of thirty million rubles a year to everyone. However, due to these millions there were the best theaters in the world - the imperial ones. Prices there were only seventeen kopecks. It is also known that this money was used to irrigate desert lands, supported scientific research, paid pensions to prominent Russian state and cultural figures, for example, the family of Leo Tolstoy.


The next failure of the last Russian emperor is the defeat of the country in the Russo-Japanese war. The war with Japan was very similar to the Crimean one - similar enemy sea communications, underestimation of the enemy, fantastic distances between the state and the front (eight thousand miles along the only unfinished railway), and (which is never mentioned in history books) monstrous quartermaster robbery. It is known that in the Crimean War "left" even straw for the infirmary left, while in the Japanese the whole divisions fought in felt boots on cardboard soles. In World, this lesson was learned, the defendant quartermaster caught and hung packs, the theft soon came to naught.

Due to their combat effectiveness and efficiency, the Russian army and navy were not ready for war, the emperor did not have time to carry out the necessary political and economic reforms, did not build a dialogue with representatives of various classes that had taken shape in Russia at that time. The defeat “caused” the 1905-1907-year revolution, which led to the strongest destabilization of society and shaken the centuries-old foundations of the Russian state system.

Emperor Nicholas II and the commander of the regiment, Major General N.M. Kisilevsky bypass the system. Tsarskoye Selo. 17 May 1909 of the year


Emperor Nicholas II conducts a review of the Life Guard Cuirassier Regiment. Tsarskoye Selo. 1911 year


On the destroyer "Emir of Bukhara." Finland, 1912 year


Russian tsars suffered losses greater than, for example, infantry in the First World War - out of six kings (from Paul I to Nicholas II) three died at their post: Paul I, Alexander II and Nicholas II, that is exactly fifty percent. Years later, historians declared Paul insane, Alexander II a reactionary, Nicholas II a fool and a drunkard. However, there is a different opinion - each of the Russian tsars was killed not at all for reaction, insanity, loss of war, or anything else: they were all killed for the Russian peasantry. After all, Paul initiated his release, Alexander - finished, and Nikolai eliminated the remnants of inequality.


Having learned the sad results of the Russo-Japanese war, the emperor did a great job of restoring Russian fleet and strengthening the country's defense capabilities. It was a difficult and, unfortunately, forgotten feat of both Nicholas II and his state apparatus. By the time of the onset of a new, World War II, the economy of Russia was experiencing an unprecedented rise. The agricultural sector strengthened (Stolypin reform), Russia became the leading European exporter of agricultural products. A large industry was actively forming: cities were expanding, new enterprises appeared, and railways were built. The personal actions of Nicholas II include the introduction of a normalized working day, workers insurance, a provision on universal primary education, and support for the development of science in the country. From 1894 to 1914, the state budget grew five and a half times, the gold reserve - almost four times, the Russian currency was one of the most stable in the world. At the same time, government revenues grew without increasing taxes.

Paradoxically, but at the same time popular unrest constantly passed through the country. In January, the first revolution took place on 1905, as a result of which, by mid-October of the same year, the manifesto imposed on the emperor “On the improvement of state order” was adopted. He expanded civil liberties, allowed the organization of parties, and also justified the creation of a parliament consisting of the State Duma and the State Council. Thus, Russia began to slowly but surely turn into a constitutional monarchy. However, the sovereign, as before, had gigantic powers: he had the right to issue laws, appoint ministers (who reported only to him), determine the country's foreign policy, head the army and court, be the patron saint of the Orthodox Church.

Emperor Nicholas II among the officers of the Headquarters. Mogilyov. August 1915 of the year


Testing the plow in the presence of Emperor Nicholas II


The Emperor accepts a parade of parts of the 3 of the horse corps. Second left, with a sword at his feet, General Earl Keller


If you get acquainted with the memoirs of the contemporaries of the emperor (both Russian and foreigners), then you can see extremely contradictory assessments of the personality of Nicholas II. Among the closest associates of the king, it was widely believed that his gentle and kind intellectual, a family man, was completely controlled by his wife, a German by nationality, Alice of Hesse-Darmstadt. Indeed, in communication, unlike his father, Alexander III, Nikolai gave the impression of being a weak-willed person. However, at the same time, there is plenty of evidence that the emperor has repeatedly sought the fulfillment of his intentions, with persistence he went to the intended goal. In particular, Emile Loubet, the French president, wrote that "under ostentatious timidity, Nicholas II has a courageous heart and a strong soul." Some people who knew the Tsar closely said that "the emperor has an iron hand, but only many are deceived by the look of a velvet glove worn on her." The tsar also has exceptional self-control, perhaps this explains the strange composure with which Nicholas II received news of the death of people or the defeat of the Russian army.

However, contemporaries saw well that the management of a huge country was nevertheless a “heavy burden” for the sovereign. And this is despite his natural perseverance and accuracy, good memory and observation. Not being a reformer by nature, the emperor had to constantly make important decisions, many of which did not meet his inner convictions. Historians believe that the king found his happiness in the family circle. He greatly valued the welfare of his loved ones. Empress Alexandra Fedorovna was his support, had a great influence on the views, habits and cultural interests of the spouse.

From 1907 year in the royal family appeared old man Gregory Rasputin. And although it has not yet been established what role he played in the state life of the Russian Empire, his enormous authority and influence on the tsar is indisputable. And in aristocratic circles with might and main walked gossip about the queen - Rasputin's mistress. The masses are also firmly seized on these speculations. By the beginning of the war, the emphasis on the Tsar's wife — a traitor and a spy — had switched to Nicholas II himself. People were surprised how he sees nothing right in front of his nose, he suffers a traitor Rasputin and a traitor to his wife. From here followed only one conclusion - the king is a rag and needs to be changed.

The turning point in the fate of Nicholas II was the beginning of the First World War. The emperor did not want her, tried to delay. He said that Russia, unlike Germany, was not ready. However, the Russian Tsar, like all reasonable people in the country, understood very well that a collision was inevitable. In 1914, the German military machine was the limit of virtually half a century of concentration of all the forces of the state. Like sports training, all the forces of the country were raised to the limit of physiological possibilities. You can not raise more and can not keep on this level further. Germany, Wilhelm had to either speak or forget about performances. Similarly, in the 1941 year, Hitler could not wait. In 1939, the Germans ate one by one Poland and the Netherlands, and then Belgium and, most importantly, France. In the 1914 year, the situation on the French front was very similar, the Chief of General Staff Joffre shot entire divisions in order to keep the troops at the front. The German army was moving west with great speed, and because of the distance our mobilization did not have time. Nicholas II, on his own initiative, sent the army of Samsonov to certain death. She died, but Paris and France were saved. This, in turn, did not give an opportunity to unite against Russia, Germany, Austria, Turkey and avoid the tragedy of the 1941-1945s. After this, the armies burrowed into the ground, on all fronts military leaders of approximately equal talent acted, no one had any advantage for a long time.

Emperor Nicholas II (in front) and the Chief of the Russian Navy and Naval Department Grand Duke Alexey Alexandrovich bypass the command of the Don Cossack squadron


After a long period of military setbacks since August 1915, the king focused entirely on command of the troops and planning military operations. Nicholas rarely appeared in the capital, spending most of his time at his headquarters in Mogilev. On the nature of the military command of Nicholas II go a variety of judgments. There are opinions that his sovereign leadership was purely nominal. However, there are other data, first of all, regarding the 1917 summer campaign plan. It is known that Nicholas II offered his headquarters to focus its main efforts on the destruction of the allies of Germany - Bulgaria and Turkey. The emperor claimed that it was necessary to beat the enemy where he was the weakest. For this, a landing was planned near Constantinople and in Romania, as well as a coordinated performance with the Allies in the Balkans. A year later, the Allies partially implemented the plan of Nicholas, the Fourth Union collapsed, only Russia was no longer among the winners. The war revealed the accumulated internal problems of the country. The protracted military campaign, the failures at the front were mainly attributed to the king and his associates. It was rumored that the government "became a nest of traitors." And at this time (January 1917-th year), the highest military command, together with the headquarters of the British and French, was preparing a plan for a general offensive. General N.A. Lokhvitsky said: “It took Peter the Great nine years to turn the Narva defeated people into Poltava winners. Emperor Nicholas II did the same work in a year and a half, but a revolution arose between the Sovereign, his Army and the Victory. ”

At the end of February 1917 of the year in St. Petersburg began folk performances. Having met with no serious resistance from the authorities, in a couple of days the insurrections escalated into mass uprisings against the government. Learning about this, Nicholas II decided to disperse the strikers by force, but when he found out the true scale of the unrest, he immediately abandoned this venture. Perhaps he understood the futility of this attempt, and maybe he was horrified, imagining the size of the bloodshed that threatened.

Under pressure from high-ranking military officials, members of his retinue, and various political figures, Nicholas II abdicated the throne. It happened 2 March 1917-th year in the car of the imperial train near Pskov. Thus, his duty to the Fatherland was violated, and the country was transferred into the hands of the Bolsheviks. If the renunciation of the anointed king really took place, it is a church-canonical crime, like the refusal of the representative of the Orthodox Church from his dignity. One "but." Modern historians have not found evidence of the very fact of the abdication of the throne. The only document stored in the State Archives is a printed leaflet about the abdication with the signature in a pencil “Nikolai” and circled in pen. The signature of Count Fredericks, who was minister of the Imperial Court, was also inscribed in pencil and pen.

There is an opinion that, already being in captivity by the Bolsheviks, the emperor could save himself and his family life. For this, he only needed to approve the Brest Peace. However, he refused.




9 March All members of the royal family were arrested. The first five months they were kept in Tsarskoye Selo, and in August they were transported to Tobolsk. In April, the 1918 of the year the Romanovs ended up in Yekaterinburg. Around midnight 16 July 1918 of the year, Yankel Yurovsky, the commandant of the House of Special Purpose, gave the order to wake the sleeping Nikolai, the queen, five children and several approximate (only eleven people) and tell them to dress and go down to the basement under the pretext of protecting from shelling. White troops. The king did not answer this, only asked to take two chairs - for himself and his wife. He carried his sick son in his arms. All under escort was taken to the semi-basement room six by five meters. Behind the Romanovs came the firing squad. Yurovsky immediately solemnly read the decision of the Ural Executive Committee. Everything became finally clear when the visitors raised weapon. Women tried to cross themselves, shots rang out, then on the already fallen bodies. When the smoke blocked the electric light, the shooting was stopped. But some members of the royal family were still alive. The soldiers stabbed them with bayonets on rifles ....

Immediately after the February Revolution, a powerful PR campaign began to completely discredit the last Russian monarch. Nicholas II was appointed personally responsible for the Khodyn tragedy and 9 in January, the defeat of the army and navy in the Russian-Japanese war, many punitive actions and military field courts, the Lensky shooting and Jewish pogroms, drawing the country into the First World, mediocre leadership in the war. The former king was portrayed before new generations by a bloody despot, a drunkard, a moral monster capable of domestic murder, not to mention other crimes. The first defeats of the Russians during the war years, according to the assurances of the Soviet political workers, were due to the tsar's criminal behavior, direct betrayal and even absurd thought, espionage in favor of Germany.

If we consider the specific results of the reign of Nicholas II, then they really ended in failure. However, the causes and nature of these failures are closely related to world historical processes. After all, the revolution at the end of the First World War began not only in Russia. The centuries-old thrones of the Ottomans, Hapsburgs, Hohenzollerns fell. Disappeared Turkish and Austrian empires. The fermentation began even in the victor countries. The disintegration of the general colonial system began.

The fact that Nicholas II, both as a person and as a representative of the tradition, was a man with rather average abilities. However, right up to the grave he tried to honestly and honestly do everything he could or could for the country. He failed, he made many mistakes. Today, many of them look pretty obvious, but at the time they did not seem so. At the end of his reign, Nicholas II faced a task that was truly insoluble for him: it was necessary to fight both Germany and the remnants of noble privileges, and in the very rear he had a new intelligentsia growing and becoming stronger. The only link between the emperor and the people is purely moral. Even the Church, broken by Nikon's reforms, had already lost its own voice and public authority.

The last Russian tsar is often accused of completely opposite sins. For example, because he was too slowly pursuing liberal reforms, and, at the same time, was too soft in relation to revolutionaries. Indeed, he could be more cruel, could be an extremist on the throne, could by all means fight for his power and drown the country in rivers of blood. He did not do this, and if this is his fault, then, thank God, he had such flaws. It is well known that most of all the emperor wanted peace, but there was no perfect peace with him, and without him there was much less peace.

Information sources:
http://www.razlib.ru/istorija/sud_vremeni_vypuski_01_11/p6.php
http://to-name.ru/biography/nikolaj-2.htm
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/smi/42025.htm
http://gosudarstvo.voskres.ru/slnvch1.htm
Author:
200 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Soldier
    Soldier 3 July 2013 08: 45 New
    16
    ,, The emperor could not, could not, could not cope, but tried so hard ... ,, Will I cry with emotion. Does Yeltsin remind anyone? He, too, tried,. And the people are right. Ivan 4 was nicknamed Grozny, and Nikolashka- bloody. And who saw this pseudo-power of 1913? A small layer of courtiers and those close to the feeding trough (something reminds, isn’t it?) Yes, Russia exported grain and a lot. Moreover, the best grain, but left to itself what remains. If, in essence, then most of the people tried white bread for the first time under Soviet rule. And what is Russian-Japanese? And you don’t need about monstrous distances. And the king didn’t need an educated people. In general, you do not need to make a “saint” from a soft-skinned, puny pseudo-manager whose position is the maximum platoon commander and not the commander in chief. The head of state is obliged to be responsible for his actions. , but in the end, it was not the people who were mad with fat when they went on strike. One can recall the not so distant 90s. It seems like something.
    1. sevtrash
      sevtrash 3 July 2013 15: 39 New
      -7
      I couldn’t do it unambiguously and gave the country to be torn to pieces. But there are a lot of such unjustified people - Gorbachev, Yeltsin. Brezhnev, too, by the way, the USSR could not stand the race, it was necessary to do something earlier. And Stalin, if he left behind a system that could not cope with the governance of the country in adverse conditions. Not to mention the fact that large-scale repressions were unlikely to contribute to scientific and technological progress - we can recall the pseudosciences - cybernetics, genetics.
      1. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 3 July 2013 20: 39 New
        +1
        Quote: sevtrash
        The USSR could not stand the race, it was necessary to do something earlier

        This whole race ended immediately, which means that the number of armaments has passed common sense. As long as they say that our only salvation is nuclear weapons, then in the days of the USSR it was an order of magnitude larger. And another 80 nuclear submarines tens of thousands of tanks. In short, someone did not think soberly on both sides and actively mastered money in the military-industrial complex
        In the Politburo were old people who were more concerned about their sores and complexes than the development of the country.
        What the hell was to close the borders - even if all the rotten intellectuals were blaming the West, they would have built their gay society faster
        The problem of a shortage of goods could be solved by direct purchases by the state of goods in the cap countries, and the people are well and the money supply is seized
        1. Yarosvet
          Yarosvet 3 July 2013 20: 59 New
          +3
          Quote: Pilat2009
          This whole race ended immediately, which means that the number of armaments has passed common sense. As long as they say that our only salvation is nuclear weapons, then in the days of the USSR it was an order of magnitude larger. And another 80 nuclear submarines tens of thousands of tanks. In short, someone did not think soberly on both sides and actively mastered money in the military-industrial complex
          However, thanks to the above, there was a stock of armaments (which we have constantly upgraded and which we still use today, since nothing has been managed to create anything conceptually new at the moment), and there was also one hundred percent employment.

          What the hell was to close the borders - even if all the rotten intellectuals were blaming the West, they would have built their gay society faster
          So they didn’t bring it down, but those who dumped were engaged in discrediting the country.

          The problem of a shortage of goods could be solved by direct purchases by the state of goods in the cap countries, and the people are well and the money supply is seized
          To do this, it was necessary to do a little bit - to change the state standards (90% of Western goods did not correspond to them).


          Well, and most importantly - why try to correct purposeful "mistakes" if, since the 70s, the ultimate goal of many leaders from the CPSU, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the KGB, the prosecutor's office and the army has been the usurpation of people's property?
          1. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 3 July 2013 22: 04 New
            +2
            Quote: Yarosvet
            However, thanks to the above, there was a stock of weapons

            Which then began to enthusiastically cut-This is how much money swelled to create and then to destroy?
            Quote: Yarosvet
            one hundred percent employment.

            controversial depletion of mat resources does not justify this fact
            it was possible to put these labor costs into more useful things
            at least even to space
            Quote: Yarosvet
            change GOSTs (90% of western goods did not match them)

            what did not stop them from selling in Birch
            So why, for example, build good roads if they already match the guests?
            1. Yarosvet
              Yarosvet 3 July 2013 22: 52 New
              +2
              Quote: Pilat2009
              Which then began to enthusiastically cut-This is how much money swelled to create and then to destroy?
              And those who destroyed the money were destroyed - or did those who I wrote in the last paragraph of my previous commentary make their gesheft on?
              Would you like to put an equal sign between them?

              controversial depletion of mat resources does not justify this fact
              it was possible to put these labor costs into more useful things
              at least even to space
              On the contrary, it is indisputable: resources could of course be used more rationally, but mistakes are known to occur, although the mess that began in the 70s cannot be called a mistake.
              Again, there is a curious nuance: when comparing the level of rationality of the use of resources by the economies of the USSR and the West, the capitalist economy of the West will always be in a deep ass.

              what did not stop them from selling in Birch
              So why, for example, build good roads if they already match the guests?
              Birches were intended for foreigners, and foreign-made goods, not produced in the "socialist camp", began to be sold only in the 80s.
              As for the roads, for the 80s GOSTs according to them fully corresponded to international standards, but how they were implemented is a question.
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 3 July 2013 22: 44 New
        +2
        Quote: sevtrash
        And Stalin, if he left behind a system that could not cope with the governance of the country in adverse conditions.

        I will pay attention that under Stalin the USSR won.
        1. sevtrash
          sevtrash 3 July 2013 23: 52 New
          0
          Quote: Setrac
          I will pay attention that under Stalin the USSR won.

          Stalin, of course, is a brilliant personality - but is it so clear that only such a personality and only this way could lead the USSR out of ruin and war with victory?
          In the context of the article - if Nicholas 2 had the ability to bring to power people who could prevent the October revolutionaries from coming to power, how would Russia's development be?
          At the same time, politicians in power need to be controlled; they have not yet come up with a better Western option. And then there would be no mediocrity at the helm - such as Gorbachev, alcoholics, senile, just sick people.
      3. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 4 July 2013 14: 07 New
        +2
        Quote: sevtrash
        He did it unequivocally and gave the country to be torn to pieces. But there are a lot of such unjustified people - Gorbachev, Yeltsin. Brezhnev, too, by the way, the USSR could not stand the race, it was necessary to do something earlier. And Stalin, if he left behind a system that could not cope with the governance of the country in adverse conditions. Not to mention the fact that large-scale repressions were unlikely to contribute to scientific and technological progress - we can recall the pseudosciences - cybernetics, genetics.


        Considering the level of development in the country that was before the revolution and the level that was in the 30s - another question is who did the wrong thing more - those who signed the Brest Peace with the money of the British and Germans, destroyed and repressed scientists and officers, destroyed hard-working peasants, planted talented and proven commanders before the impending War, etc. By the way about the War - in the "backward tsarist army" the personnel losses were proportionally significantly less than in the Soviet one, the level of equipment was far from lagging behind, and Russia met WWI with one of the largest air fleets.

        And yet, according to some indicators of the development of the Russian Federation, it still lags behind the Empire.
    2. Skiff-2
      Skiff-2 3 July 2013 21: 31 New
      0
      Quote: Armeec
      . Damn, but in the end, people were not crazy about fat when they went on strike. You can recall not so distant 90s. It seems like something.

      Sorry guy, but the people were furious with fat (primarily workers) because Russia was in the 4th or 5th place in terms of living standards, and this is with our village and open spaces. And they went on strike, and they went to the demonstrations mainly for money (especially in the 17th), like the modern white-ribbon workers. Enemies of Russia have not changed, the October coup was financed by Yankel Schiff from New York, the February revolution was led from the British Embassy, ​​the murder of Rasputin was led by a British agent and all this against the background of total betrayal of the "elites" ... Yes, in order to stop this, it was necessary to destroy part of the aristocracy and a fair share of the intelligentsia, which had a revolutionary itch, and so on. to thin out the propagandized masses ... but the tsar did not agree to this, but at the behest of the Supreme Court, they were then put up against the wall by the "revolutionary sailors" and the Chekists, and who was lucky to fell the forest in the taiga or wander abroad, but everyone remembered that "when the king was better. " The righteous man is not glorified by man and not even by the Church, but by God himself (through miracles and grace-filled help) and it is not for us - for people to judge the correctness of this, we should see our shortcomings. And at the Yekaterinburg Calvary, the Tsar "answered" not only for his sins, but for the sins of the entire enraged Russian people. The glorification of the holy Tsar was a condition for the forgiveness of Russia by God! I was on August 20, 2000 in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior and I myself heard how this FORGIVENESS was announced. Since then, a difficult but progressive REVIVAL OF RUSSIA began. Sincerely .
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 3 July 2013 22: 49 New
        +1
        Quote: Skif-2
        The glorification of the holy Tsar was a condition for the forgiveness of Russia by God!

        What kind of pseudo-religious nonsense is this, to whom, interestingly, did God set such conditions?
        Quote: Skif-2
        in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, and he himself heard how this forgiveness was announced.

        Who announced? Not by God - that's for sure!
        Quote: Skif-2
        Since then, the difficult but progressive REVIVAL of RUSSIA began.

        Of course, I respect Putin, but I did not think of calling him God.
      2. anderrr
        anderrr 3 July 2013 23: 42 New
        +2
        Oh how! This is cool you said: "the whole enraged Russian people." You famously recorded the entire Russian people as enraged. You are probably a psychotherapist, since you began to hand out diagnoses, and even "to all the enraged people." Who are you going to be?
        So God was already dragged here. And let me ask, if it is not for us to judge and evaluate our past and present statesmen, then who (or what) will undertake this ungrateful work?
        I would also like to hear from you who proclaimed (not announced) the same FORGIVENESS? There is a good proverb: "Trust in God, but don't do it yourself." So your attempt to replace the concepts of reason, will, rationalism inherent in the majority of sane people for God's providence is unconvincing.
        Regarding the final, then yes, that's too much. In particular, children, maids of honor, a doctor. And the Hessian fly could also be released to its historical homeland. BUT, this is the reasoning of the layman from the outside, and as you know - the quantity goes into quality and an attempt to operate with such categories as kindness, justice, mercy, etc. in the matter of GOVERNANCE of the state, in my opinion is not entirely correct.
        The first person of the state simply does not have the right to operate with such categories. Otherwise, chaos. Which, by the way, was demonstrated later. After all, the simplest logic dictates that (no matter how wild it sounds) it is “easier” to sacrifice a thousand people in the name of saving tens, hundreds of thousands.
        Therefore, again IMHO our last emperor did not pass certification. Alas.
        By the way, could you please give either quotes or references to them regarding your statement that "it was better under the king." I would like to know the names of those who lived better under the tsar. That is to say, to broaden my horizons, otherwise, for some reason, a little other information has been deposited in my memory, such as: (I can be mistaken with the numbers - I’m not a historian) that, for example, conscripts mobilized into the army for the first time tried meat there. In my opinion, something in the region of 50%. Once again, I can be wrong - I'm not a historian. Plus, on the eve of WWI, if I'm not confusing, there was permanent famine in our country. And at this time (all of a sudden) grain exports grow! Well, yes, if the peasants have no bread, then let them eat cheesecakes. Our first persons of those times, in my opinion, humored so. Although the authorship of this phrase belongs to some European monarch.
        So, to summarize, we can briefly note that there are no simple and ready-made solutions in the matter of government. And hang labels (one or another), it IMHO significantly limit the breadth of their views, as well as their criticality.
        And about the furious Russian people ... Here, as you know, it all depends on the degree of well-read. But voicing such settings you really risk spoiling the mood of many.
    3. Klibanophoros
      Klibanophoros 4 July 2013 00: 44 New
      +5
      The monstrous distances did not allow the Russians to defeat the "cross-snouted yellow macaques" *, you say? But the absence of any roads at all did not prevent ours from encircling and destroying the Japanese grouping on the Khalkhin-Gol River, despite the fact that trucks drove from Chita for 2000 (two thousand) kilometers. And the quartermasters for some reason did not steal.
      And they threw them not with caps, but with shells. And still, in Moscow they were unhappy, because the victory at Khalkhin-Gol showed that the Red Army was not yet ready to meet with the European enemy. But they defeated it ... And there would be no tsar to delay his war to the last, no, he himself was poked. And he himself (again: YOURSELF OFF) renounced during an unprecedented in the history of the country of war, beheading the country at the time of truth. He also wanted freedom of assembly and elections, so that the liberal public would not bother.

      * - this is how the newspaper of the times of the war of 1904-1905 put it.
  2. Doctor Evil
    Doctor Evil 3 July 2013 09: 02 New
    +6
    According to the "Highest Manifesto", the last Russian Emperor is Mikhail Alexandrovich. The article is so-so. The life of citizen Romanov.
  3. Yun Klob
    Yun Klob 3 July 2013 09: 33 New
    -5
    But he built the most kings temples for the glory of God. As educated people now say, - Respekt and respect for him for this ....
    1. washi
      washi 3 July 2013 10: 03 New
      13
      You won’t be full of temples.
      He may be a good man, but the emperor is a complete g ...
      Then he is to his father, and even more so to Comrade Stalin, as if on foot to the moon
      1. Zhuchok
        Zhuchok 3 July 2013 10: 40 New
        -33 qualifying.
        That's for sure. As much as Comrade Stalin destroyed his own people, no one in history, much less the Emperor Nicholas II, the most glorified figure of the saints, was very, very far away.
        1. fartfraer
          fartfraer 3 July 2013 15: 33 New
          13
          and how much do you think Stalin destroyed? I’ve looked at the data of the Federal State Statistics Service by population, so there’s no trace of any destruction there. Yes, there are big losses in the war (2mv), but this is mostly the loss of civilians. Be our soldiers are the same creatures as fascists in Germany now all the remaining Germans would work as exhibits in museums
        2. brelok
          brelok 3 July 2013 17: 43 New
          +8
          Quote: Zhuchok
          That's for sure. As much as Comrade Stalin destroyed his own people, no one in history, much less the Emperor Nicholas II, the most glorified figure of the saints, was very, very far away.

          But he created a power !!!! GIVEN THE POWER TO THE GIVEN AND HE HER PR-RAL!
          1. Zhuchok
            Zhuchok 3 July 2013 22: 59 New
            -6
            Created a power? And why did it have to be destroyed? Overthrow the king, bring criminals to power, arrange a civil war?
            1. fartfraer
              fartfraer 3 July 2013 23: 50 New
              +5
              so you decide who destroyed the Bolshevik empire or some "interim governments", otherwise Nikolai did not transfer power to the Bolsheviks, but it was they who brought the criminals to power. It turns out that the weak emperor gave power to just anyone and it was "picked up" by criminals. I understood correctly you?
            2. Andrey Skokovsky
              Andrey Skokovsky 4 July 2013 17: 32 New
              +2
              Quote: Zhuchok
              Created a power? And why did it have to be destroyed? Overthrow the king, bring criminals to power, arrange a civil war?


              you said a lie

              Stalin at that time was only one of the party members, and not even in the highest leadership

              Moreover, blaming Stalin for all of the above is like blaming any of us for the destruction of the USSR
        3. anderrr
          anderrr 3 July 2013 23: 49 New
          +3
          Quote: Zhuchok
          That's for sure. As much as Comrade Stalin destroyed his own people, no one in history, much less the Emperor Nicholas II, the most glorified figure of the saints, was very, very far away.

          Did they tell you at an alternative history lesson at school? Or in a theological seminary?
          1. Zhuchok
            Zhuchok 4 July 2013 00: 07 New
            -5
            And now, thank God, it’s not Soviet times, you can get a lot of documents and read them. Rather, it’s not even necessary to get it; everything has already been published, as they say, in the press.
            For you, it’s as if there weren’t those 20 years, when a lot of things were “discovered”.
            And the scales were known for a long time, and performers, and victims.
            1. anderrr
              anderrr 4 July 2013 02: 34 New
              +4
              It is precisely that both the scale and the performers have long been known (without quotes) and have been voiced more than once. Which is also consistent with the statistical data of those years. But in order to see these figures, as well as to adequately perceive them, it was necessary to study at school, which, in my opinion, was given to the comrades of the monarchists with great efforts. Apparently this is the very reason for those "milion" strangled and shot personally by comrade. Stalin. True, the monarchist comrades tactfully keep silent about the fact that these "miliens" permanently live in exclusively their "light" cranials. And nowhere else.
        4. Andrey Skokovsky
          Andrey Skokovsky 4 July 2013 17: 47 New
          0
          Quote: Zhuchok
          That's for sure. As much as Comrade Stalin destroyed his own people, no one in history, much less the Emperor Nicholas II, the most glorified figure of the saints, was very, very far away.


          be so kind as to call at least one number, just wonder how much do you think Stalin destroyed ???

          In my opinion, most of my own people definitely managed to destroy Adolf Hitler
          that's talent so talent

          as for the type of the holy king, I'm sorry, maybe he was a good person, but the leader is shitty nowhere, even his children were lost not like the country ....
      2. Xnumx kopeek
        Xnumx kopeek 4 July 2013 00: 31 New
        -2
        Quote: Vasya
        You won’t be full of temples.
        He may be a good man, but the emperor is a complete g ...
        Then he is to his father, and even more so to Comrade Stalin, as if on foot to the moon

        - "You are a good man, only you see badly ..." -
        - / to / f Solaris / wassat
    2. brelok
      brelok 3 July 2013 17: 40 New
      +2
      Quote: Yoon Clob
      But he built the most kings temples for the glory of God. As educated people now say, - Respekt and respect for him for this ....

      Say love the church? Weird! He dishonored her all over the world, putting at the head of a Jew who refused to convert to Orthodoxy. Zabler pursued a policy of world Jewry. And it is not for nothing that Grishka probably dumped a huge piece of land in Palestine. His daughters lived comfortably. Shame on defeat in two !!!! Russia has not endured wars.
  4. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 3 July 2013 09: 34 New
    10
    It would be better if a Japanese policeman hacked him to death, would save Russia from many troubles. And there are people who justify him, I understand monarchists, they are all people, let's say, with "mental disabilities" who believe that remove the president and install an emperor and Russia will flourish and will turn into a mighty and indestructible power and therefore moan about the "bloody Bolsheviks" and about Russia which we shocked, I also understand the poorly educated schismatics for whom he is generally a "holy great martyr" but as far as I understand a "saint" at least should not give the order to shoot at an unarmed crowd, for women and children, a good "saint", the schismatic church itself could not do much anti-advertising, bravo to her. Perhaps it is already necessary to judge the people at the head of Russia at different times by the results of their reign? I think Peter the Great will see the results " reign "of his distant descendant, he would have died of shame. In the end, he could not even protect his family, was born with a rag, lived with a rag and died like a rag.
    1. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 3 July 2013 09: 46 New
      +6
      Quote: Standard Oil
      As far as I understand, the "saint" should at least not give the order to shoot at an unarmed crowd, at women and children

      Show me this order. Or give a link where the gendarmes recall that they were given this order. Isn’t it enough to repeat these anti-Russian stories? A huge provocation took place in 1905, as a result of which unarmed people, women and children died. And the blame for this lies with those who benefit from it. Was it advantageous for the king to shoot his people at the height of the war? I doubt it.
      Now imagine how "sitting on the Swamp" would have been presented if people like Navalny came to power? "The vicious and narrow-minded Putin ordered his wolf-policemen to slaughter the unfortunate people who came out to peaceful protest." And no one in this story about the "pregnant hipster Kolya" will remember. Learn to love your homeland, and not throw mud at it to please the West.
      1. Standard Oil
        Standard Oil 3 July 2013 10: 26 New
        0
        Empty, I can’t provide evidence of eyewitnesses that he gave such an order, and you can’t prove that he didn’t give such an order. But we see the result of his reign?
      2. erg
        erg 3 July 2013 12: 53 New
        0
        According to the laws of the Russian Empire, any collective performance, even the filing of a collective complaint, was considered a riot. This can be read in the military article of Peter 1. According to him, by the way, the death penalty relied. That is, ask for yourself as much as you want, complain, submit a petition, etc., but together with someone - it’s already a riot. The same laws allowed the use of troops to suppress a rebellion (therefore, there was no special troops in tsarist Russia to suppress demonstrations within the country. This duty was assigned to the army.) And weapons. And there was no need for this to wait for the team from above. Everything was dictated by the current situation. Sometimes the provisions of certain laws (the same military article) prescribed it so, it was supposed to do this and that, but commensurate with the circumstances. Let me explain with a modern example: the law on the police allows the policeman to independently decide on the use, for example, of handcuffs. It (the law) only limits the number of situations when this is possible, but the decision is made by the policeman. The charter of the NKVD escort troops directly indicated that in order to handcuff a prisoner, it was necessary to obtain permission from the unit commander (regiment, battalion, in extreme cases, from the chief of the convoy). No independence. Putin was not given any order to beat the people. Stop illegal actions, the order was. Further, specific circumstances and provisions of the relevant laws entered into force.
        1. Trapperxnumx
          Trapperxnumx 3 July 2013 13: 36 New
          +1
          Quote: erg
          Putin was not given any order to beat the people. Stop illegal actions, the order was. Further, specific circumstances and provisions of the relevant laws entered into force.

          Did I say somewhere the opposite? My friend, what are you talking about?
          Although the explanations on the use of weapons by troops in 1905, you have explained quite well.
          On and about who first started, here probably already can not figure it out. If only suddenly a document pops up by accident.
          1. erg
            erg 3 July 2013 14: 12 New
            +1
            I apologize, in the phrase evil Putin, etc. I did not pay attention to the quotation marks. My fault.
      3. alex20081308
        alex20081308 3 July 2013 14: 51 New
        +2
        A hodyka is also a provocation
        1. anderrr
          anderrr 3 July 2013 23: 56 New
          -1
          Og, over ....
  5. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 3 July 2013 09: 38 New
    +4
    Normal article. An attempt to understand and find the truth. Of course, the Tsar was not perfect, but you don't need to stupidly repeat all the stories that were written about him. And then, do not confuse him with Yeltsin or Gorbachev. These two were traitors. And Nikolai 2 honestly served the country until the end of his days. I did not want to rule by the method of terror, the people quickly relaxed, for which they received terror in full after the revolution. And to those who shout that "they did it right, that they threw Nikolashka" I will say this - there is an oath, and everyone who opposed the tsar is violators of the oath and duty. There are perjurers. Think about it. Was it not because of those Petrograd people who thought that there was little bread in the shops in 1941, even rejoiced at the cut paper? True, she is. No one has yet left a fair trial.
    And now you can minus.
    1. avt
      avt 3 July 2013 14: 57 New
      +6
      Quote: Trapper7
      And Nicholas 2 honestly and until the end of his days served the country.

      The downturn manarchists fool If Nicky No. 2 would honestly serve the COUNTRY, HOW THE MINIMUM HAS GIVEN HER HEALTH TO HER, WOULD NOT MARRY FOR LOVE AND FULFILL ONE OF ITS BASIC RESPONSIBILITIES, AS A MONARK, BEFORE THE COUNTRY. Even the Aglitsky surname was AGAINST a BLOOD-MIXING GERMAN MARRIAGE, realizing that there WILL BE NO HEALTHY HEIR.
      1. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 3 July 2013 15: 52 New
        -6
        Quote: avt
        If Nicky No. 2 would honestly serve the COUNTRY, HOW MINIMUM GIVE IT A HEIR OF A HEALTHY,

        We can say the same thing about Stalin, right? Where is the succession? And what does it mean that Stalin did not serve his country?
        1. avt
          avt 3 July 2013 16: 39 New
          +4
          Quote: Trapper7
          We can say the same thing about Stalin, right? Where is the succession?

          Is that such a gesture of despair? laughing Well, just in case, Stalin was not king, he was general secretary, prime minister was {in our understanding of these posts}, but he was not king, and he may demand transfer of power from father to son ...... well generally not a very distant person. It is strange that the monarchist needs to explain the principle of inheritance of the throne and the difference between politically different systems request By your logic, Putin’s father Medvedev turns out, well, and then, that is, now, Medvedev’s father Putin? laughing laughing
          1. anderrr
            anderrr 4 July 2013 00: 05 New
            0
            Well, in general, not a very distant person. It is strange that the monarchist needs to explain the principle of inheritance of the throne and the difference between politically different systems. According to your logic, Putin’s father Medvedev turns out, well, then, that is, now, Medvedev’s father Putin?
            This is not even a gesture, rather a deep cognitive dissonance. And, which is typical, most likely your attempts to indicate to your opponent his inconsistency will remain in the air, even unheard.
            1. Trapperxnumx
              Trapperxnumx 4 July 2013 08: 48 New
              0
              Quote: avt
              Is that such a gesture of despair? laughing Well, just in case, Stalin was not a king, he was the general secretary, the prime minister was {in our understanding of these posts}, but he was not a king, and he may demand transfer of power from father to son ...... well in general, not a very distant person. It is strange that the monarchist needs to explain the principle of inheritance of the throne and the difference between politically different systems request According to your logic, Putin’s father Medvedev turns out, well, then, that is, now, Medvedev’s father Putin? laughing laughing


              Quote: anderrr
              This is not even a gesture, rather a deep cognitive dissonance. And, which is typical, most likely your attempts to indicate to your opponent his inconsistency will remain in the air, even unheard.


              Where to me with my illogicality and you, such wise ones. Hah
              My friends, the stability of ANY political system is ensured by continuity. You don’t need to be a dad or a son. One of the most striking examples of modern continuity is the United States, where no matter who comes to power, the course, goals, tasks of the country do not change. And it was precisely about this continuity that I spoke when I spoke about Stalin. Criticizing Nicholas 2 that he did not leave normal offspring to lead the country and was irresponsible in this regard, I suggested looking at Stalin, whose authority is unquestioned for many thinking patriots. So, comrade Stalin also did not leave a successor. It seems that he was preparing Beria, but he could not cope in a critical situation and was shot. And what is the result - the coming to power of a petty and stupid maize Nikita.
              ps And do not consider yourself smarter than others. We know, we went through reading.
      2. Valery-SPB
        Valery-SPB 3 July 2013 15: 57 New
        +4
        I support. The Emperor’s correct marriage is the marriage that the country needs, this is his sacrifice to the country and his responsibility to the people and the country!
      3. erg
        erg 3 July 2013 19: 07 New
        0
        There was still a dynastic law (more precisely, whole legislation) prescribing that he would marry only on equal terms. A representative of the ruling dynasty who entered into an unequal (organic marriage) was deprived, like his descendants, of the right to the throne. Therefore, all modern descendants of the Romanovs do not have succession rights. So that Nikolai did not have much choice. And it was not his fault that all the monarchs of Europe (or almost all) were connected by family ties, which did not prevent them from fighting with each other. It should be noted that with all the power, the king could not violate one of the basic laws of the empire.
        1. anderrr
          anderrr 4 July 2013 00: 13 New
          0
          Since Nicholas II "had no choice", then in this case, Nature has its own "opinion" and even an elegant decision on this matter. Degeneration is called. Which could have manifested itself as you like, but the result would have been natural. So whatever is done ...
      4. Pamir210
        Pamir210 3 July 2013 19: 30 New
        0
        were they really against the British?
        what nonsense?
        1. avt
          avt 3 July 2013 20: 38 New
          0
          Quote: Pamir210
          were they really against the British?

          Imagine were! By the way, they are also close relatives, it’s not in vain that Michael of Kent was completely serious, having learned the Russian language and letting go of Ala Nikki’s beard, drove a motor rally to the EBN in Zavidovo and tried on the throne. the world.
          Quote: erg
          There was still a dynastic law (more precisely, whole legislation) prescribing that he would marry only on equal terms. A representative of the ruling dynasty who entered into an unequal (organic marriage) was deprived, like his descendants, of the right to the throne.

          They completely laid down the device on the laws, for example, Petrusha No. 1 and Alexander No. 2 with Dolgoruky, and he was bored just because after the death of the legitimate imperial wife, he entered into marriage and was going to marry Dolgoruky's kingdom, the previous children were illegitimate, he gave them the title of the brightest and the surname of the Yuryevsky, but now the next ones could really claim the title, but for Shurik and Dolgoruka would not rust laughing .The king himself in letters wrote that they fell in love like cats. Well, modern geyvropskie, mashing history, generally scored on these conventions.
          1. erg
            erg 3 July 2013 21: 35 New
            0
            Alexander 2 was already king at the time of the novel and he already had an heir. In addition, the tightening of dynastic legislation occurred after his death. Peter 1 himself was the author of many laws, including on succession. In addition, giving someone a title does not mean giving him any rights. The descendants of Alexander and Dolgoruky were recognized, but not included in the imperial family.
    2. brelok
      brelok 3 July 2013 17: 49 New
      +4
      quote = Trapper7]. And to those who shout that "they did it right, that they threw Nikolashka" I will say this - there is an oath, and everyone who opposed the tsar is violators of the oath and duty. There are perjurers. Think about it. [/ quote]
      and THERE IS RUSSIA! AND BETWEEN THE KIDDEN KING AND RUSSIA PEOPLE CHOSEN RUSSIA!
      1. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 4 July 2013 08: 57 New
        -3
        Quote: brelok
        THERE IS RUSSIA! AND BETWEEN THE DIDNESS KING AND RUSSIA PEOPLE CHOSEN RUSSIA!

        What did you choose? Stomach? Obviously not with a head, if as a result of this "choice" the country was thrown into the chaos of the Civil War, completely destroying the industry and scaring away almost all engineers (Sikorsky is a very vivid example of this). A good choice if after him Comrade. Stalin had to rebuild everything anew. A good choice if after him tens of thousands of people willingly took the side of Germany, fighting against the Russian people and the state on the side of the invaders, for the simple reason that their hatred of the Bolsheviks and personal resentment were higher than their love for the Motherland. For some reason, this was not observed in WWI.
  6. people
    people 3 July 2013 09: 43 New
    +9
    Quote: Armeec
    Damn, but in the end, it’s not the fat people were furious when they went on strike.

    The revolution was organized not by a simple Russian people, but by "wolves in sheep's clothing" - look at the ethnic composition of the top of the revolution ... They do not care about the aspirations of the people, they have their own goals, completely opposite ...
    And still there are so many of them in power, and some with Russified surnames.
    1. erg
      erg 3 July 2013 13: 28 New
      +4
      Among these people with Russified surnames (as well as with Germanized, French, etc.) a split formed at the end of the 19th century. Most of the Jews decided that it would be enough to dream of the revival of Israel, to talk about God's chosenness, since they have been living among European nations for many generations, then they must also join these peoples (speak their language, profess culture, that is, become Germans, French, Russians etc.). This split gave birth to Zionism as a retaliatory measure. Interestingly, Zionism has nothing to do with nationalism. He does not define the Jews as a superior race or God's chosen people. The position of Zionism is that the Jews must revive the state of Israel and live in it. Moreover, not all Jews can live in it. The stake was placed on certain strata of society: workers, farmers, businessmen. To any squishy people accustomed to discussing the fate of the Jews, reading holy books, etc. "resignation" was given. Which is right, in order to revive the state, you need to plow from dawn to dawn, and not reread the holy books for the thousandth time. In this, the Zionists were hostile to another trend - the Orthodox (in modern Israel, Orthodox Jews are not very popular, although they represent a certain force). These generally believe that Israel should not exist, since only the Messiah can revive it, but they need to sit and wait. (For reference: modern Judaism has little in common, except for the Holy Scriptures, with the religion of ancient Judea, they even forgot their rituals) ... I wrote this to show that the Jews were not at all some kind of cohesive force pursuing common goals. Like many, they were supporters of various ideas, etc. Often they were on opposite sides of the barricades. And blaming everything on them is stupid. However, as well as denying participation in certain events - too.
    2. fartfraer
      fartfraer 3 July 2013 15: 37 New
      +3
      "The revolution was organized not by the ordinary Russian people, but by the" wolves in sheep's clothing "- I will not argue here. It remains only to find out from you how people who are doing well managed to get it into their heads that everything is bad?
    3. Albert1988
      Albert1988 3 July 2013 20: 44 New
      0
      These, as you put it, "wolves" only caught the trend and little by little tossed firewood, although without them everything was already in full swing - remember the comparison of Russia with a boiling cauldron that is riveted? And when everything naturally spilled out, then the "wolves" simply climbed onto the crest of the wave thanks to populist slogans, and if the people did not want, they would not have done anything, no matter how hard they tried)
    4. anderrr
      anderrr 4 July 2013 00: 23 New
      +1
      And if the main supposed revolutionary mass of people has something to lose, then, in your opinion, what is the probability that this mass will follow the lead of the "wolves in sheep's clothing"?
  7. kirgudu
    kirgudu 3 July 2013 09: 52 New
    +2
    What to glorify in Nicole II. He betrayed the people, betrayed the church, betrayed the army and the state. The weakling who brought the country to a pen.
    1. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 3 July 2013 09: 53 New
      +3
      What betrayed? On points please.
      1. avt
        avt 3 July 2013 10: 08 New
        +2
        Quote: Trapper7
        What betrayed? On points please.

        Absolutely weak-willed and stupid rule, he called himself "the master of the Russian land", but in fact led the country as a regiment of a colonel, which in general corresponded to his military rank and mental and strong-willed capabilities.
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 3 July 2013 23: 03 New
        0
        Quote: Trapper7
        What betrayed? On points please.

        Abandoned the throne (if true) - this is betrayal.
  8. avt
    avt 3 July 2013 09: 54 New
    +8
    “By the age of majority, the future tsar had a brilliant knowledge of Russian classical literature and European languages. He chose the Russian style from clothes, often quoted Pushkin, and considered Gogol his favorite writer. "----- And apparently from the great love for the Russian language, inspired by Gogol, in the census questionnaire in the column he wrote his native language - German laughing laughing
    Quote: Doctor Evil
    According to the "Highest Manifesto", the last Russian Emperor is Mikhail Alexandrovich.

    The amendment, however, did not write or sign any "manifesto" Nika No. 2, these are all different Rodzians, the Shulgins and the Guchkovs invented various trachtararahi of the foreign church to justify their own and accuse the Russian people that they said they sinned by rejecting the tsar. Nikolasha wrote, and this handwritten version was exhibited in the Pushkin Museum, at the Dno station, a private letter that began with the words, "TO THE HEAD OF THE GENERAL STAFF ..." Niki was a worthless monarch, but did not know how to write manifestos, this was the last cry for help to the generals, and they BETRAYED EVERYTHING about which there are corresponding telegrams, as well as Alekseev's recollections that after he read a second letter disavowing the first and, as he put it, put it in his pocket. So long before the Bolsheviks and their German sealed carriage, all this "elite", another drain of the Glove Top, began to drain the Country and its remnants for a long time afterwards were surprised at emigration. I recommend that all "monarchists" remember firmly one slogan of the white army they love so much - RUSSIA NOT A ROMANOV'S VOTCHINA, and also, since they position themselves as Orthodox Christians - memorize the First Book of Kings chapter 8 from the original Bible source, at least you will know what awaits you when you pump the tsar around your neck. Well, and also, for those who cannot master the Bible, read "The History of the City of Foolov", before it was passed in school, but it was under the totalitarian Soviet regime. laughing
  9. Lexagun
    Lexagun 3 July 2013 10: 09 New
    +5
    I would be clever, would be capable, I would manage, regardless of the machinations of enemies.

    And as a result, there’s nothing to discuss, man is out of place.
    And whether he is good as a person or not really does not matter.
    A good person is not a profession.
  10. Zhuchok
    Zhuchok 3 July 2013 10: 14 New
    +1
    Nicholas II is the most slandered leader of the country in the history of Russia. Despite this, such successes were achieved under him, which to this day we have not observed. For example, population growth by 50 million people. If the tsar had been told then that in 100 years there would be a demographic catastrophe in Russia, he would have been very surprised. Or, for example, the army will be only 1 million people, and young people will run away from serving in it, like h ... from incense. Or, for example, abortions will be 4 million killed babies a year. Or there will be more than half of divorces from marriages. All this would make the king a cold sweat. With him, this could not even be imagined in thought. And what is the basis for the assertion of the author of the article that "It happened on March 2, 1917 in the carriage of the imperial train near Pskov," if the author himself writes below about the actual absence of reliable facts of the tsar's abdication? In fact, we DO NOT KNOW what happened in Pskov on March 2, 1917. One thing is clear - there was treason and betrayal of the tsar on the part of the inner circle, primarily the generals. And after that - the overthrow of the legitimate leader of the country and the seizure of power by a criminal group. And then - a sea of ​​blood across the country and the execution of the entire royal family, the murder, which became a heavy moral burden on our people and our entire subsequent history. It is very hopeful that many people today understand this and strive to do something in terms of repentance: every year 50 thousand people in Yekaterinburg walk in penitential procession from the Church on Blood, erected on the site of the murder of the royal family, to the monastery on Ganina Yama - places of destruction of the remains of those killed. Awareness of the spiritual significance of all the events associated with the overthrow and assassination of the last Russian tsar, the political rehabilitation of Nicholas II will help our people and country to revive spiritually and materially.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 3 July 2013 10: 26 New
      +4
      Quote: Zhuchok
      under him such successes were achieved that to this day we have not observed.

      It is "with him" or still "his efforts"? An excellent start to the beginning of his reign was due to the efforts of his father. But the collapse of the empire is the result of HOW he gradually" took power into his own hands. " request
      1. Zhuchok
        Zhuchok 3 July 2013 10: 59 New
        +5
        And with him, and his efforts. The fact is that history is a continuous and inseparable process. You cannot take and separate one era from another, as was done during the Soviet era, declaring everything that was before 1917 wrong. Everything that Alexander III started was continued by Nicholas II, including the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway, which, by the way, they started together - father and son. The collapse of the empire is the result of the desire of the political elite and intelligentsia, supported from abroad.
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 3 July 2013 11: 08 New
          +4
          Quote: Zhuchok
          history is a continuous and inseparable process

          Moreover, it does not have a subjunctive mood, alas. Nikolai just "didn't pull" ...
          By the way, I just discovered an interesting Internet source library: http://rufort.info/lib/ I rummaged there a long time ago, but at the old address it disappeared a few months ago. And now I managed to find her again. Recommend
          1. Zhuchok
            Zhuchok 3 July 2013 11: 35 New
            +3
            I also recommend books by S.S. Oldenburg and P.V. Multatuli. There you can find the answer to the question "pulled or not." It is better to study the history of your country (if it is Russia) in detail. It is very difficult for an ordinary person to assert that the head of the country "did not pull". To do this, you need to know all the facts and circumstances, many of which are revealed only after decades, breaking through the thick of lies.
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 3 July 2013 15: 36 New
              +7
              Quote: Zhuchok
              It is very difficult for an ordinary person to assert that the head of the country "did not pull".
              And if you go from the result of government? Books, because people write them too, and those people may have their own "circumstances" too ...
              Stalin's active work includes the industrialization and rise of the country, the victorious war won and the restoration of the economy destroyed during the war. And what do we see with Nicholas II? There was a rise in the economy, but ... at the same time, both wars were lost with a bad score. And two revolutions, the second of which dragged the country into a civil war. If even SUCH results are not enough to assess "I did it or not," then I really do not know what the level of "simplicity" of the evaluator is ... request what
              1. Zhuchok
                Zhuchok 3 July 2013 15: 59 New
                -9
                What does it mean to "go from the result of government"? The result was not allowed to appear, the king was overthrown and killed. Stolypin said, "... give the country 20 years of internal and external tranquility, and you will not recognize Russia." Not allowed. Churchill's words are given at the very beginning of the article. The results that have appeared during the reign of Nicholas II are impressive. Russian scientists predicted that if Russia continued to develop as it did in the early 20th century, then by the middle of this very century it would dominate all of Europe.
                A revolution is an organized event.
                And what about Stalin? Stalin was Lenin's heir, and both sank Russia in blood. Industrialization - the price is simply incredible, which is just a destroyed village and 2 famines. It could not be otherwise, because after 1917 the country opposed itself to almost the rest of the world, and it was urgent to arm itself. Without this, Russia would have gone through industrialization calmly and thoroughly, without millions of victims, like other countries. All countries went through industrialization, but only here it passed with such monstrous costs. Won the war? Thanks to the enthusiasm and heroism of people born under Nicholas II. But in 1941, what happened? Stalin did not believe Richard Sorge, who warned about the war, but Hitler - he believed! He believed that Hitler would not attack! As a result, the Germans marched across Russia faster than France. Throughout its history, Russia, with its ingenious commanders, defeated the enemy with small forces, remember Suvorov. And how did Stalin fight? And how did he fight with Finland? And who turned half the country into criminals? To this day, criminal lingo is preserved in the language. And who again made serfs serfs? And finally: can a criminal and felon rule the country? Read the biography of Stalin. Holy man Nicholas II can’t, but criminal Stalin can? If you do not want a saint at the head of the country - get a felon.
                1. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 3 July 2013 16: 20 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Zhuchok
                  The result was not allowed to appear, the king was overthrown and killed. Stolypin said, "... give the country 20 years of internal and external tranquility, and you will not recognize Russia." Not allowed.

                  Are you serious? And do you really think that politics is like chess or that they honor the duel code? Stalin was lined with pillows on all sides and neighbors dragged the buns, but they suddenly offended and screwed up Nikolai ... Who gave STalin what? What he, with blood, pulled out, that was. And why only 20 years Stolypin asked, would immediately request a hundred, why trifle? They promised Gorbachev that NATO would henceforth be best friends and would not develop. Remind result or google yourself?
                2. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 3 July 2013 16: 50 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Zhuchok
                  Stalin was Lenin's heir, and both sank Russia in blood.
                  Stalin with Lenin? Came at the head of multimillion armies from the side? Or did Nikolai slander the birth and development of the revolutionary movement, dragging the country into bloody chaos? Google the number of RCP (b) at the time of the revolution, perhaps it will become clear whether an organization of such a size could bring down a multi-million country, if everything is in order in it?
                  Quote: Zhuchok
                  All countries went through industrialization, but only here it passed with such monstrous costs.
                  Again a bucket of mud pouring water over his head? Read at least about British industrialization, what kind of blood it cost. Or about the French revolution with industrialization, during which every fourth Frenchman died
                  1. Zhuchok
                    Zhuchok 3 July 2013 23: 26 New
                    -4
                    And what does the RCP (b) have to do with it? She was not the only one who made the revolution, there were others, much more powerful "players", and the RCP (b) was one of the last to be involved in this "business". And who claims that everything was in order in the country? No need to juggle. There was a war, and the tsar was at the front and led the army.
                    And at this time, behind the back, the elite decided to change the tsar and Russia.
                    You apparently confuse industrialization and the industrial revolution, and at the same time replace the concept of the price of all these achievements.
                    The point is that the industrialization of the 1920s and 1930s in Russia was carried out in a violent barbaric manner with the simultaneous INTENTIONAL destruction of the village and the famine. All this could have been done differently, in a natural, gradual way with economic stimulation, and this would have required more time, but the then "elite" could not wait, otherwise either disgruntled peasants or an external aggressor could sweep it away. Industrialization in Russia began at the end of the 19th century and took place gradually, and by the same 1930s the same level of industrial development would have been achieved, only without a million victims. Recently we celebrated the 100th anniversary of our aviation, the 100th anniversary of the submarine fleet. It all appeared under Nicholas II
                    1. Misantrop
                      Misantrop 4 July 2013 10: 07 New
                      0
                      Quote: Zhuchok
                      And what does the RCP (b) have to do with it? She was not the only one who made the revolution, there were other, much more powerful "players"
                      The RCP (b) did NOT make the revolution, it "picked it up" (according to Lenin). It was done precisely by representatives of that very "new elite", the emerging bourgeois class. The one who, in your words, was supposed to raise the country "without a million victims." HOW they did it, everyone knows. The level of power and influence they had did not suit them, they wanted EVERYTHING IMMEDIATELY. Well, got ... request
                      Quote: Zhuchok
                      that the industrialization of the 1920s and 1930s in Russia was carried out in a violent barbaric manner

                      Quote: Zhuchok
                      the then "elite" could not wait, otherwise it could be swept away either by disgruntled peasants or by an external aggressor.

                      "Could" or "dare without options"? There were simply NO other options then, you yourself write that there was not enough time. No one would wait. But what about the "deliberate famine", is Yushchenko a relative to you? The text is very similar ... Add also that Stalin also organized the Great Depression in the USA and the famine in Germany, purely out of harm. And then Yushchenko either did not have time, or did not think of it ... laughing
                      And I would like to hear about the humanity of industrialization in other countries, otherwise I still have not come across SUCH information ... request

                      You remind HOW humanely built their fortunes Gusinsky, Berezovsky and other current oligarchs? Or google yourself? AND how successful became a country as a result their activities?
                3. avt
                  avt 3 July 2013 17: 52 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Zhuchok
                  Stalin did not believe Richard Sorge, who warned about the war, but Hitler - he believed!

                  laughing Yeah, of the 11 telegrams of Sorge with the exact date of the German attack on the USSR, only the latter turned out to be accurate. Well, as for the faith in Hitler, well, here the campaign is in complete disaster request laughing Well, you can't learn history according to Akunin and the film "The Spy" is not filmed on historical material, but quite a fantasy based on Akunin's novel. Well, as it is necessary to distinguish reality from glitches, even beautifully worked ones.
                  1. Zhuchok
                    Zhuchok 3 July 2013 23: 41 New
                    -1
                    And not only one Sorge informed about the upcoming war. And it was not even necessary to know the exact date, because the concentration of German troops on the borders was constantly increasing for a long time. Zhukov, when he was chief of the General Staff on the eve of the war, almost at the last moment managed to convince this ghoul to give the order to bring the troops into combat readiness, when the situation was already just "screaming".
              2. Trapperxnumx
                Trapperxnumx 3 July 2013 16: 05 New
                +3
                Quote: Misantrop
                The assets of Stalin's activity include the industrialization and rise of the country, the most difficult war won and the restoration of the economy destroyed in the war.

                I ask you not to forget that Stalin had a direct and already "inanimate" example - Nikolai 2 himself. Stalin understood perfectly well that I had an "anti-state nit" in the country to develop a state is difficult, and winning a war is even more difficult. That is why he wore out all political opponents. For which I respect him, because thanks, among other things, to this, the war was won. Stalin himself was inside that anti-state (at first) organization and knew its ins and outs. And he knew that either he would not spare, or they would not spare him. And so it happened, because it is enough to recall those "dances on the bones" arranged by Khrushchev and Co.
                Do not rush to pour mud on Nikolai 2 and contrast him with Stalin. Were it not for this bloody drama (I mean our entire revolution), Stalin, even if he had come to power, would have been a completely different person.
                1. Misantrop
                  Misantrop 3 July 2013 16: 24 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Trapper7
                  Stalin had a direct and already "inanimate" example - Nikolai himself 2.

                  Naturally, others are not held in politics. State machine - by definition punitive organization. And all the rulers who forgot about this, brought only loss and destruction to their peoples. The same Salvador Allende take
                  1. avt
                    avt 3 July 2013 17: 58 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Misantrop
                    The state machine is, by definition, a punitive organization. And all the rulers who forgot about this, brought only loss and destruction to their peoples. The same Salvador Allende take

                    good "ANY STATE IS VIOLENCE" ALL LAWS, even religious commandments in all religions, except Satanism, are one or another LIMITATION in a person's life.
          2. family tree
            family tree 3 July 2013 12: 23 New
            +2
            Quote: Misantrop
            http://rufort.info/lib/

            Oh thank you! hi
      2. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 3 July 2013 13: 42 New
        +2
        Quote: Misantrop
        Is it "with him" or is it "his efforts"?

        In the same way, one can say in this case "we defeated the Germans under Stalin", "we created a great industrial power under Stalin", "The USSR collapsed under Gorbachev." The leader cannot be separated from the country. Nikolai 2 is developing the economy, that's a fact. But he lost two wars. This is also a fact. The reasons can be argued to the point of hoarseness.
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 3 July 2013 15: 40 New
          +5
          Quote: Trapper7
          The leader cannot be separated from the country.

          Why separate? Nikolai led the country, developed and ... lost with a crushing score. Gorbachev - similarly. But with Stalin, the result of rule is somewhat different, don’t you? Let me remind you that we are not looking at PERSONALITY, but at the STATE HEAD.
    2. Valery-SPB
      Valery-SPB 3 July 2013 14: 09 New
      +3
      Quote: Zhuchok
      Nicholas II is the most slandered leader in the history of Russia. Despite this, successes were achieved under him, which to this day we have not observed. For example, a population growth of 50 million people.


      Nicholas came to the throne on November 14, 1894. In 1897, the first and only Russian population census was carried out under Nicholas. Dmitry Ivanovich Mendeleev in his work "To the knowledge of Russia" indicated a population of 128 million people (according to Wikipedia, about 126 million).
      In his study of World War I, General Golovin indicated the population before the war of 150 million people, indicating, however, that without foreigners who were not drafted into the army (but, now we do not take into account the population in Uzbekistan, etc.).
      In his study of the war, General Zayonchkovsky indicates a population of 169 million 400 thousand people, but does not make reservations regarding foreigners.
      Thus, the population growth of 22-24 million people, in another embodiment, 22-41 million.

      The first numbers are accepted. An increase of 22-24 million people.
      To say that Nikolai did his best to increase the size of the foreign population is very witty.
      To argue that before the aliens were born less intensively than now demographically not witty.
      1. Zhuchok
        Zhuchok 3 July 2013 14: 31 New
        0
        The point is that under Nicholas II, the population of Russia increased very significantly, there are indeed different assessments. It is wrong to think that this success has nothing to do with the country's leader. It’s interesting: the tsar was blamed for all the failures of that time, and they say about the successes that the tsar had nothing to do with them. Where is the logic? You very correctly mentioned Dmitry Ivanovich Mendeleev, who predicted the growth of the population of Russia until the middle to the end of the 20th century. According to these forecasts, Russia's population growth was expected to be such that corresponding economic growth would lead to Russia's dominance over all of Europe by the middle of the 20th century. And these very forecasts frightened the West very much. The growth of the population of Russia very much frightened Napoleon at one time, who wrote that he was "very worried about the annual birth of 500 thousand babies in Russia." The West got scared from such a prospect and began to look for opportunities to support the destructive forces in Russia, and such forces were found.
        1. Valery-SPB
          Valery-SPB 3 July 2013 15: 39 New
          +2
          I do not dispute the fact of an increase in population. I dispute the increase of 50 million.
          Futurology. And if at the beginning of the century there had been no 17th crop failure, famine, and then Troubles and wars with foreigners, would Romanov have chosen Misha as king?
          And if there weren’t all the events, by the end of the 17th century, with the next tsar Godunov, would there be a larger population or not?
        2. fartfraer
          fartfraer 3 July 2013 15: 46 New
          +2
          strange, now, for example, with the development of communications and easily accessible information, there are no such forces on a national scale. Even I, not being a supporter of the current president, laugh at the "swamp" people. Yes, and support such as they have nowhere else in Moscow No, but then it was much more difficult. The tsar dragged his country into the war (repeating the mistakes of 1905) without preparing. By the way, why did he fight against a relative on the side of the Entente?
        3. Misantrop
          Misantrop 3 July 2013 18: 21 New
          +1
          Quote: Zhuchok
          And these very forecasts very scared the West

          Quote: Zhuchok
          The West got scared from such a prospect and began to search

          What a fearful West you got, why? lol And he was afraid at the same time only two times ...
          And the rest of the time, this blessed West of yours applauded Russia and shared its goodies? Or did he not miss the opportunity to attack every time he felt the slightest slack? Either by direct military invasion, or by sending agents of influence (and most often - simultaneously)
          1. Zhuchok
            Zhuchok 3 July 2013 23: 47 New
            -2
            And you trace the entire history of Russia. Who constantly threatened Russia with destruction? Who went to Russia with world wars? Who went to Napoleon in Russia? Teutons? Who captured Moscow in the early 17th century? Who fought with Russia in the early 18th century? Who pushed Turkey to war with Russia? Who fought with Russia in the Crimean War, compared Sevastopol with the land, fired at Arkhangelsk and Petropavlovsk? Who planned nuclear attacks on our cities?
            The question is - why? What do they dislike about us? Answer: faith in God, the desire to serve God with your whole life, the proclamation of achieving holiness as the main goal of life.
            1. fartfraer
              fartfraer 3 July 2013 23: 53 New
              +1
              take any other country - who attacked them? how do you explain the centennial war? and why did Genghis Khan conquer China?
              and why attacked the USSR if atheism in our country turned out to be more popular than "opium for the people"?
              1. Zhuchok
                Zhuchok 4 July 2013 00: 24 New
                -2
                You will now bring everything together, the history of all other countries and the history of Russia? Or what do you want as a result of this discussion?
                1. fartfraer
                  fartfraer 4 July 2013 00: 30 New
                  +2
                  I just want you to understand that your faith has nothing to do with it, history shows that any country, regardless of faith, was attacked. so you put everything together.
                  I will not get anything from this discussion, even if I want to) because you are not even able to substantiate your opinion somehow. But just in case, I will ask again, why did they attack the USSR, was faith no longer a "state ideology"?
                  1. Trapperxnumx
                    Trapperxnumx 4 July 2013 09: 17 New
                    0
                    Quote: fartfraer
                    but just in case, I will ask again, why did they attack the USSR, was faith no longer a "state ideology"?

                    Let me try to answer? Maybe INCLUDING because the Code of the Builder of Communism is a copy of the Sermon on the Mount and in fact professed the same Christian values ​​as Orthodoxy. Remember that the same Trotsky had ideas about a completely public life - where there is no marriage, where all women are in common use, all children are brought up in kindergartens without knowing mom and dad - everything that our (world) is so rapidly moving towards civilized society. That is why today the family is being hit with gay weapons. And then, the main principle of the USSR was the protection of ordinary workers. The social sphere is developing at such a pace and so qualitatively that the capitalists simply had to implement the same thing in their own countries, because without this there was a real possibility of the victory of communism everywhere. Now that the welfare state itself has been destroyed, all the rights of workers in the West are rapidly being canceled. But there is still Orthodoxy and our Slavic purity and striving for truth. And our country, with its unwillingness to walk in the same ranks with pid-mi, again becomes a bone in the throat of the "civilized world".
                    1. Zhuchok
                      Zhuchok 4 July 2013 10: 32 New
                      0
                      I agree. The fight against Russia has a religious background. However, our colleagues demand "proof". What evidence can be given for the obvious? Even in mathematics it is sometimes assumed that "the proof is obvious."
                      Almost all the conquerors who came to us from the West first destroyed and burned our churches. The religiosity of Russian people has always aroused and causes at least bewilderment in the West. Hence the rejection. A Westerner is very proud, although he seems polite and friendly.
                      But the victory of Russia in wars was often above human strength. Such was the victory over Napoleon, it was the same over Hitler. Why? Because the impossible for man is possible for God.
                      1. fartfraer
                        fartfraer 4 July 2013 11: 00 New
                        0
                        "But Russia's victory in wars was often above human strength. Such was the victory over Napoleon, and it was the same over Hitler. Why? Because the impossible for man is possible for God." - we teach history. Victory over the listed characters and their armies was given to Russia and the USSR, not with God's help, but with the labor and blood of thousands of citizens of Russia and the USSR. Or is it God invented to carry out industrialization, organize a partisan movement, etc.? are weakly grounded, dear. Besides impenetrable faith, you have no other argument in your favor.
                      2. Zhuchok
                        Zhuchok 4 July 2013 11: 13 New
                        0
                        Dear, but does God's help and the work of citizens exclude each other? Before the Battle of Borodino, there was a prayer service before the Smolensk Icon of the Virgin. And after the prayer, the troops went into battle. Where is the contradiction here? And now the same thing is happening - before the trip on the ships, a prayer service is held to send God's help to those who go on a campaign.
                        You do not believe that there is God and he helps people through their prayers?
                        No, don’t believe it. It is impossible to prove something here, religion and faith are not in the realm of knowledge and their evidence.
                        The time will come - believe me, God will give.
                        Previously, most people believed that victory was given by God. And the temples were erected in gratitude to God for the gift of victory over the enemy.
                      3. fartfraer
                        fartfraer 4 July 2013 14: 32 New
                        0
                        rely on God, but don’t make a bad statement. so people believed first of all in themselves, and then everything else. By the way, people used to believe that there are many gods. And nothing lived. And many worshiped nature, fire, etc. .
                        in general, religion is a personal affair of each (individually), therefore it is extremely wrong to attach it to any geopolitical events (crusades are no exception)
                      4. Setrac
                        Setrac 4 July 2013 19: 19 New
                        0
                        Quote: fartfraer
                        trust in God, and he’s not a bad proverb. so people believed first of all in their strength, and only then everything else

                        "Trust in God, but don't do it yourself!"
                        or better
                        "God helps those who help themselves!"
                        "God is on the side of the big battalions!"
              2. fartfraer
                fartfraer 4 July 2013 10: 55 New
                0
                "INCLUDING because the Code of the Builder of Communism is a copy of the Sermon on the Mount" - and the Sermon on the Mount is a copy of absolutely simple rules of any normal person. By the way, the criminal code of any practically state does not welcome (and even punishes) murder, theft, etc. this was the case before the Sermon on the Mount. and another oddity is that I am an atheist, however, the lack of faith in God and the cross with an idol (image of a dead man) on my chest in no way prevents me from living like a human being (well, until obscurantism seized power in our state) . and I am not gay, although not Orthodox.
                "And our country, with its unwillingness to walk in the same ranks with the pid-mi, again becomes a bone in the throat of the" civilized world. "- Have you heard about the French riots? Are there Orthodox Christians rebelling against gays? And what about Muslim countries? Gays are severely punished there (well in the UAE for anyone), and in Orthodox Russia they don't even have a corresponding article (punishment for fagot). Why so?
                1. Trapperxnumx
                  Trapperxnumx 4 July 2013 11: 19 New
                  +1
                  Quote: fartfraer
                  "-and the Sermon on the Mount is a tracing of absolutely simple rules of any normal person. By the way, the criminal code of almost any state does not welcome (and even punishes) murder, theft, etc., and it was so before the Sermon on the Mount.

                  Not really. The Sermon on the Mount is a doctrine of Love in its highest manifestation. The criminal code is not an example here - it speaks of punishment, and NP refers to forgiveness. Further, I will not develop this topic, because it will already lead away from the article.
                  Quote: fartfraer
                  I am an atheist, but the lack of faith in God ... in no way prevents me from living humanly

                  Excuse me, but where did I say that only Orthodox believers have a monopoly right to live "like human beings"? The same applies to the French. But the fact that the Church, as an institution that has a fairly large influence in our country, is on guard of our morality (we will not mention individual personalities, there are renegades everywhere) and as long as it has at least some real power, any power in our country will reckon with it. country. Or do you think that all attacks on the Church are accidental?
                  And then, in my comment I already wrote that purity and the pursuit of good and truth are inherent in us from time immemorial. This is the law of the heart. And I think even our rulers have not completely lost it yet.
                2. fartfraer
                  fartfraer 4 July 2013 14: 28 New
                  0
                  “Excuse me, but where did I say that only Orthodox believers have a monopoly right to live exactly“ like a human being ”—that is absolutely true, so there is no need to braid religion and say that we were attacked because of the religiosity of the people. We were attacked because of geopolitics and the wealth of our territories, religion is only a tool of control, the root cause is not at all
                3. Setrac
                  Setrac 4 July 2013 19: 43 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Trapper7
                  The Sermon on the Mount is a doctrine of Love in its highest manifestation. The criminal code is not an example here - it speaks of punishment, and NP refers to forgiveness.

                  All these arguments about love and forgiveness - a lie in the mouth of the church, the Orthodox Church did not forgive anyone, the pagans - were drained, the Old Believers were destroyed, I note that it was not even Catholics or Protestants, almost the same Orthodox, the atheists were not forgiven, up to the call to support interventionists against the Communists, even the White Guards did not reach this point.
                4. Trapperxnumx
                  Trapperxnumx 5 July 2013 08: 32 New
                  0
                  Quote: Setrac
                  Quote: Trapper7
                  The Sermon on the Mount is a doctrine of Love in its highest manifestation. The criminal code is not an example here - it speaks of punishment, and NP refers to forgiveness.

                  All these arguments about love and forgiveness - a lie in the mouth of the church, the Orthodox Church did not forgive anyone, the pagans - were drained, the Old Believers were destroyed, I note that it was not even Catholics or Protestants, almost the same Orthodox, the atheists were not forgiven, up to the call to support interventionists against the Communists, even the White Guards did not reach this point.

                  Write complete nonsense. For a thousand years, the pagans themselves disappeared (although at the beginning of the clash there were no doubt). Old Believers are still there, and before the revolution of 17, there were a lot of them. And the civil war was a civil war, there were no right-wing people there.
                5. Setrac
                  Setrac 5 July 2013 14: 02 New
                  0
                  Quote: Trapper7
                  Pagans for a thousand years themselves dissolved

                  The churchmen themselves say this, but in fact they cut out all those who disagreed, all who were "above the wheel of the cart."
                  Quote: Trapper7
                  Old Believers are still there

                  Partly survived those who went into the woods, the rest were burned, killed.
                  Quote: Trapper7
                  And the civil war was a civil war, there were no right-wing people there.

                  White had his own truth, red had his own, but the church took the side of INTERVENTS, betraying everyone.
  • My address
    My address 3 July 2013 10: 19 New
    +3
    Nicholas was not prepared for the emperor. For the Khodyn catastrophe - unwillingness to postpone the coronation, not for January 9, he was called "bloody", and the then liberals called it. Rather, he is Nikolai the Indifferent.
    1. fartfraer
      fartfraer 3 July 2013 15: 49 New
      +3
      "Rather, he is Nicholas the Indifferent." - well said. all betrayal and murder.
      1. My address
        My address 3 July 2013 21: 49 New
        0
        You know, Andrei, for a long time I fear the indifferent. Stupid is better. He even molested the head of the personnel service for screening indifferent from the reserve for promotion. The method is known - based on tests.
        1. fartfraer
          fartfraer 3 July 2013 21: 58 New
          0
          literally I do not remember, as well as I do not remember who said (sorry), but the meaning is something like this - you don't need a person with honors, you need a person whose eyes "burn" with enthusiasm from the task at hand.
          Well, somehow I so absurdly interpreted the phrase, but tried to convey the meaning) in general I agree with this statement (although there may be exceptions, I can’t argue). Well, as regards the topic under discussion, Nicholas was not an emperor. He could be a good person, a family man, etc. .d., but the emperor was not exactly.
  • Sergey13
    Sergey13 3 July 2013 10: 29 New
    11
    Good! Bad! How many people have so many opinions. Personality? Certainly. But a person who did not cope with the assigned duties. Peter I did it, Stalin did it, but Nika didn’t. As Comrade Stalin "... you don't need to know a lot, you need to understand a lot ...", but Niki did not understand. This is an opinion as about a manager, as they say about a "manager" now.
    And what is holiness? The fact that he suffered martyrdom? So we have half of Russia then saints.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 3 July 2013 10: 35 New
      +3
      Quote: Sergey13
      And what is holiness? The fact that he suffered martyrdom?

      I came across that this was not done for his sake and his family. For a country to take away the price of sin request
      1. Sergey13
        Sergey13 3 July 2013 10: 40 New
        +4
        Yes, I read about it, including the prediction of Seraphim of Sarov. The Russian people did not keep the oath of allegiance to God anointed on earth, but pay in fact repentance?
        1. Standard Oil
          Standard Oil 3 July 2013 10: 49 New
          +4
          So the anointed himself escaped, where does the Russian people?
          1. Trapperxnumx
            Trapperxnumx 3 July 2013 13: 52 New
            +3
            Quote: Standard Oil
            So the anointed himself escaped, where does the Russian people?

            If he escaped, he would be alive. And his family.
    2. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 3 July 2013 13: 50 New
      +2
      Quote: Sergey13
      So we have half of Russia then saints.

      Almost there it is. Glorified only a small fraction, of which it was known for certain. Male are not Catholics, so that in a word the Patriarch of the deceased can be turned into a saint)))
  • Petrol
    Petrol 3 July 2013 10: 49 New
    0
    so he himself abandoned the people to the mercy of the revolutionaries who were traveling here at the invitation of Leiba Bronstein (the descendants of some schA in the Kremlin and Kiev sit on the bank, dismembering with religious, economic terror and pushing a single people with their foreheads) tormented by the repetition of the "exploits" of Jesus Navin ... in the hands of the army, the navy, intelligence, police and in the end, what ??? listened to the "receiver" (grishka) from the "transmitter" Badmaev .... At the end of 70, this experience was repeated .... The happiness of Russia that Rasputin did not have a modern television camera at his disposal.
  • Sergey13
    Sergey13 3 July 2013 10: 56 New
    +3
    Quote: Benzin
    so he himself abandoned the people to the mercy of the revolutionaries who were traveling here at the invitation of Leiba Bronstein (the descendants of some schA in the Kremlin and Kiev sit on the bank, dismembering with religious, economic terror and pushing a single people with their foreheads) tormented by the repetition of the "exploits" of Jesus Navin ... in the hands of the army, the navy, intelligence, police and in the end, what ??? listened to the "receiver" (Grishka) from the "transmitter" Badmaev .... At the end of 70 this experience was repeated ....

    About the leader from the "chosen people" is a separate conversation, we were led by the Russians to their promises, so to speak, already a sin laughing . And repentance is for killing. My opinion.
    1. Petrol
      Petrol 3 July 2013 11: 56 New
      +3
      not promises, but a new dogma based on materialism .... A new blow is being prepared for materialism based on dianetics (Scientology is an example)
    2. avt
      avt 3 July 2013 15: 06 New
      0
      Quote: Sergey13
      And repentance is for killing. My opinion.

      Killing who? If you're talking about those troubles with the remains of the Radzinsky name and the KGB major with investigator Solovyov, it's just the destruction of the property of the "owner of the Russian land" abroad, it was just necessary to officially change the head of the Romanov surname, so they staged this show with a funeral.
  • Skavron
    Skavron 3 July 2013 11: 14 New
    +3
    and the tsar, in fact, is not of Russian blood ...
    1. Petrol
      Petrol 3 July 2013 11: 57 New
      -5
      hehe ROMA_NOV (NEW ROMAN))))))
    2. erg
      erg 3 July 2013 14: 08 New
      +4
      From a biological point of view, maybe, from the point of view of customs, culture is Russian. Elizaveta Petrovna, one of the last purebred representatives of the Romanov clan (daughter of Peter 1), died childless. The throne was inherited by the tribe of Peter the Great, known as 3. The son of her sister (also the daughter of Peter) and the Duke of Golnstein-Gottorp. But he entered the throne as Romanov (took a dynastic name), although he was not crowned. Thus, unlike Europe, where in such cases a dynasty would change (for example: Henry 3 of Valois was killed - Henry 4 ascended the throne, but Bourbon, although a relative of Valois), the Romanovs remained in power in Russia. Having subsequently displaced her husband, Catherine refused the Golnshtein-Gottorp inheritance and all subsequent descendants could be called only the Romanovs. Thus, it is believed that from Peter 3 the Oldenburg branch rules (but only the branch, and not the trunk of the dynastic tree) of the Romanovs.
      1. Skavron
        Skavron 3 July 2013 15: 04 New
        0
        Quote: erg
        From a biological point of view,

        therefore he wrote that "bloods"
        1. erg
          erg 3 July 2013 18: 55 New
          0
          Blood is of the least importance in such matters. How many of them were not of Russian blood, but who made more for Russia than some Russians.
      2. Petrol
        Petrol 3 July 2013 17: 45 New
        +1
        Since such a drunk about Peter 1 has gone, a young man of twenty-six years old is leaving with the Great Embassy, ​​is taller than average height, is physically healthy, has a mole on his left cheek, has wavy hair, is well-educated, loves everything Russian, Orthodox (it would be more correct to - orthodox) Christian who knows the Bible by heart, etc. etc. Two years later, a man returns who practically does not speak Russian, until the end of his life never learned to write Russian, forgetting everything that he knew before leaving for the Great Embassy, ​​without a mole on his left cheek, with straight hair, painful, looking forty years old , person... and on the first day of his arrival, he exiled his wife to the monastery .... and who knows better than the husband’s wife ????
        1. Igarr
          Igarr 3 July 2013 19: 40 New
          +2
          Come on, Benzin ...
          I would return after a 7-year absence and have the power .. I would also exile many. And then he sent ... or even ....
          Not blood is important. Not a dynasty. The Holstein-Gottorp duchy, now the Olsztyn voivodship in Poland, next to Kaliningrad, the former Koenigsberg, without the slightest doubt, accepted Russian citizenship under Catherine - and even earlier, the personal patrimonial possession of Prince Rurik from the Varangians-Rus ...
          Well, if you come up so ... synthetically ...
          Recall..service Serbs - owners of the lands of Berlin.
          Recall the Western Slavs - cultivated by the Germans.
          We ask ourselves a question - are there GERMANS? Or is it just German-speaking Slavs - Bestia with blue eyes, two meters tall and flaxen hair.
          Something I didn’t meet on the Rhine. And in Arkhangelsk, Perm, Kirov - a rampart.
          And all ... without exception ... beast ... my mother is a woman.
          But the Germans are very like that - quiet, prisenilnye ordnung.
          It is they only in Turkey and Ebibt - violent.
          ....
          So .... "let's not ask - what does the Motherland owe me. Let's ask - what did I not do for the Motherland ??"
          And all business.
  • Valery-SPB
    Valery-SPB 3 July 2013 11: 20 New
    +6
    Russia's participation in the war led to the February Revolution and the October Revolution.
    Russia's participation in the war was due to the presence of an agreement between France and Russia, which got mean, by definition, England.
    The validity of the agreement on time was determined by the duration of the union of the central powers, including Italy.
    Czarist intelligence worked badly without revealing Italy’s intentions in a future war.
    Italy fought in the war against Germany and Austria-Hungary.
    The triple alliance broke up and legally Russia had the right to abandon joint actions with the allies in accordance with the early agreement.
    The war was launched without proper material support and a system for attracting reserves.
    Strategic operations planning was planned taking into account the solid defense against East Prussia, including to protect the strategically important railway.
    The command of the two Russian armies in the direction of East Prussia was given by the greatest commander, who had previously lost the war with Japan, the All-Russian Emperor Nicholas II.
    Samsonov’s army was defeated, which negatively affected the fighting spirit of the army.
    Tsar Nicholas II surrendered his post as a soldier on a breeding command.

    Objectively, it was Nicholas II that generated both the revolution and the de facto defeat from Germany and the fratricidal civil war, and also predetermined the fate of his and his family.

    Great deeds worthy of holiness!
    1. Zhuchok
      Zhuchok 3 July 2013 15: 21 New
      0
      East Prussian operation was successful at the initial stage. But is only one king responsible for its result? At that time, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich was the Commander-in-Chief. The front commander is not responsible? And the chief of staff? And those who organized intelligence, on the basis of the reports of which the Headquarters made decisions?
      The Tsar became Commander-in-Chief in 1915, and thanks to him it was possible to stabilize the front and conduct a successful offensive in 1916. And also managed to establish the production of ammunition in Russia, as our Western "allies" we "threw".
      What does it mean "Tsar Nicholas II has surrendered his post"? There is no objectivity in your judgments, but all the same clichés of Soviet historiography that dominated for 70 years.
      Holiness - this means that a person in his life fulfilled the Christian commandments, and in this case, suffered martyrdom, being humiliated, spat upon and slandered, but not denied Christ.
      1. anderrr
        anderrr 4 July 2013 00: 56 New
        -1
        And do not tell me what Christian commandments were fulfilled by Nicky on the Khodynka field?
        1. fartfraer
          fartfraer 4 July 2013 01: 04 New
          -1
          perhaps they didn’t commit adultery there, although such a stampede ...
  • Igarr
    Igarr 3 July 2013 11: 20 New
    +7
    Did not like the article.
    Shulgin, an infection, an ardent anti-Bolshevik, an anti-communist, well, supposedly, Navalny of that time - and then he said about Nikolai - "I renounced Russia as I surrendered a platoon." This opinion of an eyewitness to those events is worth a lot.
    ....
    What is there to invent?
    You look at how they are now clinging to power - with their hands, feet, teeth, members .... but what you can cling to is clinging to.
    And here - a man who is destined for power, supported by traditions, religions, a corporation of monarchs around the world - just ... and renounces in favor of his brother. The generals whispered, the Duma advised.
    Well, why such a ... sovereign needed?
    ..
    Will we offer Medvedev a resignation? .......... Are you laughing? That's it.
    .
    Disowned. Okay. So go faster somewhere, that - never studied history? How did Louis break all firebrands and their wives? To everyone there Tudoram-Mudoram and Mariam Stewart.
    What did you count on?
    There are no brains, consider a cripple.
    And 9 grams of lead in the skull - they certainly won’t add brains.
    As a person, as girls - his daughters - I feel sorry for them.
    But - the Emperor is not a MAN. He is the emperor. Yes, and former .. emperors do not exist. There are dead.
    1. Petrol
      Petrol 3 July 2013 11: 58 New
      -2
      Typa ... there is no smoke without fire
  • dmb
    dmb 3 July 2013 11: 22 New
    +2
    The funniest thing in all of this story is that the commission for the reburial of the "passion-bearer" was headed by the "true Orthodox monarchist" Mr. Nemtsov, who was greatly killed over his tragic death and branded the Bolsheviks with shame. Quite worthy of each other company, admirers of the monarch, and "white tape liberal, p ... art, an agent of the State Department.
  • Sergey13
    Sergey13 3 July 2013 11: 36 New
    +2
    Quote: dmb
    The funniest thing in all of this story is that the commission for the reburial of the "passion-bearer" was headed by the "true Orthodox monarchist" Mr. Nemtsov, who was greatly killed over his tragic death and branded the Bolsheviks with shame. Quite worthy of each other company, admirers of the monarch, and "white tape liberal, p ... art, an agent of the State Department.

    Who orders the music, he dances it. To make Marked and EBN great saints, they have "done so much" not only for Russia but for the entire "world community" am
  • Aleksys2
    Aleksys2 3 July 2013 12: 14 New
    +3
    He also appreciated ballet,

    Matilda Feliksovna Kshesinsky is a famous Russian ballerina and teacher, also known for her intimate relationships with the august persons of the Russian Empire. In 1892 — 1894, she was the mistress of Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich (future Nicholas II); their relationship ended after the engagement of the crown prince with Alice of Hesse in April 1894.
    And the young king experienced a strange craving for military affairs: I knew perfectly not only military regulations, but also the numerous traditions of the officer environment. In his youth, Nikolai did not miss a single officer party, hunting or military parade.

    Really "strange craving for military affairs" - parties, hunting ...
  • adg76
    adg76 3 July 2013 12: 28 New
    +2
    Due to the opinion that has formed in me, I have a negative attitude towards Nicholas 2 and the period of his reign. But here he was to be buried (reburied) with all honors, as the head of state, and in deference to those who supported and support him. The same should be done with the body of Lenin. To bury with all state honors. In any case, these two leaders did much more for the state than Yeltsin. Our society is split and has different views on the same processes in the history of the state.
  • Hamul
    Hamul 3 July 2013 13: 00 New
    +5
    I’m interested in this - Nicholas II seems to have abdicated the throne himself - so why are we talking about him as the Emperor ???

    From the moment of renunciation, he became a citizen of Russia. It seems to be so?
    What kind of martyrdom of the Emperor are we talking about?
  • Russ69
    Russ69 3 July 2013 13: 53 New
    +1
    What the fuck the Emperor is, this position was not for him. A man is absolutely limp, should such an emperor be ...?
    Abdicate during the war, but he is the same traitor as the Provisional Government.
    1. Zhuchok
      Zhuchok 3 July 2013 15: 00 New
      +1
      Where is the evidence of "lack of will" and abdication? Have you read the article to which you are writing a comment? How long can you repeat the staples of Soviet historiography? For 20 years, hundreds of documents have been opened, which can be freely reviewed.
      1. fartfraer
        fartfraer 3 July 2013 15: 57 New
        +2
        did not renounce? Possibly. It means that he brought the people of his country to such a state that people (not all, but many) supported the revolution. It turns out that in any case the ruler was not a fountain
        1. Trapperxnumx
          Trapperxnumx 3 July 2013 16: 15 New
          -1
          Quote: fartfraer
          did not renounce? Possibly. It means that he brought the people of his country to such a state that people (not all, but many) supported the revolution. It turns out that in any case the ruler was not a fountain

          Then explain to me, stupid, to what state and what kind of people did Putin bring? Remember those many-thousand-strong marches of "mink coats". This is a trend. "We are against Putin." It was the same with the king. This was a trend among people who considered themselves the color of the nation. Even the clergy followed this "fashion". We are backward, we are wild, we are undemocratic. We must take an example from the West. These are the main slogans of all Russian revolutionaries. The king miscalculated that he believed that he was supported by the bulk of the people. But the people fell for tantrums and emotions. Just as today's "all-scattered" people TRY to conduct their propaganda. One to one. Only we seem to have grown wiser a little.
          1. fartfraer
            fartfraer 3 July 2013 17: 41 New
            +3
            The revolution (October) was not done by the "flower" of the nation. Strange, here they say how, in principle, life was not bad for the then main mass of the people. They loved the tsar, went to church and then there was a revolution. Who did it? I will specify by whose hands it was done ? who fought against the white army as part of the red army? the same people. ie. it turns out in your opinion (free interpretation of your words) that the "stupid" people threw off the "good" tsar because of the hysterics of the then "elite"?
            by the way, returning to the present times, Kvachkov did not in any way urge to take an example from the West (for example), but he sits, and the "swamp" people calmly go to their rallies. strange is it all somehow. or here's another example, the current prime minister ( Putin's henchman), he is generally pro-Western nowhere else, and everyone is in power. And this is strange, do you agree?
            "Only we, it seems, have grown wiser a little." - and now and then everything is led by promises. (And I was led, no better than others), only this is how it turns out, created to support Putin and supported by him until recently "United Russia" promised that by 2012 everything will be so good with us that it turned out to be a fairy tale.
            “The king miscalculated that he believed that he was supported by the bulk of the people.” - the people in the end turned out to be smarter than the king and you thought about him.
          2. anderrr
            anderrr 4 July 2013 01: 12 New
            -1
            Stop-stop, why juggle? And where is the GDP? It's about Nicky, who in wartime (you know, in MILITARY) denied command and control. He threw them to the mercy of fate with all the consequences. You really don’t understand WHAT exactly did Nikloai do? Yes, if you start to understand, then the consequences for our country, you can safely certify it as having failed to cope with its direct official and official duties. And to put it mildly.
  • Valery-SPB
    Valery-SPB 3 July 2013 15: 51 New
    +3
    Quote: Zhuchok
    East Prussian operation was successful at the initial stage. But is only one king responsible for its result? At that time, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich was the Commander-in-Chief. The front commander is not responsible? And the chief of staff? And those who organized intelligence, on the basis of the reports of which the Headquarters made decisions?


    Dear, you are talking nonsense! Moreover, the success or failure of the East Prussian operation.
    It is said in ordinary, understandable Russian that strategic planning of war did NOT imply an offensive in this direction. The offensive was launched at the direction of the king in order to save the allies. This is written by Russian generals.
    I can’t imagine that Poincaré or Marshal Foch would directly instruct the Grand Duke and the front commander!
    1. Zhuchok
      Zhuchok 3 July 2013 16: 26 New
      +2
      I do not understand what is my nonsense.
      You blame the tsar for ordering an offensive, as a result of which the 2nd Army was defeated. Or not?
      In your post, according to Soviet tradition, you hang all the dogs on the tsar, and I affirm that this is wrong.
      An offensive to save allies is one thing, and the organization and outcome of the operation is another. It is Russia's tradition to at least coordinate their actions in the war with their allies. So it was in almost all wars, for example, in which Suvorov took part. Even Stalin did not plan an advance in Poland ahead of schedule, but in the end decided on this, at the request of the Allies.
      But the result of the operation of 1914. depended not on one king, and not even so much on him.
      There was every opportunity to carry out this operation successfully.
      1. fartfraer
        fartfraer 3 July 2013 17: 47 New
        0
        Zhuchok, I agree with you in this comment. You don’t need to hang up specific operations on the tsar. But Russia's entry into the war is entirely his fault, for which he answered in full.
      2. Valery-SPB
        Valery-SPB 3 July 2013 18: 30 New
        0
        Quote: Zhuchok
        I do not understand what is my nonsense.


        And where do you see in my post a link to the royal order of attack. There is no such specific order for No. ...... But give a command to your generals, give an order ...
        “We must aim at the heart of Germany,” the king admitted in a signed agreement with the French. “The task of both our parties should be the capture of Berlin.”

        There was no chance of success. The offensive was launched in two operational directions out of a possible three, which were calculated by Commander Pritz.
        Read about the readiness of the Russian army and rear at the Russian generals. Golovin, Zayonchkovsky, etc.

        Why go to battle with me,
        Since this fight is not mine at all?
        Clean all Europe map
        And fight in a foreign war -
        That's what the Entente is for,
        And not one, but two at once.
        1. Zhuchok
          Zhuchok 3 July 2013 22: 48 New
          0
          Could you please cite the source from which these words of the king are taken "We must aim at the heart of Germany ...".
          The fact is that Tsar Nicholas II is often attributed to phrases and statements that he could not utter for the reason that the nature of his personality, deep Orthodox faith in his heart, nobility and good manners were very different from how these phrases attributed to him built stylistically, intonationally, and so on. This is exactly the same as Lenin was credited with the image of a "good grandfather", "the most humane person."
          There were, there were chances for success, and real. Subject to good coordination. Pritvits did not count anything, he also had problems with intelligence. And in general, the strategy of war on the part of Germany itself implied the priority of delivering attacks in the western direction on France. Therefore, the decision to conduct an operation in East Prussia was correct, but poorly executed. In general, it was the first war of its kind, on such a scale and the organization of hostilities. And both sides made mistakes.
          1. fartfraer
            fartfraer 3 July 2013 23: 47 New
            +1
            I read you and understand one thing - a monk Nicholas would have been much better than he was the ruler of a huge empire. And I also see how harmful it is when the ruler is a "lamb of God" and instead of the interests of the state prefers to follow "God's" commandments
            1. Zhuchok
              Zhuchok 3 July 2013 23: 59 New
              -4
              No, you misunderstand.
              During the wars there was a slogan "For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland", have you heard?
              That is, it is all together: Faith, the Tsar (the Anointed of God, who is given special grace in the sacrament of weddings to the kingdom, according to the prayers of all his servants), and the Fatherland - which is also given by God.
              That is, both the Orthodox faith, and fidelity to the Tsar as the one whom God blessed for the kingdom, and fidelity to the fatherland as the embodiment of the highest Christian value - Love, that is, willingness to sacrifice oneself for Faith, Tsar and Fatherland are inextricably linked. And on the same basis are courage, and determination, and perseverance. All these qualities are inextricably linked, and Tsar Nicholas II was a decisive and courageous man, he was constantly at the front during the First World War, and took death face to face for Russia.
              1. fartfraer
                fartfraer 4 July 2013 00: 19 New
                +3
                it is strange that during the Second World War they didn’t shout about faith and the tsar, and loyalty to the Motherland did not suffer from this ... it turns out that fidelity to the Motherland is not connected with the king in any way, and patriotism is not propaganda of the faith.
                I have an immodest question, but who did you serve in the army? You don’t need a hangout code, just a post at least
                1. Zhuchok
                  Zhuchok 4 July 2013 00: 35 New
                  -4
                  So the king was no longer in the Second World War, so they did not shout about the king.
                  But what, you can scream only in voice? To myself - you can’t? Indeed, it was impossible to shout with a voice, so prayers were read to oneself, the shortest prayers were baptized. Even in Soviet films it is shown. And they took icons with them.
                  "There are no atheists in war" - you probably heard? Patriotism is not directly related to faith, but the slogan was originally "For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland", then the faith was almost destroyed, the tsar was killed, the Fatherland, the Motherland remained. Thank God!
                  1. fartfraer
                    fartfraer 4 July 2013 00: 53 New
                    +3
                    atheists in war are. this is the first
                    movies of course are a cool argument, and it's hard to argue)
                    "but the slogan was originally" For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland "- at first they probably shouted" hurray. "
                    "faith was almost destroyed, the king was killed, the Fatherland remained," - you can destroy the church as an organization. faith can only be destroyed by destroying all its bearers. But our Fatherland, despite the absence of different faiths and the king, exists quite normally (now a secular state, priority what faith should not be)
                    as I understand it, you modestly ignored my question regarding the service? Well, okay, I asked out of interest, I’ll stay with him)
                    1. anderrr
                      anderrr 4 July 2013 03: 04 New
                      +3
                      And do not be surprised, this respectable public, by virtue of their non-resistance to incest, tends to experience certain difficulties in perceiving and interpreting finished semantic forms. Where does that pathological inability to objectively evaluate the world surrounding them come from?
                  2. Cat
                    Cat 4 July 2013 01: 02 New
                    +5
                    what are you smoking something ...
                    Quote: Zhuchok
                    So the king was no longer in the Second World War, so they did not shout about the king.
                    But what, you can scream only in voice? To yourself - you can’t? Indeed, it was impossible to shout with a voice, so prayers were read to oneself, the shortest prayers were baptized.

                    Well, yes, yes ... They didn’t shout, because they didn’t. But they thought. They meant. Definitely. No options. Infa 140%.
                    Ugh.
                    If in a simple way, this is called - to cling to someone else's victory. Or someone to anoint.
                    Quote: Zhuchok
                    Patriotism is not directly related to faith

                    Verily. Because:
                    Quote: Zhuchok
                    the slogan was originally "For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland", then the faith was almost destroyed, the Tsar was killed, the Fatherland, the Motherland remained.

                    that is, the Motherland (Fatherland) always remains the Motherland. And it’s for her that they go into battle. And the Tsar and Faith are beautiful words for the slogan, the presence or absence of which does not change anything. Therefore - nefig and drag them to victory.
                    1. anderrr
                      anderrr 4 July 2013 03: 10 New
                      +1
                      Here is another attempt in a simple way, on the fingers to explain the winged-winged, why the concept of Homeland is not quite what the state is. And what is primary and what is secondary.
  • omsbon
    omsbon 3 July 2013 15: 53 New
    0
    Nikolai Aleksandrovich, unlike his predecessors, placed personal in front of the imperial duty and, as a result, lost God Russia given to him!
    1. Zhuchok
      Zhuchok 3 July 2013 16: 27 New
      +2
      Please provide reasonable reasons.
      1. Lexagun
        Lexagun 3 July 2013 18: 31 New
        +3
        Arguments about Nika's prevalence of the personal over the public?
        Please:
        Unwillingness to "sacrifice honor" in determining the date of the coronation,

        the excessive role and influence of his wife on the state policy of Russia, including in the international sphere (the breakup by Germany and orientation to the future Entente lying and hostile to Russia was made with its direct pressure, let's say directly a hysterical woman obsessed with amulets)

        or, dependence on Rasputin as the doctor of Tsarevich Alexei and the resulting excessive influence on domestic and foreign policy (regardless of the personality of Rasputin himself).

        The movement of "Nika" on other people's leashes is in general its most characteristic feature, which is only the introduction of the "gold standard" at the instigation of the Dutch Jew Witte, after which, due to the exchange rate difference in currencies, their buying parity in Russia, such a rapid outflow of this "gold standard" began. that in order to maintain an obviously stupid and harmful idea, and also borrowed from the same British and French, and then for these loans to tie up in wars for their interests to the detriment of Russia's own.

        Well, for the popularization of monarchical ideas, another historical character would have been chosen - Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy, Alexei Mikhalovich the Quietest and even Nikolai the first in comparison with the second is just a darling, not to mention his grandfather and dad, although each of the prepositions has what to present, but at least there is something to discuss.

        But discussing Nicholas II from the standpoint of his greatness can only a poorly informed type in pink glasses.
        So the outcome of the board is adequate to the efforts. To my great regret.
        1. Pamir210
          Pamir210 3 July 2013 19: 51 New
          -1
          Nevsky is not the best way to popularize
          1. Lexagun
            Lexagun 3 July 2013 20: 19 New
            0
            Why is Nevsky worthless? because of the politics of collaboration? But in this way she not only saved Russian statehood but ensured its survival.

            Politics is the art of the possible.
        2. omsbon
          omsbon 3 July 2013 20: 09 New
          0
          Thank you Alexey! I read, I completely agree!
          Hope Zhuchok is satisfied with the answer.
        3. Zhuchok
          Zhuchok 3 July 2013 22: 27 New
          -2
          Dear, everything is almost exactly the opposite. You just need to familiarize yourself with the latest research.
          You continue to repeat phrases from Soviet history textbooks, which were based on falsifications of correspondence of members of the royal family with each other and with the outside world.
          And do not take into account the fact that Nikolai, and his whole family, and Rasputin were deeply religious people.
          This family accepted death face to face, did not flee abroad, did not swear allegiance to the new "power", they accepted death with prayer. This is not given to everyone.
          This completely excludes the very possibility of Alexandra Fyodorovna's "madness" on some kind of amulets. She had no influence, either on domestic or foreign policy, these are all nonsense and falsifications, and she was engaged in completely different things, for example, she served as a nurse during the war, looked after the wounded along with her daughters. The same is about Rasputin. Well, he had no influence, and was not a doctor. He was seen in the royal palace only a couple of times. And he was, according to the latest research, a secret assistant and confidant of the Emperor in the negotiations on the annexation of Tibet to Russia. And it was not in vain that British intelligence took part in the assassination of Rasputin, since Tibet is very close to India. And since Rasputin was useful to the royal family, due to his special gift of Christian prayer, with which, with this gift, he helped the sick Tsarevich, the murder of Rasputin also dealt a blow to the head of state, and the stability of power was undermined.
          As for economic policy and monetary reform, the positive effect of strengthening the national currency and increasing gold reserves of the Russian Empire are unambiguous. And the question of the flow of money to the West is completely controversial, since Russia placed military orders in the West and received investments. And Witte is a generally positive figure, since he lobbied for the construction of railways, and the Trans-Siberian Railway is largely his brainchild.
          There is no need to switch to nationality, nationality does not always determine the level of patriotism.
          1. AlNikolaich
            AlNikolaich 4 July 2013 00: 19 New
            +1
            Quote: Zhuchok
            Rasputin was useful to the royal family, because of his special gift of Christian prayer

            You bent it ... Can Grishka be the same in saints?
            Quote: Zhuchok
            about Rasputin, And he was, according to recent studies, the secret assistant and confidant of the Emperor in the negotiations on the accession of Tibet to Russia.

            Such a secret assistant is normal ... Straight Russian agent 007. (Though chewing snot smile )
            Dear, admit that you smoke? Share it, ah!
            lol
            1. fartfraer
              fartfraer 4 July 2013 00: 20 New
              +1
              Well, if the link was to "recent research", can you tell me where to find them?
              1. Zhuchok
                Zhuchok 4 July 2013 00: 37 New
                -1
                I have already quoted here the books of P.V. Multatuli, but in order to understand the whole point, you need to be familiar with the basics of the Orthodox faith.
                1. fartfraer
                  fartfraer 4 July 2013 01: 03 New
                  +2
                  understandably. you rely on the work of a descendant of people close to the tsar. then it is possible to use the works of those figures from the opposite side as a counterargument to complete the picture? for example, Lenin’s books or something like that? nevertheless, these people lived just then and knew the situation better than ours.
          2. Lexagun
            Lexagun 4 July 2013 19: 04 New
            +2
            I comment on the clinic for the last time.
            The Empress was not a "deeply religious", but an outspoken hustler, believing any devilry that welcomed not only Rasputin, and even if we assume for a moment that your obscure (unsubstantiated) statements about the falsification of a significant amount of documents by the Soviet side would have some basis, what will you do with foreign sources? or, for example, with such an interesting aspect as her behavior (and tantrums of course) before marriage. Continue to "explore" and you will be happy.

            Well, about Rasputin, his usefulness and the role he played, I do not intend to argue, I just draw your attention to the fact that he had the opportunity to play this role, without bearing any legal and social responsibility for his actions, just being a favorite. And it must be said that it is under the monarchical form of government that the costs of "favoritism" are most critical.

            I myself am a big fan of "alternatives", but you have to be friends with common sense.
            The monarch’s personal predilections have a direct impact on state affairs, and even with his absurd wife this evil influence has to be multiplied.

            As for the "gold standard", I don't understand at all, what are you pretending to be? no strengthening of the ruble took place, but there was a massive and very high demand for it, primarily for the purpose of export. IN 1913, it is believed that the country had more than 1600 tons of gold, the second largest reserves in the world after America. And this despite the fact that Russia, like America, was a gold-mining country. but for some reason no one says how much of this gold was exported. Roughly speaking, a plant for bottling "Coca-Cola" with the subsequent conversion of profits and the export of capital is not a real investment, and there was a lot of such "coca-cola" pseudo-investments within the Russian Empire. As a result, in 1917, only 640 tons were stored in Kazan (the same ones that Kolchak would capture.) About 500 tons were placed in Europe, that is, whatever one may say went abroad and did not return the fate of the rest is not known exactly due to the fact that then yet gold was not only a means of accumulation, it was also a means of circulation. Do you know the difference? The gold standard attracted international capital, which guaranteed free export of profits, which was done more than once. Hughes, Nobels and Rothschilds and others, received the main dividends from this gold standard, but by no means Russia. And it's better not to stutter about military deals. When, for the sake of personal ambitions, connections, instead of normal and modern Krupov cannons, French old junk with twice the worst characteristics was purchased at a three times higher price. When the same French were happy to invest in the construction of Russian railways, but in a very one-sided way, in the literal sense, the main projects from east to west and nothing more, an outspoken colonial orientation towards the export of Russian raw materials and then converted means of payment in full compliance with the rules of the gold standard. don't believe me? compare the volume of debt obligations on loans that Russia did not place but took, including under the security of the gold standard policy. That is, so that investors could freely export profits (otherwise they are not interested), we milked gold, bought and when we did not have enough of our own funds borrowed in England and France, after which we issued a new gold coin instead of the one that had already "left" paid interest, coins naturally left again. The king naturally occupied again. Clinic.

            The wrong character was chosen to popularize the ideas of monarchism.
        4. anderrr
          anderrr 4 July 2013 01: 19 New
          +1
          But discussing Nicholas II from the standpoint of his greatness can only a poorly informed type in pink glasses.
          Or alternatively informed ...
  • sergey72
    sergey72 3 July 2013 16: 19 New
    +6
    The article is a fat minus. Something a lot divorced the wounded in the head by the monarchy. Inexplicable tears and snot dedicated to the last offspring of the Holstein-Gottorp family, he remained, I hope, Nicholas the Last.
    1. Trapperxnumx
      Trapperxnumx 3 July 2013 16: 37 New
      +1
      On the contrary, they are understandable. Throughout the Soviet period, we were stubbornly drummed into the idea that the Empire was a "prison of peoples." When the USSR fell, the assessments were reversed. But you must finally figure out where the truth is? It was black. There was also white. And the longing for the monarchy is simply the people's thirst for a strong and domineering statesman who will begin to treat the government not as a manager and a mercenary, but as a master and father. Monarchy in this case is one of the varieties. This can also include interest in Stalin and a large number of articles and publications dedicated to this person.
      1. sergey72
        sergey72 3 July 2013 16: 44 New
        +1
        "Thank you" for the minus. As for the rest of Kersnovsky in your hands (history of the Russian Army in 4 volumes).
        1. Trapperxnumx
          Trapperxnumx 3 July 2013 16: 46 New
          0
          Please))) get also a plus)))
          And where does Kersnovsky (whom I read, by the way)? Here, first of all, we discuss the tsar as a monarchical person, and not the methods of his command and control.
          1. sergey72
            sergey72 3 July 2013 19: 47 New
            +1
            Thank you for the plus. The fact that Kersnovsky was read was very happy, although I myself am critical of him. And about the personality of the monarchy, sometimes very valuable confessions erupt there, involuntary observation of the gradual degradation of the Romanov family is especially valuable. Yours faithfully... hi
  • Odysseus
    Odysseus 3 July 2013 16: 43 New
    +9
    The trouble is not that the author of the article is trying to whitewash Nicholas II, in the end, everyone has the right to their point of view. The trouble is in destroying the culture of thinking in Russia as a result of which, in particular, people who know about history write articles on historical topics much less middle student of the Soviet school. The article is full of amazing pearls, for example:
    "Thus, his duty to the Fatherland was violated, and the country was transferred into the hands of the Bolsheviks" - was the country transferred to some such Bolsheviks in March 1917? Let me remind you that the Bolsheviks were not in power then, Lenin was in Switzerland, Stalin was in Achinsk.
    "There is an opinion that, already being held captive by the Bolsheviks, the emperor could save himself and his family's life. For this he only needed to approve the Brest Peace. However, he refused" - this is who in Russia in 1918 was interested in the opinion of the arrested citizen. Romanov on foreign policy problems?
    "On March 9, all members of the royal family were arrested" - what kind of "royal family"?. He ceased to be king on March 2.
    "The meeting with the emperor was prepared and organized by the social democrats" - which social democrats? Has the author ever heard of the "Meeting of Russian factory workers in St. Petersburg" and priest Gapone?
    Well, etc. all the way to infinity.
  • nnz226
    nnz226 3 July 2013 17: 21 New
    12
    It would be nice for the author to study the history of Russia instead of snot about the "anpirator"! In February 1917, abdicating the throne, Nikolashka did not give the country into the hands of the Bolsheviks due to the absence of them! He put it into the hands of the liberals (Mensheviks, Cadets, Socialist-Revolutionaries), who in 8 months had gone so far in the country that the Bolsheviks in October (November) picked up "the power lying in the mud." And then it started. By the way, in the Civil War, the Bolsheviks fought not with the monarchists, there were 3-4% of them in the ranks of the whites, but with the same liberals who lost power and were fighting for its return. The liberals poured the blood of the people in rivers, no worse than the Bolsheviks. And about Nikolashka: to bring the country from pacified to 2 revolutions, you must have "talent!" And if anyone can be counted among the saints, so is Dr. Botkin and the servants of the entoy family, who went to their death out of loyalty to their masters. And the "owners of the Russian land" themselves deserved such a finish of life. They ate sweetly, drank freely, dumbfounded as best they could. The basement was logical.
    1. avt
      avt 3 July 2013 20: 57 New
      0
      Quote: Odyssey
      "Thus, his duty to the Fatherland was violated, and the country was transferred into the hands of the Bolsheviks" - was the country transferred to some such Bolsheviks in March 1917? Let me remind you that the Bolsheviks were not in power then, Lenin was in Switzerland, Stalin was in Achinsk.

      good
      Quote: nnz226
      By the way, in the Civil War, the Bolsheviks fought not with the monarchists, there were 3-4% of them in the ranks of the whites, but with the same liberals who had lost power and were fighting for its return. The liberals poured the blood of the people in rivers, no worse than the Bolsheviks. And about Nikolashka: to bring the country from pacified to 2 revolutions, you must have "talent!" And if anyone can be counted among the saints, so is Dr. Botkin and the servants of the entoy family, who went to their death out of loyalty to their masters. And the "owners of the Russian land" themselves deserved such a finish of life. They ate sweetly, drank freely, dumbfounded as best they could. The basement was logical.

      good good
      Quote: Odyssey
      "There is an opinion that, already being held captive by the Bolsheviks, the emperor could save himself and his family's life. For this he only needed to approve the Brest Peace. However, he refused" - this is who in Russia in 1918 was interested in the opinion of the arrested citizen. Romanov on foreign policy problems?

      Under Kerensky, they appealed to his relatives in England to accept the future "holy family", they agreed, received the luggage of the Romanov family and immediately refused to accept them. So all the years the luggage lay, as well as the property and bank accounts abroad, of the owner "the Russian land, until Radzinsky, Major GBshny and Nemtsov muddied the mulch with the remains, quickly buried a pile in Petropavlovka and immediately after the funeral, elected a new head of the Romanovsky house. not sour, that's just what Sirotkin dug up, but with interest - the current owners of the Russian land are still resting. One can gloat about one thing - Igorek Chubais bet on the wrong ones, muddied him with the Kiriloviches of the Hohenzeuler and didn't hit the gangway in St. Petersburg, flew past the ticket office laughing
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 4 July 2013 00: 35 New
        0
        Quote: avt
        Under Kerensky, they appealed to his relatives in England to accept the future "holy family", they agreed, received the luggage of the Romanov family and immediately refused to accept them. So all the years the luggage lay, as well as the property and bank accounts abroad, of the owner "the Russian lands, until Radzinsky and the GBsh major and Nemtsov muddied the mulka with the remains, quickly buried a pile in Petropavlovka and immediately after the funeral, they elected a new head of the Romanovsky house

        An interesting story. I knew that the British, in their own style, threw the Romanovs with asylum, but I was not interested in the further fate of their money. Interestingly, Radzinsky and Co. used it in the dark or did they work for a "small bribe"?
        However, the queen at one time even managed to throw them away)) After all, information about the Hampshire with Lord Kitchener on board came to the Germans straight from her boudoir (through the apartment on Gorokhovaya, of course).
        As she gracefully put it in a letter to Nicholas, "the Monk Gregory" is in this regard in high spirits laughing
    2. Xnumx kopeek
      Xnumx kopeek 4 July 2013 00: 07 New
      -1
      Quote: nnz226
      It would be nice for the author to study the history of Russia instead of snot about the "anpirator"! In February 1917, abdicating the throne, Nikolashka did not give the country into the hands of the Bolsheviks due to the absence of them! He put it into the hands of the liberals (Mensheviks, Cadets, Socialist-Revolutionaries), who in 8 months had gone so far in the country that the Bolsheviks in October (November) picked up "the power lying in the mud." And then it started. By the way, in the Civil War, the Bolsheviks fought not with the monarchists, there were 3-4% of them in the ranks of the whites, but with the same liberals who lost power and were fighting for its return. The liberals poured the blood of the people in rivers, no worse than the Bolsheviks. And about Nikolashka: to bring the country from pacified to 2 revolutions, you must have "talent!" And if anyone can be counted among the saints, so is Dr. Botkin and the servants of the entoy family, who went to their death out of loyalty to their masters. And the "owners of the Russian land" themselves deserved such a finish of life. They ate sweetly, drank freely, dumbfounded as best they could. The basement was logical.

      - the denial of what God gave him - for that he paid. Decomposition of the top, plus the indifference of the people themselves. 100 years / 4 generations / payback. Bible laws have not yet been canceled.
    3. anderrr
      anderrr 4 July 2013 01: 55 New
      0
      Sounds tough, but fair. According to their deeds ...
  • DZ_98_B
    DZ_98_B 3 July 2013 18: 41 New
    +2
    Not a single monarchist in the CIVIL WAR thought to fight for Nikolashka! They fought for the king. for tsarism. but not for this ....... And the Bolsheviks did the right thing to destroy this reptile. There would be no Bolsheviks, LENIN and STALIN, RUSSIA now would not be !!!!
    1. GUSAR
      GUSAR 3 July 2013 20: 23 New
      0
      If there were no Bolsheviks, Russia would flourish ...
      1. sergey72
        sergey72 3 July 2013 20: 38 New
        +2
        I don’t want to swear now ... well, you understand, right?
      2. anderrr
        anderrr 4 July 2013 02: 01 New
        0
        Quote: GUSAR
        If there were no Bolsheviks, Russia would flourish ...

        How did grandma say that?
  • Yarosvet
    Yarosvet 3 July 2013 18: 43 New
    +4
    _______________________________
  • Pamir210
    Pamir210 3 July 2013 19: 28 New
    -8
    Quote: Vasya
    to Comrade Stalin how to walk to the moon

    especially in terms of destroying the people of the country that he ruled.
    1. fartfraer
      fartfraer 3 July 2013 20: 12 New
      -1
      how many people did Stalin destroy? He is interested in a specific figure, dear.
      1. sergey72
        sergey72 3 July 2013 20: 32 New
        +1
        Wait a moment: five hundred million innocently killed !!!! wassat
        1. fartfraer
          fartfraer 3 July 2013 20: 41 New
          +1
          it’ll become with him. In general, sometimes I read such people and I think, whose descendants are we if the entire population was rotten in the Gulag, and those who were not rotten were sent to overwhelm the Nazi troops with corpses?
          By the way, if suddenly there are people on the site who share the statement "filled up with corpses", please share the info, how many corpses are needed to stop ... well, let's say T-4? or to gain air supremacy when enemy aircraft are flying more than 4 km.
          In short, I wait for the numbers
        2. Pamir210
          Pamir210 3 July 2013 21: 23 New
          -2
          not to say. if only because I know how to spell the word five hundred ..
          according to your losses among the population of his country, Stalin did not go around nicholas?
          or do they (losses) seem to you a reason for ornichnost?
          1. sergey72
            sergey72 3 July 2013 22: 07 New
            0
            "Pyattsot" and further, a quote from a book about the populace is pronounced by an Estonian. Believe it or not, I didn’t get around it ... As a result of the lack of will and outright Downism of "The Last", not only the First World War, but also the Civilian that was attached to it for losses on his conscience. And add emigration here. And so it turns out: he himself failed to control the Rossiya car and dragged the corpse and millions behind him.
      2. Pamir210
        Pamir210 3 July 2013 21: 18 New
        -2
        hardly anyone will call you a specific figure.
        you won’t call her either.
        Estimates are different and the spread in numbers is very large.
        1. fartfraer
          fartfraer 3 July 2013 21: 22 New
          0
          here I agree. Therefore, to say "especially in terms of the destruction of the people of the country that he ruled." It is very strange. How much he destroyed, whom he destroyed, why he destroyed and whether no one at all knows for sure. There are no exact figures. However, there are your statements that are not clear on what basis.
          1. fartfraer
            fartfraer 3 July 2013 21: 26 New
            +1
            and I’ll clarify right away that I’ll never be innocent convicted, but personally I think that in any state there are innocently convicted.
          2. Pamir210
            Pamir210 3 July 2013 21: 27 New
            -1
            I agree only in terms of the fact that there are no exact numbers.
            losses are measured in millions (I attribute the losses in the second world here).
            but, undoubtedly, they are not comparable with the Nikolaev period
            1. fartfraer
              fartfraer 3 July 2013 21: 45 New
              +3
              I won’t argue about millions of losses (if with the war). I completely agree. For only the soldier died more than 8.5 million (8.6 sort of), and if with the civilian population, then in the region of 20 million.
              in general, according to the State Statistics Committee
              1926-148.5 million people
              1937-162.5 million
              1939-168.5 million
              1941-196.7 million
              1946-170.5 million
              at least you kill, but I see losses from the war, and I don’t see losses from repressions (at least those of millions, according to some sources).
        2. sergey72
          sergey72 3 July 2013 21: 35 New
          0
          Did you accidentally determine your assessment from the Ogonyok magazine or from Volkogonov's “works”? Do not hide behind general phrases, dear, since they themselves started the conversation.
          1. Pamir210
            Pamir210 3 July 2013 21: 40 New
            -3
            no, not from the light.
            It is interesting to know from what sources you derived your assessment
            1. sergey72
              sergey72 3 July 2013 22: 20 New
              0
              You will laugh, but the first figures came from your own diocese. In the early 90s, the Military History Journal published a series of articles on this topic. By the way, Volkogonov refuted them with foam at the mouth, but could not bring anything but stichilos from the press.
  • Alf
    Alf 3 July 2013 20: 30 New
    +1
    Quote: Aleksys2
    And the young king experienced a strange craving for military affairs: he knew perfectly not only military regulations, but also the many traditions of the officer environment. In his youth, Nikolai did not miss a single officer party, hunting or military parade.
    Really "strange craving for military affairs" - parties, hunting ...

    Hence the result of the REV-if Russian officers learned to fight already in the course of the war.
    During the war, Nikolashka resigned from his duties as supreme commander-in-chief, i.e., in fact, defected. In the Nazi Wehrmacht, the court, consisting of a unit commander, chief of staff and a direct commander, relied on desertion. Examination-expedited, sentence-execution. Why did you have to do something different with nikolashka?
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 3 July 2013 20: 59 New
      +1
      His "desertion", I dare to assume, was the only adequate act - like Alexander I - he understood that he was no colonel, so he did not interfere with Barclay and Kutuzov. The bad thing was that Nikolai generally decided to command himself - he made it only worse, and when he folded it, it was too late (
  • Pancho
    Pancho 3 July 2013 20: 41 New
    +4
    But I’m very sorry for the tsar’s children. The girls are pretty and you can see that they’re not spoiled, and the heir was tormented by disease. We were guilty of innocence. Although the Jews are to blame, and that blood was on us, we went like sheep for a goat.
  • Albert1988
    Albert1988 3 July 2013 20: 56 New
    +1
    In my humble opinion, Nikolai’s main mistake was a break with Stolypin - this man was a true patriot and statesman who understood that Russia needed to reform the existing system differently. Stolypin was essentially the only politician in the tsarist government who could really do something, who did not shy away from tough methods where necessary, and applied them competently, unlike any other horrible ones. But alas, Nikolai, judging by the fact that they write about him, did not understand people at all and could not assess the real competence and usefulness of a person at a particular post (Joseph Vissarionovich, for example, perfectly selected the right people). So Nicholas is a good example of how a good person can be a very bad ruler (
    1. AlNikolaich
      AlNikolaich 4 July 2013 00: 32 New
      +1
      Quote: Albert1988
      Stolypin - this man was a true patriot and statesman, who understood that Russia needed to reform otherwise the existing system.

      Interesting opinion. And how do you like a Stolypin tie? And about the car of the same name to remind? And hundreds of thousands of peasants resettled in Siberia! How many of them survived?
      And do not dare to call this person a patriot and a statesman, this is not true !!! I live in the region where this reactionary governed at the time ... And the memory left the appropriate ...
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 4 July 2013 14: 55 New
        0
        They also say a lot of "good" things about Stalin, and he also made quite a few similar ties and wagons, but what was the result? Russia has become an industrial superpower. We can still say we live on the backlog of the Soviet period, and the Soviet Union is 90% the creation of Stalin. So it is not known how the country would have gone if Stolypin had remained alive. Sometimes tough measures are necessary, otherwise there will be an explosion, which unfortunately happened in the case of Stolypin (
  • Xnumx kopeek
    Xnumx kopeek 3 July 2013 23: 18 New
    +1
    as Gippius wrote. "The tsar was not beaten. It is difficult to write about what was not beaten."
  • Drosselmeyer
    Drosselmeyer 3 July 2013 23: 57 New
    +1
    He destroyed the country and did not save his family. Daughters and the heir are very sorry, they just got on the fact of birth for nothing. And Nicholas 2 had to retire after Tsushima.
  • AlNikolaich
    AlNikolaich 4 July 2013 00: 52 New
    +3
    Quote: Drosselmeyer
    The last Russian tsar is often accused of completely opposite sins. For example, because he carried out liberal reforms too slowly, and at the same time he was too lenient towards revolutionaries.

    Damn, he was like that ... Not hard and not soft, not warm not cold, in short, no way!
    Nicholas is sorry, his family, sorry even more. But this was the logical conclusion of his policy, unfortunately ...
    Perhaps a good constitutional monarch would have come out of him, an English model (such as a spineless, slippery and cold creature, with show-offs but without power). But this character did not fit the role of the Autocrat and Sovereign of All Russia! As now does not fit the role of a saint!
    Let's not blame him (which of us is without sin?), But we also don’t need to praise him. This is part of our story!
    By the way, I consider the destruction of the royal family a crime for which there is no forgiveness! But it was not the Soviet regime that was to blame for this crime ...
  • georg737577
    georg737577 4 July 2013 02: 40 New
    +1
    Nikolashka earned his bullet in full. And his canonization is a mistake.
  • Andy
    Andy 4 July 2013 07: 44 New
    +1
    General N.A. Lokhvitsky said: “It took Peter the Great nine years to turn the victorious Narva into Poltava winners. Emperor Nicholas II did the same work for a year and a half, but a revolution arose between the Sovereign, his Army and Victory. ”

    it's not funny anymore. once again about the "stolen" victory ... there was none! remember the defeat of 2 Russian armies, the retreat. exception - Brusilov breakthrough. How is shell hunger combined with almost victory?
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 4 July 2013 15: 38 New
      0
      From myself, I can add that Russia's entry into the First World War with its then internal problems was already a defeat in itself.
  • Motorist
    Motorist 24 November 2014 17: 58 New
    0
    For commentators, the question is - YOU HAVE TAKEN INTO NIKOLAI 2 IN 1885 !!! YOUR ACTIONS???