Military Review

Colonel Romanov

56
Colonel Romanov



The Russian empire, like most empires in the world, constantly either fought or prepared for war, and therefore the combat readiness of its armed forces was the main concern of the rulers of Russia. Especially since, starting with Peter the Great, they were all in their basic education and training professional military men who served from an early age in the best guard regiments of the army and fleet Of Russia. In the same way, the last Russian emperor and Supreme Commander-in-Chief during the First World War — Colonel Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov, was brought up.

He passed all the necessary steps of military and civic education of a member of the royal family. Before serving in the regiment, the future emperor received a thorough home education, the program of which, besides the usual gymnasium course, included a number of disciplines of the law faculty of St. Petersburg University and the Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Army.

This training program was designed for 13 years. The first eight years were devoted to the subjects of the extended gymnasium course, where special attention was paid to the study of political stories, Russian literature, English, German and French. The next five years were devoted to the study of military affairs, legal and economic sciences, necessary for the future ruler of the Russian Empire. The military teachers of the heir to the throne were: M.I. Dragomirov, G.A. Leer, N.A. Demyanenko and other military leaders. Outstanding Russian scientists were engaged in general education: N.N. Beketov, N.N. Obruchev, TS.A. Cui, N.H. Bunge, K.P. Pobedonostsev.

6 May 1884, on his birthday, the 16-year-old future emperor took the military oath and entered military service. In August of the same year he received the rank of lieutenant and became an officer in the Russian army.

Military service of the lieutenant, Grand Duke Nikolai Alexandrovich was as follows.

1. Two summer camp gathering in the infantry, in the Life Guards Preobrazhensky regiment in the position of company commander.

He wrote about these years: “I have already done two camps in the Preobrazhensky regiment, I became terribly intimate and loved the service! I am sure that this summer service has brought me great benefits, and since then I have noticed great changes in myself. ”

2. Two summer camp gathering in cavalry, in the ranks of the Life Guards of His Majesty the Hussars Regiment in the position of platoon commander to the squadron commander.

3. One summer camp in artillery.

In the State Archives of the Russian Federation, in the Nicholas II Foundation, there are documents devoted to his scientific military studies of the time:

- calculations of Nicholas II on marine navigation instruments from 23 August 1884 to 3 in January 1885 g .;

- student notebooks of Nicholas II for fortification from October 10 1885 to February 2 1887 g .;

- An outline of the course of artillery, written for Grand Duke Nikolai Aleksandrovich. 470 p .;

- recordings of Grand Duke Nikolai Aleksandrovich at the rate of the military administration from 21 November 1887 to 11 March 1889 (8 exercise books);

- educational records of the Grand Duke Nikolai Aleksandrovich in military affairs 1887 g .;

- summary of the course of “military criminal law”;

- textbooks for the study of military affairs.

6 August 1892, eight years after the start of military service, having passed all the military positions required, Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich was promoted to colonel. Prior to assuming the throne in 1894, he commanded the battalion of the Preobrazhensky regiment. He retained the rank of colonel for life, since he did not consider it possible for himself to raise the rank. Here is what General N.A., a colleague of Emperor Nicholas II wrote in the Preobrazhensky Regiment, wrote Yepanchin: "Tsesarevich served in the infantry, in the Preobrazhensky regiment, as a junior officer and as a battalion commander ... Tsesarevich performed his duties extremely conscientiously, went into all the necessary details. He stood close to the officer and the soldier; he was in tact with people with unusual tact , endurance and goodwill; none of the officers singled out in particular, did not enter into special close relations with anyone and did not push anyone away ... The living situation of the Tsarevich in the regiment was no different from the living conditions about steel officers - was simple, without any frills. He faced in the officers' meeting and did not make any claims, especially it caught the eye of the maneuvers, when a snack of the simplest kind was served, as there was no luxury at all in the Preobrazhensky regiment.

In addition to military service, the future emperor participates in meetings of the State Council and the Cabinet of Ministers, chairs the committee for the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway, travels to various provinces of Russia and foreign countries: Austria-Hungary, Greece, Egypt, India, China, Japan.

After the accession to the throne, Nicholas II takes special care of the army and navy of Russia. But, besides solving strategic military tasks, he is constantly interested in the life of a simple Russian soldier. It is known, for example, that once in Livadia, he overcame forty miles in soldiers' uniforms, with a full display, rifle and soldier rations in order to check the suitability of the new equipment. The commander of the regiment, whose form the emperor wore on that day, asked to be credited with Nicholas II in the first company and call him as a private on roll call.

The sovereign agreed to this and demanded a record for the lower rank, which he himself filled out. In the column for the name wrote: "Nikolai Romanov," about the term of service - "to the grave" ...
It should be noted that the emperor never considered himself a military leader capable of commanding armies, but could not help but realize the responsibility that the first person of the state bears before the Fatherland and the people. Before the beginning of the First World War, he had to endure the difficult experience of the Russian-Japanese war. He embodied the military lessons he learned into relevant reforms that prepared the Russian army for a new, large-scale war on both the European and Asian fronts. All this gave rise to a special relationship with the emperor in the military. General PN Krasnov recalled the review that Nicholas II did to the Cossack units: “The trumpeters played the regimental march ... The Sovereign took the Heir in his arms and slowly went along the Cossack front ... I followed the Sovereign and looked into the eyes of the Cossacks, watching that my “standard” trained 100 had no wavering of checkers. Our silver standard with a black double-headed eagle bent down, and involuntary tears flowed down the face of the bearded Old Believer, the handsome Wahmmaster. And as the Sovereign walked along with the Heir along the front, the Cossacks cried and the swords in sore callused hands swayed and I could not and did not want to stop this swing. ”

Nicholas II sincerely loved his warriors. “We looked at eight hundred soldiers of the 1 Army Corps who returned from the war to be the teachers of the young soldiers of their regiments,” he wrote to his mother in 1906. “I gave George crosses to all the wounded who remained in the ranks. Such was the joy of seeing these glorious people who served with such selflessness in a terrible and difficult war. ”

The 1914 war turned out to be not only much harder than the war with Japan, but also more difficult in the socio-political situation in the country itself. Russia faced a situation where, during a war with an external enemy inside the state, revolutionary and pseudo-revolutionary forces purposefully destroyed the state structure of the country and its armed forces, which, in fact, was the support of the enemy side ...

There were three forces that, hating each other, were in fact united against the emperor in an anti-state alliance, disastrous for the future of Russia and its peoples.
The first force, cynically honest in their goals, was the Bolshevik party with its revolutionary allies, openly embarking on the destruction of everything that prevented it from seizing power in the country.

The second is the court environment of the emperor, which inflated all sorts of intrigues and, speculating on the weaknesses of the royal family, pursued its own, often petty and mercantile goals. In fact, it was the closest, kindred environment of Nicholas II, and the more painful were his blows ...

But all these forces at the first stage of the overthrow of the Russian monarchy were inferior to the liberal pseudo-revolutionary public, which penetrated all the legislative and executive structures of the state. She had everything: money, influence on public opinion through the media and ... support of the army leaders, ambitiously dreaming of their careers under the new government. This force was not going to stop the war, moreover, she even naively, but sincerely believed that the overthrow of the monarchy would lead Russia under her leadership to strengthen the country and the victory of the Russian troops together with the allies.

Both the court circles and the liberal politicians did not yet understand then whom they were clearing the way for ... So PF Nikolaev, a member of the Ishutinsky revolutionary terrorist group, wrote: “after a number of revolutionary acts, and purely terrorist acts, the power will inevitably be lost, and the reins of power will fall into the street dirt and blood, from where only the same centralized party can raise them” .

Many memoirs of his contemporaries and a lot of research of historians of our time have been written about Tsar Nicholas II of the First World War period. All of them vary greatly in their conclusions and estimates.
Therefore, it is best to consider the dry facts testifying to the military actions of the Russian troops, respectively, before and after the entry of Emperor Nicholas II into the post of Supreme Commander and right up to his overthrow from the throne. To these facts we considered it expedient to add small excerpts from the works of his contemporary, an outstanding military historian and theorist, General from Infantry (infantry) Andrei Medardovich Zayonchkovsky.

Chronicle of the main military operations of the Russian army from 2 in May 1915 to 11 in January 1917.

2 May - 15 May 1915 g. - Gorlitsky breakthrough. German troops break through the defense of Russian troops in Galicia.

June 22 - Austro-German troops occupy Lviv.

5 August - German troops enter Warsaw.

26 August - left Brest-Litovsk.

September 2 - German troops enter Grodno.

September 8 - October 2 - Sventsian breakthrough. German troops occupy Vilnius.

From 2 May to 8 September 1915, the Austro-German troops occupy Galicia, Lithuania, Poland and continue the offensive.

September 8 1915 - Emperor Nicholas II assumes the duties of the Supreme Commander of the Russian Army, replacing Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich in this post.

October 2 1915 - in the area of ​​the Sventsian breakthrough, Russian troops stop the enemy’s advance and stabilize the front.

30 October-16 December - Hamadan operation. The corps of the general from the cavalry N.N. Baratova occupies northern Persia and takes Iran under the control of the Entente.

13 February-16 February 1916 - Russian troops, defeating the Turkish army 3, take the fortress of Erzurum.

In Russia, in the town of Rybinsk, Alexander Bode, a teacher of Russian literature, wrote the song “Holy War” with the words:

"Arise, great country,

Get up on a mortal battle

With dark German power,

With the Teutonic horde.


18-30 March - The Naroch operation in Belarus. After the start of the successful German offensive near Verdun, the commander-in-chief of the French army, General Joffre, appealed to the Russian command to inflict a distracting blow on the Germans. The Russian emperor, fulfilling his allied duty, decided to launch an offensive operation on the Western Front in March, prior to the commencement of the general offensive of the Entente's armies, scheduled for May 1916. The Russian offensive was repelled by the Germans, but stopped their attacks near Verdun for two weeks, which allowed France to pull in additional forces.

18 April - The Turkish Black Sea port of Trebizond taken by Russian troops.

June 3 - The Brusilovsky Breakthrough begins (front-line offensive operation of the South-Western Front under the command of General A. Brusilov).

July 2 - Erzincan battle. Turkish troops who tried to recapture their lost territories were defeated and retreated deep into Turkey.

22 August - Brusilovsky breakthrough ends with the complete success of the Russian troops. A severe defeat was inflicted on the armies of Austria-Hungary and Germany and Bukovina and Eastern Galicia were occupied. Assistance to the Allies at Verdun was again rendered, and the Romanian army was neutralized.

5 January-11 January 1917 - the beginning of the actions of anti-war and anti-monarchist forces in the Russian army. The Mitava operation is an offensive by the Russian troops to protect the strategically important port of Riga from the Germans, as a result of which the front line was distant. The results of political agitation prevented the success of the further offensive of the Russian forces - the refusal to continue the military operations by the revolutionary-minded regiments.

A.M. Zayonchkovsky: “In general, 1916 was the year of the breakthrough, which undermined the military power of the Central Powers and, conversely, brought the Entente forces to a culminating development. It was the year that determined the victory of the Entente in the future ... ".

And the main role in the future victory was played by the selfless and successful actions of the Russian army in 1916.

February-March 1917 - The February Revolution in Russia and the forced abdication of Emperor Nicholas II. Power passes to the Provisional Government and the Council of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies, headed by the revolutionary parties. The royal family is taken into custody. Massacres are carried out by revolutionary soldiers, sailors and civilians of officers, generals, admirals of the Russian army. Police and gendarme structures of the state are defeated. From prisons, except for political prisoners, convicted under criminal clauses (“Kerensky chicks”), who are beginning to terrorize the civilian population, are massively released. In the army, all power is transferred to the soldiers' committees, which leads to the complete disintegration of the army and navy of Russia. A.M. Zayonchkovsky: “October 25 (November 7) 1917. The Provisional Government was dropped, the government passed into the hands of the proletariat ... The Germans recently had 80 divisions on the Russian front, i.e. their armed forces 1 / 3, some of which began to be transferred to the French theater from the end of October ... ”

Order holder of sv. George and the French Order of the Legion of Honor, Lieutenant-General Nikolai Alexandrovich Lokhvitsky wrote about this time: “... It took Peter the Great nine years to turn the Narva defeated into the Poltava winners. The last Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Army, Emperor Nicholas II, did the same great work in a year and a half. But his work was appreciated both by the enemies, and between the Sovereign and His Army and the victory was the revolution "...

You can certainly not trust the words of a militant Russian general who defended Russia and France from the common enemy in the First World War, considering his opinion to be subjective due to loyalty to his emperor. Therefore, it would be appropriate to cite the words of an ally of Russia in this war, but its uncompromising adversary, the Minister of Arms of Great Britain in 1917, an eminent statesman and military leader Winston Churchill. In his book on the war 1914-1918. he, a career English officer, who went through the Cuban, Indian and Anglo-Boer wars, in particular, wrote (fully in the Appendix): “Fate was not so cruel to any country as to Russia ... In March, the Tsar was on the throne; The Russian Empire and the Russian army held out, the front was secured and victory was indisputable ... Here are the battlefields of Nicholas II. Why not pay him the honor? The selfless impulse of the Russian armies, who saved Paris in 1914; overcoming painful without a retreat; slow recovery; Brusilov victories; Russia's entry into the 1917 campaign is invincible, stronger than ever; Wasn’t it all his share? .. The king is leaving the stage. He and all his lovers are betrayed for suffering and death. His efforts diminish; his actions condemn; his memory is tarnished ...

Stop and say: who else was suitable? In talented and courageous people; people of ambitious and proud spirit; brave and powerful - there was no shortage. But no one was able to answer those few simple questions on which the life and glory of Russia depended.
Holding the victory already in her hands, she fell to the ground, alive, as ancient as Herod, devoured by worms ”.

On the night of 16 on 17 in July 1918, the former emperor and the last Supreme Commander of the Russian Army, Nikolai II, was shot in Yekaterinburg with his family by order of the executive committee of the Urals Regional Council of Workers', Peasants' and Soldiers' Deputies.

Colonel of the Russian Army Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov honestly performed what he had written in Livadia, in his military service record book, until his last hour of death he wore the shoulder-straps of a Russian officer canceled by revolutionary power and the Order of St. George the Victorious, IV degree, which he received for his services in the First World War war ...

Appendix:

[Winston Churchil. The world crisis. 1916-1918. Vol. I. London, 1927. From 223-225.]:

“Fate was not as cruel to any country as it was to Russia. Her ship went to the bottom when the harbor was in sight. She had already endured a storm when everything collapsed. All sacrifices have already been made, all work has been completed. Despair and betrayal seized power when the task was already completed. The long retreats are over; shell hunger defeated; weapons flowed in a wide stream; a stronger, more numerous, better equipped army guarded a huge front; Logistics centers were crowded with people. Alekseev led the army and Kolchak - the fleet. In addition, no more difficult actions were required: to remain in office; heavy pressure to put pressure on widely stretched German lines; to hold, without showing any special activity, the weakening forces of the enemy on their front; in other words, hold on; This is all that stood between Russia and the fruits of the common victory.

... In March, the King was on the throne; The Russian Empire and the Russian army held out, the front was secured and victory was indisputable ...

According to the superficial fashion of our time, the royal order is usually interpreted as blind, rotten, and incapable of tyranny. But the analysis of thirty months of war with Germany and Austria should correct these lightweight ideas. We can measure the strength of the Russian Empire by the blows that it sustained, by the disasters it endured, by the inexhaustible forces it developed, and by the recovery it was capable of ...

In governing states, when great events are happening, the leader of the nation, whoever he is, is condemned for failures and praised for success. The point is not who did the work, who wrote the plan of the struggle: reprimand or praise for the outcome predominate on those with the authority of supreme responsibility. Why refuse to Nicholas II in this severe test? .. The burden of the last decisions lay on him. At the top, where events transcend the mind of a person, where everything is inscrutable, he had to give answers. Compass needle was he. To fight or not to fight? To advance or retreat? Go right or left? Agree to democratization or hold fast? Leave or resist? Here are the battlefields of Nicholas II. Why not pay him the honor? The selfless impulse of the Russian armies, who saved Paris in 1914; overcoming painful without a retreat; slow recovery; Brusilov victories; Russia's entry into the 1917 campaign is invincible, stronger than ever; didn’t he share in all this? Despite the mistakes big and terrible, the system that was embodied in him, which he led, to which with his personal qualities he gave a vital spark - by this moment won the war for Russia ...

Here it is now slain. The dark hand interferes, at first clothed with madness. The king leaves the stage. He and all his lovers are betrayed for suffering and death. His efforts diminish; his actions condemn; His memory is tainted ... Stop and tell me: who else was useful? In talented and courageous people; people of ambitious and proud spirit; brave and powerful - there was no shortage. But no one was able to answer those few simple questions on which the life and glory of Russia depended. Holding the victory already in her hands, she fell to the ground, alive, as ancient as Herod, devoured by worms ”.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.stoletie.ru/voyna_1914/polkovnik_romanov_781.htm
56 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. mongoose
    mongoose April 26 2014 09: 14
    -1
    right now, adherents of the sect of witnesses of Marx will raid laughing
  2. avt
    avt April 26 2014 09: 44
    +5
    Quote: mongoose
    right now, adherents of the sect of witnesses of Marx will raid

    Her, while places from the sect, the king of God chosen, the anointed one "are observed, well, those about whom Nekrasov wrote -" people of the servile rank are real dogs sometimes, the heavier the punishment, the dearer the Lord. " Do you think that you are in “gentlemen?” And the article is a weak, sparse article in the spirit of propaganda about Lenin, well, when he is “small, with a curly head, he also ran in felt boots on the ice hill.” Instead of serious analysis, it is suggested to pray for the icon. I was especially touched by the flight of thought about enemy number 1 - the Bolsheviks laughing True, the author had the conscience to at least admit that they simply did not have the strength to play the role of the main villains in the 17th century. Well, honestly tell me who exactly merged the tsar father, especially not God knows what a secret, everything has long been known and telegrams of all front commanders sent to Nika's address # 1 to the Bottom station are open and so step by step the author can restore the real picture of the February 17 putsch, which brought the Bolsheviks to power in October. But then the whole pastoral in my head of pink snot about the dynasty and the "noble" aristocrats will evaporate instantly, and I really do not want to see this, so it pours, "sugar syrup for impotent", as Tolstoy said in "Walking through the agony"
    1. mongoose
      mongoose April 26 2014 11: 16
      +1
      first went fellow
    2. sled beach
      sled beach April 26 2014 14: 44
      +6
      If the tsar must keep the tsar's answer for the whole country, that's why they shot and their right. AND THE ORTHODOX took him into the face of the great martyrs !!! B'l'yat! my nerves. Some of my comrades foaming at the mouth are trying to prove that life in tsarist Russia was many times better than under the Soviets. The irony is that none of them is distinguished by any intelligence.
      1. Reddragon
        Reddragon April 26 2014 17: 14
        +4
        Quote: Sanya Beach
        Some of my comrades with foam at the mouth are trying to prove that life in Tsarist Russia was many times better than during the Soviets

        Well, that’s right: until the revolutionaries and the people pressed the tsars at all kinds of points, they would not have scratched themselves. And when they woke up, it was so late. Half a century later, gaps in serf slavery were patched, but the people hated power so much that, despite all the improvements in life, they overthrew the kings. And the 90 summer revolution ended in the triumph of the people. Yes, the Soviet government also had sins, but this can not be compared with centuries of civil strife, with the conquest of the Tatars / Golden Horde, with the oppression of serfdom, brought to the slavery of the people ... So let the monarchists do not kick others, since they have their own hands in the blood.
        1. dvina71
          dvina71 April 26 2014 23: 43
          +3
          Duc did not overthrow the people of the king .. The elites insisted on renunciation. But for what they needed it, this is another question. The merit of the Bolsheviks is only that they took unnecessary power in the country, and not in St. Petersburg, and gave people hope for at least some kind of order.
    3. Alekseev
      Alekseev April 27 2014 11: 19
      +3
      Quote: avt
      the second can restore the real picture of the coup of February 17th, which brought the Bolsheviks to power in October

      The "process" that brought the Bolsheviks to power is very complicated. It is impossible to describe in a short article all the prerequisites, reasons, guilty of the great historical drama. Even the epic "And Quiet Don" describes the revolution and the civil war only from the philosophical and life positions of the participants in these bloody events.
      And the personality of Nicholas II, apparently, was as ambiguous as the entire era of his reign.
      In my limited personal opinion, it would be better if he were the battalion commander of the Preobrazhensky regiment than the sovereign of the Russian Empire.
  3. rocketman
    rocketman April 26 2014 10: 57
    +7
    Churchill: In March, the Tsar was on the throne; The Russian Empire and the Russian army held on, the front was secured, and victory was undeniable ... Here are the battlefields of Nicholas II. Why not give him honor for this? The selfless rush of the Russian armies that saved Paris in 1914; overcoming a painful ballistic retreat; slow recovery of forces; Brusilov victories; Russia's entry into the 1917 campaign is invincible, stronger than ever; Wasn’t his share in all this? .. The king is leaving the stage. He and all his lovers are betrayed to suffering and death. His efforts are downplaying; his actions condemn; discredit his memory ...



    Churchill is the chief hypocrite. It was England that made the most effort for the revolution in Russia. The war was already won, and it was necessary to remove competitors.
    1. Reddragon
      Reddragon April 26 2014 13: 15
      -1
      Quote: rocketman
      the Russian army held on, the front was secured and victory was undeniable

      Cynicism shuffling facts rolls over: the Russian army, whose strength and equipment was equal to 80% of the entire triple alliance (which was torn between 2-me fronts) - was thrown deep into his countryas soon as the Germans transferred part of their forces east.
      1. Sour
        Sour April 26 2014 14: 50
        +1
        Quote: RedDragoN
        He was thrown deep into his country as soon as the Germans transferred part of their forces east.

        Nevertheless, by the fall of 1915, the front was stabilized, since it was possible to overcome the shell and bullet hunger. Attempts to capture Minsk, break through to Kiev and form the Western Dvina were thwarted. The retreat of 1915 was primarily due to the unpreparedness of the rear for a protracted war, the lack of a full-fledged military-industrial complex in the country. So let's be careful too shuffle the facts... And then "80% of the entire triple alliance", when there were no shells or cartridges? Let it be at least 800%.
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 April 26 2014 16: 40
          0
          Yeah, but in East Prussia, too, the rear was not enough? Just think, a twofold superiority, we are bastards, that would be 6-fold, then more ...
          The courtiers honored the honor of the Russian army. How many people have in vain put ...
          1. Sour
            Sour April 26 2014 21: 54
            0
            Quote: alicante11
            The courtiers honored the honor of the Russian army

            I think, yes. Directed mediocre. But still, Moscow was not draped, as in 1812 and 1941.
            Quote: alicante11
            How many people have in vain put ...

            In the Civil, more died, although the war was not of that scale. He who is not from bullets and sabers, he is from typhus and hunger. Losses from emigration are comparable to losses in PMA. Was it worth overthrowing the "bloody regime" for such a prospect?
            Here I am about the same ...
            1. Reddragon
              Reddragon April 27 2014 01: 50
              0
              Quote: Sour
              But still, they didn’t drape to Moscow

              It was a positional war. I think it’s not worth talking about the difference with mobile.

              Quote: Sour
              Was it worth overthrowing the "bloody regime" for such a prospect?

              If we consider that the path from principalities to monarchy has been paved through the centuries by fragmentation, civil strife and the occupation of Mongol-Taras, then the victims of the path of monarchy-communism can be neglected. Especially "taking into account unborn children."
              1. alicante11
                alicante11 April 27 2014 03: 26
                +1
                It was a positional war. I think it’s not worth talking about the difference with mobile.


                Well, in principle, in 3 years we could have reached on foot crossings :). There are many factors. Including the factor of the western front, which was the main thing for the Germans all the time except 1915 and the increased requirements for the quantity of supplies, especially critical given the difference in the gauge of railways and the general condition of the road network in the Republic of Ingushetia. The factor of the Austrian front, which the Germans were also forced to pull on themselves, constantly sending fire brigades either to Gorlovka, then to Caporetto, or to Stokhod, cannot be discounted.
            2. alicante11
              alicante11 April 27 2014 03: 23
              +1
              I think, yes. Directed mediocre. But still, Moscow was not draped, as in 1812 and 1941.


              Well, in 1812 and 1841 they didn’t scramble, too, but, nevertheless, they retreated, pretty much with fights.
              By the way, the beginning of the wars of 1812 and in 1941 was somewhat east of the WWI, do not you think?

              In the Civil, more died, although the war was not of that scale. He who is not from bullets and sabers, he is from typhus and hunger. Losses from emigration are comparable to losses in PMA. Was it worth overthrowing the "bloody regime" for such a prospect?
              Here I am about the same ...


              It was definitely worth it. It is enough to compare the results of the WWII and the Second World War, and I think that questions should not arise in principle. I'm not talking about the fact that, having freed itself from bloody tsarism, Russia has become the second, but really the first superpower in the world.
            3. avt
              avt April 27 2014 15: 46
              +2
              Quote: Sour
              I think, yes. Directed mediocre. But still, Moscow was not draped, as in 1812 and 1941.

              laughing Hike here that sour with sweet was confused. Firstly, in 1812 and 1941, the Empire and the USSR fought with ALL Europe united under one flag, and secondly, neither in 1812 nor in 1941 there was a collapse of defeat in the war and change as a result of the social political system. So there was NO fault for the collapse of the Empire in 1917 lies entirely on the military-political leadership of the Empire, its elite and Nika # 2 personally, as on the commander-in-chief and “the owner of the Russian Land.” He called himself a load, and even “sacred” - climb into the back!
          2. Alekseev
            Alekseev April 27 2014 15: 55
            0
            Quote: alicante11
            Yeah, but in East Prussia, too, the rear was not enough?

            Not enough, but, unfortunately, not only the rear.
            But in 1916 the gene. Brusilov was enough. yes
            Gen. Yudenich had enough in Transcaucasia.
            They fought not so badly. At least they did not allow such disasters as in 1941-42.
            In the 1st World War, it was not the military component of the state that collapsed, but the power of the ruling classes and the internal state order.
            Everyone knows the prerequisites for this, but whether such a bloody ending could have been avoided is a subject of endless debate among historians.
            In my opinion, everything Nicholas II could not get out of the current revolutionary situation with honor.
            In fairness, it should be noted that, according to the results of the 1st World War, not only Russia, but also 4 more empires fell apart.
            1. alicante11
              alicante11 April 27 2014 16: 16
              +1
              But in 1916 the gene. Brusilov was enough. yes


              Against the Austrians.

              Gen. Yudenich had enough in Transcaucasia.


              Against the Turks. I have already expressed my opinion about these successes below. Can you bring the same success against the Germans?

              They fought not so badly. At least they did not allow such disasters as in 1941-42.


              Because the Germans were engaged in the French. So they drove the Turks and the Austrians. But as with the Germans faced, immediately "confusion". Interestingly, can you give an example, so that in the 41st-42nd, with a multiple superiority in the forces of the Red Army, it failed such an operation as the East Prussian with the death of Samsonov's army?
            2. avt
              avt April 27 2014 17: 41
              +3
              Quote: Alekseev
              . At least they did not allow such disasters as in 1941-42.

              The Franks had a catastrophe when Hitler signed their surrender, after 40 days of active, hostilities, in the same carriage in Compiegne and in Paris he paraded, and in 41-42 we had the hardest defeats and victories that did not lead to a catastrophe - however, such a sacher survived, which the governors from Nika No. 2 did even in the minds of Stalin's generals, and it is better not to compare the Supreme Commanders in the 14th and 41st - not to traumatize the soul of the monarchists in debunking the "sacred" figure of the then colonel, who Monomakh's hat was not over the head.
              1. Alekseev
                Alekseev April 27 2014 20: 08
                +1
                That
                Quote: avt
                Monomakh’s hat wasn’t on the head.

                I agree.
                But not only the surrender of the state is called a disaster. Severe military defeats too. yes
                And comparing Nicholas and Joseph, perhaps, is not entirely correct.
                These are historical figures from different eras.
                They are only the visible part of the historical iceberg, and not the deputies of the Lord God on sinful earth. Although one of them was called anointed.
                1. alicante11
                  alicante11 April 28 2014 03: 53
                  +2
                  These are historical figures from different eras.


                  Here are just a peasant carcass personality from the era, and Stalin - the Personality of the Age. He created this era.
  4. Free wind
    Free wind April 26 2014 11: 01
    +3
    And why not a single monarchist during the civil war, called for the return of Nicholas 2 to the throne? And to release him from custody would not have been difficult. The interim government did not make a secret of his arrest. His location was not a secret either. The Bolsheviks were not particularly encrypted either. But for some reason, none of the White Guards made an attempt to free Nikolashka. He passed the ball to Russia, and in the most literal sense. Worthless he is king. Even the personal guard turned away from him. Well, no one has forgotten Rasputin.
    1. mongoose
      mongoose April 26 2014 11: 17
      +1
      do not read Soviet textbooks about the Russian Genocide, criminals and traitors to Rodin wrote it
    2. Sour
      Sour April 26 2014 14: 59
      +2
      Quote: Free Wind
      And why not a single monarchist during the civil war, called for the return of Nicholas 2 to the throne?

      And who do you mean by monarchists during the Civil War? Kolchak with Denikin? Nowhere have they ever talked about the desire to establish a monarchy in Russia. Or Kornilova with Alekseev, who at one time participated in the arrest of Nikolai? None of the white military leaders positioned themselves as a monarchist. Krasnov had a reputation as a monarchist, but he quickly repainted as a Don secessionist.
      Whoever knows the history of the Civil War at least "on a C" will confirm that no one has performed under the monarchical flag. Even those who may have been a monarchist at heart.
      It was in Soviet textbooks the history of whites was declared as universal monarchists, but in reality everything was more complicated.
      1. Free wind
        Free wind April 26 2014 16: 05
        0
        Finally, you admitted that the whites only pursued their personal ambitions! And they did not care about Russia and the Russian people! And for the sake of their ambitions, they called for help: Yapes, and Americans, and French, and British. And only the Bolsheviks saved Russia and the Russian people. And only the Bolsheviks fought for Russia, and not for personal ambitions. Thank you.
        1. Sour
          Sour April 26 2014 20: 15
          -2
          Quote: Free Wind
          Finally, you admitted that the whites only pursued their personal ambitions!

          I do not deny that many among the whites fought for their personal ambitions. Among the reds there were many more. It is enough to recall the head of the Red Army, Trotsky, who before the revolution visited all factions of the RSDLP and immediately joined the Bolshevik party as soon as he realized that it was more profitable to be with them.
          Quote: Free Wind
          And they did not care about Russia and the Russian people!

          Not everyone. But among the red-headed filth, everyone did not care about Russia and the Russians. Who fought for the "International", and who just to rob.
          Quote: Free Wind
          and Yap, and Americans, and the French, and the British

          Well, so the Bolsheviks, with someone else's help, made their way to power. Where are they in 1917 without German money? Nowhere.
          Quote: Free Wind
          And only the Bolsheviks saved Russia and the Russian people.

          To ruin a country, to cast it back many years ago, to kill and starve millions of people - this is not the salvation of the country. Then Batu and Hitler are savior.
          Quote: Free Wind
          Thank you.

          Scoop, do not thank me. I do not need soviet gratitude even once.
          1. alicante11
            alicante11 April 27 2014 07: 29
            +2
            Not everyone. But among the red-headed filth, everyone did not care about Russia and the Russians. Who fought for the "International", and who just to rob.


            Thanks to these "red-bellied scum" you now live.
          2. Billy Bones
            Billy Bones April 27 2014 17: 27
            0
            Scoop, do not thank me. I do not need shovel gratitude even once. [/ Quote]

            It's funny to read such words from a person, next to whose nickname there is a red flag - one of the symbols of "reddish scum"
    3. Orik
      Orik April 27 2014 11: 27
      0
      One should know that the "White Guard" was any, but not monarchist. The generals who headed it and overthrew the Tsar!
  5. falcon
    falcon April 26 2014 11: 55
    +4
    Unfortunately, in the "hard times" at the helm of the great country was a man, probably a good and
    decent (so, in any case, many argue. I will not argue, because I personally do not know
    was), but certainly not tough and decisive. And, as you know, such a position is "good
    person "does not exist in the Russian state! The result of the fruitful work of this
    autocrat - a collapsed empire, millions of Russian people killed in the Civil War, and
    I could not save my family. People are judged by their deeds. According to the results of certification in 1917. this person
    turned out to be unsuitable for occupying the throne of Russia.
    1. mongoose
      mongoose April 26 2014 12: 09
      -1
      But like German spies passed by?
      1. falcon
        falcon April 26 2014 12: 35
        +3
        Quote: mongoose
        But like German spies passed by?

        There are always German (English, American, etc.) spies. Simply
        a strong, strong-willed power creates SMERSH, and a weak and rotten one renounces
        from the throne, throwing their subjects into the pool of civil war. If not
        agree, turn on the TV, listen to the news.
    2. Orik
      Orik April 26 2014 12: 20
      -3
      Quote: falcon
      Unfortunately, in the "hard times" at the helm of the great country was a man, probably a good and
      decent (so, in any case, many argue. I will not argue, because I personally do not know
      was), but certainly not tough and decisive. And, as you know, such a position is "good
      person "does not exist in the Russian state! The result of the fruitful work of this
      autocrat - a collapsed empire, millions of Russian people killed in the Civil War, and
      I could not save my family. People are judged by their deeds. According to the results of certification in 1917. this person
      turned out to be unsuitable for occupying the throne of Russia.

      The rational mind cannot understand that the Tsar is a sacred figure from the point of view of Orthodoxy. Subjects must obey him primarily not out of fear, but out of conscience. The entire empire was rotten by 1917, and the economic crisis of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, war and overripe contradictions in society only exacerbated the situation. The subjects turned out to be "unsuitable" for which they were punished with the torments of revolution and Bolshevik terror.
      1. sled beach
        sled beach April 26 2014 14: 50
        0
        What Orthodox means is not a Slav. The Slavs glorify the World and the Orthodox the king’s right. In Russian, this is called squalor.
      2. alicante11
        alicante11 April 26 2014 16: 44
        +2
        The subjects turned out to be "unsuitable" for which they were punished with the torments of revolution and Bolshevik terror.


        Well, how are you, monarchists, different from the liberaciens? Whose "people are wrong"?
        1. Sour
          Sour April 26 2014 20: 18
          -7
          And how do the Bolsheviks differ from the Vlasovites? To betray the country during the war is how? It is no accident that all the leaders of Vlasov were formerly Communists.
          1. alicante11
            alicante11 April 27 2014 06: 06
            +4
            And how do the Bolsheviks differ from the Vlasovites? To betray the country during the war is how? It is no accident that all the leaders of Vlasov were formerly Communists.


            The Bolsheviks did not betray anyone. On the contrary, it was the Bolsheviks who were always on the ships and in military units in the best account as fighters. The betrayal was carried out in February 1917 and far from the Bolsheviks. The collapse of the army is also a "merit" of the "temporary" and the Petrograd Soviet, in which the Bolsheviks were then in the minority. In such a situation, there was no point in continuing the war, especially since the Bolsheviks understood that the allies would throw them anyway after the defeat of Germany. Whereas Germany itself can be thrown when it is tortured by the allies.
            So what was the "betrayal" of the Bolsheviks, I just do not understand.
      3. ioann1
        ioann1 April 27 2014 08: 36
        -3
        Orik, you explain your thoughts copied from the Bolshevik newspaper propaganda. Indeed, the Bolshevik terror was atrocious, and he left the descendants of such followers like you.
        The assassination of Emperor Nicholas II led Russia to a catastrophe, and later to the Great Patriotic War. And now, in modern Russia, not everything is smooth, we have the occupation of Ukraine by the West and its satanic ideology. And, if we do not obey for the murder of the Anointed One of God, but will rant about the "harmfulness of imperial power", then we will get problems again and again. And the fact that many in Russia continue to offend the memory of the Holy Martyr and Passion-bearer Nikolai Alexandrovich, declaring their enlightenment in this matter, is from the great pride of a sinful person.
        The present war is being waged by the West during the tragedy of February 1917 and October XNUMX.
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 April 27 2014 09: 16
          +2
          Vanya, are you out of your mind? HOW could the murder of Tsar Nikolai Romanov lead Russia to the Second World War? What, the "anointed of God" would have prevented the appearance of Hitler? Or his attack on Russia? It is not necessary to fall into insanity with your loyal rhetoric.
          1. ioann1
            ioann1 April 27 2014 13: 38
            -2
            I'm out of my mind, but you're in yours too. Think about where you came from on this sinful earth and where you will go ... Your life is filled with passions, but for you this is the norm. And you don't even know what it might lead to. Because of people like you, we endure all these antics of the West! And, by the way, the West is counting on people like you. Such as you are the "fifth column" on the parcels.
            1. alicante11
              alicante11 April 27 2014 15: 02
              +2
              What is this set of words that has absolutely no logic or connection?

              Think about where you came from on this sinful land and where you will go ...


              Do you speak Russian, or explain it scientifically :)? It is a pity that you do not know where the person comes from. Where are we going? And FIG knows him, from there still no one has returned. So you do not know this either.

              . Your life is filled with passions, but for you this is the norm. And do not even imagine what this might lead to.


              What do you mean by "passions"? And what can they lead to?

              Because of people like you, we tolerate all these antics of the West! And, by the way, the West is counting on people like you. Such as you are the "fifth column" on the parcels.


              Follow the market, Vanyusha. What have I done so that because of me someone is forced to endure something? It seems that I work when I had my own business, everything paid taxes and fees, maybe that's why there is no business now :), I raise three children, and I have never applied for social assistance, even they did not use the maternity capital certificate. I welcome the accession of Crimea, I'm worried for the South-East of Ukraine. So, please, a detailed answer, what have I done such a five-columned? Or it would be nice to apologize.
        2. Orik
          Orik April 27 2014 11: 36
          0
          Quote: ioann1
          Orik, you explain your thoughts copied from the Bolshevik newspaper propaganda. Indeed, the Bolshevik terror was atrocious, and he left the descendants of such followers like you.
          The assassination of Emperor Nicholas II led Russia to a catastrophe, and later to the Great Patriotic War. And now, in modern Russia, not everything is smooth, we have the occupation of Ukraine by the West and its satanic ideology. And, if we do not obey for the murder of the Anointed One of God, but will rant about the "harmfulness of imperial power", then we will get problems again and again. And the fact that many in Russia continue to offend the memory of the Holy Martyr and Passion-bearer Nikolai Alexandrovich, declaring their enlightenment in this matter, is from the great pride of a sinful person.
          The present war is being waged by the West during the tragedy of February 1917 and October XNUMX.

          No need to show your ignorance and quote new industrial things like Russia was doing well before the WWII, if everything was so good then the Japanese lost, the army was not provided with rifles, shells and other things ?!
          You are not reading carefully, no one talks about the "harmfulness of imperial power" and does not think, if you do not know how to read, look at the picture of my nickname wink , but to engage in urya-patriotism, as well as masturbation, one must end the young man. It does no less harm.
          1. ioann1
            ioann1 April 27 2014 13: 43
            -2
            Orik, you are too young to teach me life, young man !! Do not show your limitations. Your picture has absolutely nothing to do with you. Your nickname is the Israeli flag.
        3. midashko
          midashko April 27 2014 20: 49
          0
          Red terror was secondary. The primary was white terror. Well, how can one manage when members of councils and their families are destroyed by terrorists. But there were many different terrorists: officers, a black hundred, Socialist-Revolutionaries, criminals, cadets, all sorts of Octobrists ... Against terror, there is only reciprocal terror, which was executed.
          Well, on the account that the Bolsheviks overthrew the tsar-nonsense. The Bolsheviks slept (but rather, the seizure was a secret from them) of the February Revolution. In February, all sorts of liberals and the oligarchy seized power, which brought the state to October. The Bolsheviks only managed with great difficulty to lead this element and prevent the collapse of the country.
          If Nicholas would not have been killed, the civil war would have continued twice as long, and there would have been three more victims. Although it sounds sacrilegious, his death was a blessing with his family.
      4. ioann1
        ioann1 April 27 2014 13: 47
        -1
        Orik, you argue as a notorious Khazarin. Your Kaganate in Kiev. And your brothers are servants of Kerry and Biden!
        1. alicante11
          alicante11 April 27 2014 15: 04
          +1
          And you foolish screaming :).
    3. aleshka
      aleshka April 26 2014 12: 28
      0
      Definitely, I support !! His father Alexander was TSAR !!! And this is henpecked, and his wife is German, well, although all Romanovs are Germans! but Nikolai has a glaring example!
      1. Orik
        Orik April 26 2014 13: 30
        +2
        Quote: Alesha
        Definitely, I support !! His father Alexander was TSAR !!! And this is henpecked, and his wife is German, well, although all Romanovs are Germans! but Nikolai has a glaring example!

        His father, who "was the Tsar", did nothing (!) Of principle, did not change the degenerate elite, did not change economic relations, did not care about the development of the people (moreover, he issued a circular "about cooks' children"). He only "froze" the situation, which was positive, taking advantage of the remnants of the Imerian greatness, and his son got the accumulated mess.
        1. avt
          avt April 26 2014 14: 01
          +3
          Quote: Orik
          The rational mind does not understand that the Tsar is a sacred figure from the point of view of Orthodoxy. Nationals must obey him, first of all, not for fear, but for conscience. The whole empire was rotten by 1917,

          Quote: Orik
          His father, who "was the Tsar", did nothing (!) Of principle, did not replace the degenerated elite, did not change economic relations, did not care about the development of the people

          Well, somehow decide, or your king is a figure that is not amenable to reason, on which every day everyone must break their foreheads in bows, or all the same, the head of the state entrusted to him, if he was born from the corresponding dad, and if he called himself a load, he wrote in the questionnaire according to the census, that he is "the owner of the Russian Land", so it is necessary to work with the economy, and then again the intellectual snot - the "anointed one" was not lucky with the people.
          Quote: nnz226
          Well, if the "owner of the Russian land" allowed the February revolution, then the system is really rotten!

          And the "elite" and the tsar himself were petty-grained in the most serious times of the war.
          Quote: falcon
          strong-willed power creates SMERSH, and the weak and rotten renounces
          from the throne, throwing their subjects into the pool of civil war. If not
          agree, turn on the TV, listen to the news.

          good That's it !
          1. sled beach
            sled beach April 26 2014 14: 53
            0
            - the “anointed one” was not lucky with the people.! STRONG!
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Orik
            Orik April 27 2014 12: 39
            0
            Well, somehow decide, or your king is a figure that is not amenable to reason, on which every day everyone must break their foreheads in bows, or all the same, the head of the state entrusted to him, if he was born from the corresponding dad, and if he called himself a load, he wrote in the questionnaire according to the census, that he is "the owner of the Russian Land", so it is necessary to work with the economy, and then again the intellectual snot - the "anointed one" was not lucky with the people.

            Decided for a long time. Probably your mind will not understand the meaning of the royal power, but mine perfectly combines the Orthodox Tsar as a sacred figure and the head of state. The king may not be a great statesman, but the representatives of the elite and the people, each according to his abilities, must conscientiously serve God, the king, the state. There is a good example of the last Rurikovich St. Fyodor Ioannovich, son of John IV. Although Russophobes try to portray him as narrow-minded, the tsar being quiet, pious and peaceful, the monk no longer forgot about his service, and the elite, cleansed of traitors by his father Ivan the Terrible, served him conscientiously. During his reign, Koporye, Yam (Kingisepp), Ivan-gorod, Korela, lost by his formidable father, were annexed; finally added Zap. Siberia; successfully mastered the south. border districts and the Volga region; increased the role of Russia in the North. Caucasus and Transcaucasia. Why did it happen? For me, there is no doubt that God through the prayers of the Tsar gave this to Russia, and the unity, devotion of the elite and the people contributed to this. For you rationalists infected with the propaganda of the "Marx sect" all this is not an argument.
            Returning to St. Nicholas II, it is impossible to describe within the framework of the post. The events of 1917 were actually laid down under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and further after the Peter's pro-Western coup, when the symphony of the Church and the State was destroyed; a split was introduced into the state, where the elite began to live in a Western manner, and the people still preserved the truths of Orthodox Russia; The church became a ministry; the lie of serfdom, when the elite was freed from compulsory service, but they still had lands awarded for service together with the people and much more. Everything was woven into a ball by 1917 and none of the "strong" tsars unraveled this tangle, the situation passed the point of no return and it was then that Nicholas II came to power, who was not cool like his sovereign father, but was his meekness, tolerance, love intended to evoke the same feelings in the elite and the people, to lead the country to repentance and conversion, but ... this did not happen. From the point of view of Orthodoxy, he is like Christ, who came into the world as a simple carpenter preaching love primarily to the Jewish people and to its spiritual and worldly leaders, but was also not heard by the majority.
            1. alicante11
              alicante11 April 27 2014 13: 33
              0
              It has long been decided. Probably your mind doesn’t understand the meaning of tsarist power, and mine perfectly combines the Orthodox Tsar as a sacred figure and the head of state.


              Sorry, but I can't agree with you. Well, the head of state cannot be at the same time a sacred figure. This is not logical. Because "deity" is infallible. Whereas the head of state - he can be wrong. In general, it is quite difficult to imagine that a person would point out to God his mistakes, therefore even just expressing his opinion, which is different from the "anointed of God", is already blasphemy. But what if he still persists in his delusions, like Nikolai # 2? To endure and go straight into oblivion together with the "adored monarch" who leads the country and his people there. We have been stepping on this rake for several centuries.
              1. Orik
                Orik April 27 2014 14: 32
                -1
                Quote: alicante11
                Sorry, but I can't agree with you. Well, the head of state cannot be at the same time a sacred figure. This is not logical. Because "deity" is infallible. Whereas the head of state - he can be wrong. In general, it is quite difficult to imagine that a person would point out to God his mistakes, therefore even just expressing his opinion, which is different from the "anointed of God", is already blasphemy. But what if he still persists in his delusions, like Nikolai # 2? To endure and go straight into oblivion together with the "adored monarch" who leads the country and his people there. We have been stepping on this rake for several centuries.

                As a person (as opposed to God) a king can make mistakes and any loyal subject is obliged to prevent such mistakes, but do it with respect. I don't remember who it was in the 19th century, but when he believed that the emperor was wrong, he knelt down, put the rejected decree on his head and repeated that the sovereign was wrong and should sign a decree in the name of the country. On the other hand, the Tsar is "holding back", the royal power is given from God, in symphony (consonance) with the church, he must ensure the salvation of the souls of believers, protect them from everything harmful to the salvation of the soul, create favorable conditions for salvation.
                The saints said:
                "In the eyes of God there is no better power than the power of the Orthodox Tsar."
                Rev. Seraphim of Sarov
                “The king is God's servant, for the mercy and punishment of men. If the king reigns over people, and nasty passions and sins reign over him: avarice and anger, deceit and unrighteousness, pride and fury, meaner is disbelief and blasphemy, such a king is not God's servant, but the devils, and not the king, but a tormentor. And do not listen to the king or prince, inciting you to wickedness or deceit, even if he will torment you or threaten death. This is taught to us by the prophets, apostles, and all the martyrs who were killed by the wicked kings, but who did not submit to their command. This is how it is appropriate to serve kings and princes. ”
                St. St. Joseph Volotsky ("The Illuminator", Word Seventh)

                I already wrote that Russia went to Nicholas II with a load of unresolved, basic problems that formed under his predecessors, and he tried his best to solve it. On the basis of what did you decide that the collapse was connected with errors ?! The treason of the elite in February 1917 was supported by all sections of society by the action or inaction of the clergy (only 10% remained loyal to the tsar from the episcopate, but I don’t talk about the lower ones, seminarians were generally in the forefront of the revolution), peasantry, philistines, many progressive merchants and industrialists funded by revolutionaries. Do you think this is all ripe thanks to the last king? No. These processes were laid in the 18th century, and ripened throughout the 19th, manifesting themselves as coups, the Decembrist uprising, populist terror. Even if we take the subjunctive mood, be the last emperor Grozny and Stalin in one person, it is not a fact that he could change the situation. To do this, you need a sufficient layer of people on which you can rely on to make changes, and you could rely on units.
                1. alicante11
                  alicante11 April 27 2014 15: 11
                  +1
                  As a man (unlike God), the king can make mistakes and any faithful subject must prevent such mistakes, but do so with respect.


                  And what to do if this anointed ram persists, you never answered ...

                  On the basis of what did you decide that the collapse was connected with errors ?! The betrayal of the elite in February 1917 was supported by all sections of society by action or inaction by the clergy.


                  And what, you have few wars lost? A load of loans, in which the country is confused, the lowest literacy rate among European countries? You can list a lot. The elite betrays if he sees that the leader is not able to lead her along. Then they put him on the right.

                  I already wrote that Russia went to Nicholas II with a load of unresolved, basic problems


                  If you cannot solve "basic problems, then give way to another. For some reason, Stalin did not reflect on the problems, but simply took the country with a plow, and left it with a vigorous loaf."

                  To do this, you need a sufficient layer of people on which you can rely on to make changes, and you could rely on units.


                  Did Stalin have more of them?

                  Can you object to the People?
                  1. Orik
                    Orik April 27 2014 16: 58
                    0
                    And what to do if this anointed ram persists, you never answered ...

                    A ram in this case, you still don’t know what roundabouts you would have imposed, finding yourself in the place of the Sovereign Emperor.
                    This lying on the couch everything seems just solvable, in reality, everything is more complicated. Climbing the career ladder and having a high conceit, I also thought that everything was so simple, but no, and the higher you go up, the more forces and circumstances put pressure on you. This time. Second, the king, as a person, can erroneously reject the right decision, but there are several options: 1. He insists. 2. Performs everything at your own peril and risk. 3. Humility and trusts in God. The Orthodox Church especially prays for the Tsar, as well as for the authorities and military commanders. You do not understand, but we have no doubt that God can rule everything. There was such a case with St. Fyodor Ioannovich, when the Tatars approached Moscow, but did not have time to gather their strength, with his prayers the Tatars had a terrible vision at night and they fled.
                    And what, you have few wars lost? A load of loans, in which the country is confused, the lowest literacy rate among European countries? You can list a lot. The elite betrays if he sees that the leader is not able to lead her along. Then they put him on the right.

                    You’ll be curious about who and why took the loans and how the country that had a large gold reserve would get confused in them, I already wrote about literacy. About the elite nonsense, it has already decomposed so much that it didn’t need the tsar’s power, she herself wanted to rule, and therefore betrayed. The whole country stood on the right and she realized this, unlike you.
                    If you cannot solve "basic problems, then give way to another. For some reason, Stalin did not reflect on the problems, but simply took the country with a plow, and left it with a vigorous loaf."

                    In the detachment from you of the "right" of civil, military communism, satanic experiments, the people understood, resigned themselves and for the most part loved Stalin not for fear, but for conscience. This is the first significant difference. The necessary change of the elite took place, the poles of power in the country changed fundamentally. Although in material terms, the situation has deteriorated even more, but this is the second time that I want to convey to you. Stalin, having given a lofty, intangible idea of ​​building a just society (essentially Christian), freed the dormant, creative forces of the people and performed almost a miracle. Could he have done this on the spot of Nicholas II, then he was opposed by everyone, starting with the elite and there was no "right" inoculation.
                    According to the people below, I have to explain too much to you, I can’t as quickly as you ask questions. smile
                    1. alicante11
                      alicante11 April 28 2014 04: 24
                      0
                      A ram in this case, you still don’t know what roundabouts you would have imposed, finding yourself in the place of the Sovereign Emperor.


                      Ah-yay, swearing isn’t good, and we didn’t seem to drink brudershaft.
                      I am not saying that I am the ultimate truth or that I would speak better. But we are discussing a specific brow and his specific affairs.

                      2. Performs everything at your own peril and risk.


                      For instance? Take Durnovo as an example. He believed that Niki, in her anti-German policy, was leading Russia to the abyss. Being especially close to the "condemnor", he certainly told him about it, insisted. And he even wrote a letter in which he predicted the revolution. But the crowned ram was stubborn and still bent his line. How can you "do it at your own risk"? All that remained was to "put up with and trust in God," who happily watched the death of millions of his Orthodox flock in WWI, GW, repression and WWII. Shut up, cool consequences of respect for "sacredness".

                      The Orthodox Church especially prays for the Tsar, as well as for the authorities and military commanders. You do not understand, but we have no doubt that God can rule everything. There was such a case with St. Fyodor Ioannovich, when the Tatars approached Moscow, but did not have time to gather their strength, with his prayers the Tatars had a terrible vision at night and they fled.


                      Sorry, can I ask? Did you censer hit there by mistake, or instead of incense put a hemp in it :)?
                      I will give you a wonderful example from a real story. During the Spanish invasion of Tennochtitlan, many people saw a vision on Popocatepetl and Istaxiuatl. Some describe him as a woman stretching out her arms to Tennochtitlan, others as trampled on by the cross of the Aztec gods. Of course, this is all later fiction, and the essence was more prosaic, scientists believe that a micro-eruption occurred. But the locals took it as a sign that Tennochtitlan would fall. But at the same time, the Aztecs did not kneel before the conquistadors and did not escape from the city, but fought for their homeland to the end. Therefore, those tales that you voiced, they are very clearly visible from a psychological point of view. Yes, a sign can undermine the will of the leader or his fighters. But it will never make you turn off the road until this is conducive to a real defeat.

                      You’ll be curious about who and why took the loans and how the country that had a large gold reserve would get confused


                      So, this is, after all, you have a "sacred person" as a leader. Okay, if he's just a "monomakh hat hanger." But he is "the owner of the Russian land." So he is responsible for loans. At the expense of the gold reserve - read something about the economy of the Republic of Ingushetia before and during WWI. Recently there were articles on the site about "Stalin's golden ruble". There is also about what was under the king, for comparison.

                      About literacy. Didn't see your answer. Or do you think that this is all a "bad legacy"? So Stalin had it better? And he corrected this matter.
                  2. Orik
                    Orik April 27 2014 17: 35
                    0
                    Can you object to the People?

                    It seems to understand what you want after reading this is your post.
                    Well, how are you, monarchists, different from the liberaciens? Whose "people are wrong"?

                    The people are primarily "wrong" in relation to God, and their attitude to the King is only one of the markers.
                    1. alicante11
                      alicante11 April 28 2014 04: 28
                      0
                      In the detachment from you of the "right" of civil, military communism, satanic experiments, the people understood, resigned themselves and for the most part loved Stalin not for fear, but for conscience.


                      Can you give me an example that the people "DO NOT ACCEPT"? Accepted Lenin, Accepted Stalin, Accepted Khrushch, Accepted Gorby, Accepted EBN with his State Department advisers, Accepted GDP. Yes, people simply do not ask whether they accept something there or not. Your "sacred" people have beaten the Russian people so badly that they are no longer capable of anything without a kick from the "sacred figure". Stalin gave a kick - such people were hung up on all the gayropeans and imperialists, and they didn’t give a kick, they drained Russia in 91.

                      Could he have done this on the spot of Nicholas II, then he was opposed by everyone, starting with the elite and there was no "right" inoculation.


                      Do you at least know the story? What vaccination? What are the elites? Stalin was forced to simultaneously fight his Trotskyist "elite" and develop the country. No ruler dreamed of so many enemies in his entourage as Stalin. After Lenin's death and until 37, Stalin fought, cleaned and selected the Elite. But at the same time he did the deed, and did not "trust in God." Therefore, he did almost everything. Why "almost"? Because I didn't clean it up.

                      According to the people below, I have to explain too much to you, I can’t as quickly as you ask questions. smile


                      Yes, you do not explain anything, except for the "sacred" tales about how the Tatars fled from Moscow, having been afraid of sleep, and insults. Well, what a bad people fell into the last king.

                      The people are primarily "wrong" in relation to God, and their attitude to the King is only one of the markers.


                      Well, what's the difference against whom the people are not right? Against God or a king. The main thing is that it is wrong and that's it. Just like the liberals. For GDP if they vote - it means they are wrong. Or maybe it's not about the people, but about the "conservatory"? In the king, in religion, which is a fairy tale? Tell me, at least one nation was able to "educate" at least one religion? Each religion had its own "indulgences" and "inquisitions". Therefore, people do not believe the churchmen.
            2. alicante11
              alicante11 April 27 2014 13: 33
              +1
              Only a Motherland, a People can be sacred in a person. Because the Motherland - it is really infallible, because it is a concept, not an actor. And the People, he is her last defending bastion. And if there will be just such an attitude towards the People, then each component of this People will feel their responsibility for the Motherland, for the People and for each of its neighbors. And then this bastion will be strong. Whereas in the case of the "sacred king" the people find themselves in the role of a "flock of sacred sheep", which always needs a "sacred shepherd". We saw the results perfectly. The royal family of Rurikovich was interrupted, it was not the people who chose the new tsar, but the "shepherds" - the elite, the boyars. As a result, we have Godunov and the Time of Troubles after him. A little bit Russia did not hoarse. Peter did not leave a will, and the people again do not ask, and the "zitspresident" is erected on the throne - a maid-waitress, whose only merit is that he warmed up in the Tsar's bed. What is this "sacred monarch"? Then, in a series of guards coups, the people again are a passive observer, as a result, the Germans almost enslaved the country under Anna Ivanovna. Further, what sacredness of tsars after Elizabeth can we talk about if there is practically no Russian blood left in them? How are they connected with Russia sacredly? If one of them, like Nikolai the First, Alexander the Third, is connected with Russia, then it is completely conscious and down to earth. These are hard workers, as VVP said - "slaves in the galleys." SLAVES of Russia, and the People, not the Kings. And those who believed in their "sacredness" ended up either with their brains on the pavement, or in the Ural mine with a lead pea in their heads. But back to the People. The people were not asked if he wanted the abdication of the king. He was simply overthrown. Generals and Duma. They didn’t ask if he wanted to overthrow the temporary workers - there are generally some left-wing guys with their cockroaches, which before the People were like cancer before Paris. But the People are so accustomed that they decide for it that they could not even raise the power, which, in principle, lay on the ground. True, both times here it has grown so much that the main characters "guessed" the aspirations of the People, who are tired of both the "anointed of God" and the liberal traitors. Then there was Stalin, to whom, and not "who", they created a cult of personality. But as soon as he died, they mixed him with shit, and again they did not ask the People. And the People again did nothing, because the "shepherds" decided that - the elite, this time the communist. In 1991, the people "drove to work" instead of getting together and kicking the freaks at the White House along with their drunken crowd. Because the "shepherds" - the GKChP, not to mention Gorby did not say "face". All 90s The people dutifully died of hunger, thrown out of their apartments into heat collectors, from bandit bullets, from AIDS and drugs. And if it were not for the "good will" of the new shepherds of the "oligarchs" and the GDP, now Russia would no longer be on the world map. This is what your "sacredness" leads to, to the fact that the People are losing their will and initiative.
              1. Orik
                Orik April 27 2014 15: 52
                0
                Let's first determine what is sacred.
                Sacral (from the English. Sacral and Latin. Sacrum - sacred, dedicated to the gods) - in the broad sense, everything related to the Divine, religious, heavenly, otherworldly, irrational, mystical, different from ordinary things, concepts, phenomena.

                The royal power is sacred, as established by God himself and the Orthodox tsars were well aware of this (although by no means all and not only tsars). Your formula "Motherland, People" was sacralized under the USSR, but it has nothing to do with the Divine, it refers to blood, not spirit. If we admit that there is no spirit, as the communists did, then this is the only thing that remains. But look how they quickly rotted and sold the idea, the Motherland and the people, how they cut it under Lenin and Bronshtein, only Stalin (who undoubtedly had high values ​​in his soul and sought to instill them in the people) was able to raise the union to an unprecedented height (everything ended with him), then the smaller ones simply regaled on his laurels, slamming the fifth technological order, society (which they themselves did not know, according to Andropov) and the country, creating for themselves a separate comfortable mechanism of consumption.
                The people, you already sacralized him, but in Ukraine, in the center and in the west, the same Russian people, but somehow they don’t smell of sacredness from him, but bear something else. What now come in Kiev a normal head, he should indulge them? No, and what is the norm ?! The Orthodox faith also gives the concept of a norm, the ideal to which one should strive. The Orthodox ideal is SERVING to God, the country represented by the king, neighbor, i.e. higher lower, but lower higher and just to each other. The reflection of this ideal in everyday life is the DUTY of the power-holders of the Tsar, the boyars, nobles, officials, but also the people. Here I agree with you, but do not indulge the base instincts wandering among the people. You watch people come to devour for a drink, drank, rested ... NASRAL and left, probably from a feeling of his own sacredness, and wrote 4 million denunciations under Stalin, too.
                Sociologists have long known that 8-10% of society is capable of solving strategic problems, 25% are tactical, 60% are executors and 5-7% are destructive. Ideally, the first become the elite, the second serve in lower positions and cement society, the third simply honestly fulfill their duties, and the society fights against the latter. If each serves the other, restrains his egoism, the gap between the rich and the poor is no more than 6 times, the development of a person as a person is taking place, then all this works. But why don't we see it in its pure form? What's stopping this? Human pride and the associated selfishness, vanity, base vices nesting in every person. In psychology, there is such a concept as the "reptilian brain" consisting of three things, preserving life, procreation and domination (which allows you to get the first and second in the best possible way), sin in a person turns the preservation of life into gluttony, greed, cowardice; procreation into fornication, perversion; domination in the desire for power, but not in service, but as an opportunity to satisfy all your base, egoistic needs and the main PRIDE. Due to pride, good leaders and just people become deaf, blind to the needs of a person and simply bad, the destructive creative elite at first, thinking only about profit, increasing power, eventually betrays the people and the head of state. So it was, is and will be. The only "mechanism" that allows at least partially to defeat pride, to reduce its level in society (and its consequences) is faith in God and the Orthodox Church, which was created as a "mechanism" for human correction. There is no other mechanism for fighting Pride in the world, so you rationalists are building a house without a foundation, and as if it does not have a solid foundation, it will collapse very quickly over and over again.
                1. alicante11
                  alicante11 April 27 2014 16: 48
                  -1
                  Let's first determine what is sacred.


                  Well, I’m saying that sacred = divine.

                  Tsarist authority is sacred, as established by God himself and the Orthodox kings were well aware of this


                  What is this nonsense? What god is it installed by? This people came up with in order to strengthen the tsarist power, because it did not work otherwise, they did not want to do anything for the people. Was it the God of the Varangian bandit Rurik who brought him to the Russian land, or did the pagan Novgorodians invite him to deal with the enemies? There the "anointed of God" Ruriks cut each other all the time until the rise of Moscow? And Dmitry Donskoy was not labeled for reign in the "nasty" Horde (as according to the canons)? Who shouted Ivan the Terrible against the kingdom? Perhaps, he is also God, or is it all the same thieves and gold-loving boyars who wanted to rule the country instead of him? Did God put Mikhail Romanov at the head of Russia or the militia? To go further Or is it enough only for Katka the First? Enough of these church mantras. Tsarist power is as sacred as the power of the president.

                  Your formula "Motherland, People" was sacralized under the USSR, but it has nothing to do with the Divine, it refers to blood, not spirit.


                  More precisely, not under the USSR, but under Stalin. Unfortunately, then they departed from this, replacing the People with the Party - i.e. the shepherd’s conclave :).

                  But look how quickly they rotted and sold the idea, the Motherland and the people, how they cut it under Lenin and Bronstein.


                  And how many times has tsarism "rotted"? How many coups have we had in just 300 years of the Romanovs? In essence, the "revolution" of the 90s was the same uprising of a part of the elite, like any of the palace coups. Only burdened by the change of formation and the surrender of the country to foreigners. By the way, those who cut them answered in the 37th. Sorry, not all.

                  The people, you already sacralized him, but in Ukraine, in the center and in the west, the same Russian people, but somehow they don’t smell of sacredness from him, but bear something else.


                  So the fact of the matter is that we have NO PEOPLE !!!! There are "people" with a small letter. Collection of individual farmers. Whose huts are on the edge. Those who are still carriers of the People, they went to the Donbas militia. And the rest are sitting and waiting for the "shepherd" - VVP to come and free them from Pravosekov's wolves.

                  What now come in Kiev a normal head, he should indulge them?


                  A normal head should simply jail 500-1000 people of Pravosek gangsters, as many more liberal traitors from the "intelligentsia". And the rest will be very grateful to him and will gladly accept their deliverer.
                  1. Orik
                    Orik April 27 2014 17: 43
                    0
                    What kind of nonsense? What god is she installed? These people came up with to strengthen the imperial power, because it didn’t work differently, they didn’t want to do anything for the people.

                    smile Unfortunately, I cannot and do not want to fill the huge holes in your education.
                    On the origin of tsarist authority from God, we have a beautiful teaching based on the Holy Scriptures of the Moscow Metropolitan Filaret. Bearing in mind the words of Ap. Paul: “there is no power not from God; the existing authorities from God are established ”[9], he says:“ In the family he must look for the firstfruits and the first model of power and submission, which were later revealed in the larger family - the state. Namely: the father is ... the first ruler ... but as the power of the father was not created by the father himself and not bestowed upon him by the son, but happened together with the man from the One who created man: it is revealed that the deepest source and highest beginning of the first power , and consequently of any subsequent authority between people, is in God - the Creator of man, “from whom all the fatherland in heaven and on earth are called kings” (Eph. 3, 15); then, when the sons of sons were born into people and nations, and the State, immense for the natural authority of the father, grew out of the family - God gave this authority a new artificial image and a new name in the person of the King, and thus the kings reign with His Wisdom (Proverbs. 8, fifteen). In times of ignorance, when people forgot their Creator ... God - along with his other secrets - and even sensually presented the secret of the origin of the power in the eyes of the world in the Jewish people chosen for this purpose; namely: in the patriarch Abraham he miraculously re-created the quality of his father and gradually produced from him a tribe, people and kingdom; He himself led the patriarchs of this tribe; He himself raised judges and leaders to this people; He himself reigned over this kingdom (15 Sam. 1: 8); finally, he himself reigned kings over him, continuing the miraculous sign of his supreme authority over kings. Therefore, God is called the king of kings and the Lord of lords, for “the Lord is the kingdom, and He is the Lord over the nations” (Ps. 7, 21). “In the hand of the Lord is power over the earth, and he will erect the needy man in time on it” (Sir. 29, 10) [4].

                    With this and similar gaps in knowledge, plus your self-conceit, further discussion between us is hardly possible.
                    1. alicante11
                      alicante11 April 28 2014 04: 31
                      -1
                      Unfortunately, I cannot and do not want to fill the huge holes in your education.


                      And you do not fill my "education" with quotations from anti-scientific books. You better answer specific examples. Which I have brought.

                      With this and similar gaps in knowledge, plus your self-conceit, further discussion between us is hardly possible.


                      That's right, because you cannot give anything concrete as evidence, except for dogmas that have the same relation to life as the Moon does to a pot of soup.
                      1. Orik
                        Orik April 28 2014 10: 15
                        0
                        Post-revolutionary time. Academician Pavlov walks, walks past the temple, stops, turns to the temple, takes off his hat, crosses himself and bows. A worker hurries by, sees the academician and says: - "Grayness, there is no God." wink
                      2. alicante11
                        alicante11 April 28 2014 16: 17
                        0
                        And how does this help you answer my questions? I think that in any way, well, okay, remain further carriers of sacred knowledge, but do not condescend to our grayness.
              2. alicante11
                alicante11 April 27 2014 16: 48
                0
                The Orthodox faith also gives the concept of a norm, the ideal to which one should strive.


                And the code of the builder of communism also gives the concept of norm. So what is the difference?

                The Orthodox ideal is SERVING to God, the country represented by the king,


                Get lost, i.e. should I serve someone whom I have never seen (no matter what), and not just Him, but His personification, which someone has set over me?

                neighbor i.e. higher lower, but lower higher and just to each other.


                Find 10 differences from communism? I see only one thing, that under communism everyone serves only the people, that is, the neighbor whom he can touch and see, and not an abstract "god." In my opinion, this is a much stronger motivation. The problem is different. That NOBODY WISHES to serve! How does this pop serve God and people, if not working he drags a gold watch for awesome grandmothers and drives a limousine when his flock does not have bread every day? Or a "God-fearing" official, "serves" the golden calf by taking bribes, or a "devout" bandit who cuts throats at night and donates money to the church in the morning. THIS IS A SERVICE ??? !!!

                The only "mechanism" that allows at least partially to defeat pride, to reduce its level in society (and its consequences) is faith in God and the Orthodox Church, which was created as a "mechanism" for human correction.


                And why is the code of the builder of communism worse? He also makes you humble your pride and work for the sake of others! Religion for 2k years cannot "correct a person". How long does this "mechanism" have to work idle to make it clear that it is "taking the wrong direction"?
          4. ioann1
            ioann1 April 27 2014 13: 51
            -1
            Orik, if you talk like that, do you still disagree that the consequences of the execution of the prisoner are a curse for the people?
            1. Orik
              Orik April 27 2014 17: 23
              0
              Quote: ioann1
              Orik, if you talk like that, do you still disagree that the consequences of the execution of the prisoner are a curse for the people?

              You see, dear, difficult questions do not have simple "yes" or "no" answers.
              The people, for the most part, in all classes have departed from God. The abolition of compulsory confession in the army in 1917 demonstrates this well when about 6% of the personnel voluntarily began to confess (according to army priests). Here it is an indicator, but the army included all the main classes.
              Everything that happened to the Tsar is a consequence. They departed from God, departed from the Tsar, and even his imprisonment and murder did not awaken the conscience of the majority. And I ask you, what is the greater "curse" of apostasy from God or the murder of the king?
              Here in detail http://www.pravoslavie.ru/smi/124.htm and I agree with these. The people are guilty of falling away from God, but each having regained contact with God and healing his passions, heals society and brings closer the time of the coming of the Orthodox Tsar. Look at this forum, all patriots, and it’s better not to speak about the faith, the king.
              1. AAF
                AAF April 28 2014 00: 02
                -1
                The mass of the kings killed by the Romanovs themselves or their immediate circle - Peter-3, Paul - where shall we go? Also departed from Gd? And why did the Lord grant Victory in the 45th sworn atheist Bolsheviks? ..
                1. alicante11
                  alicante11 April 28 2014 04: 38
                  -2
                  The mass of the kings killed by the Romanovs themselves or their immediate circle - Peter-3, Paul - where shall we go? Also departed from Gd? And why did the Lord grant Victory in the 45th sworn atheist Bolsheviks? ..


                  It’s useless. There were the wrong kings as well as the wrong people. And in 41st, "the Lord took pity on the people." You won't break through this obscurantism. If he answers specific questions with quotes from religious literature, logic is powerless.
                  I have Ishimova's book on Russian history for children. So, there are all the kings and princes who handed over power normally - such souls that they would not do it during the reign, and everyone who was sewn by loyal subjects are thieves and tati. And what if, according to the rules, he handed over power, even to a canteen woman, then he made a "divine mark." Here is the same thing.
                  1. Orik
                    Orik April 28 2014 09: 04
                    +1
                    Calm down the chatterbox, you know little, you talk about everything, you cannot perceive the information received, but everything is poisonous. I have never said that "all the kings and princes who handed over power normally are such souls that they would not do it during the reign, and everyone who was sewn by loyal subjects are thieves and tati" - now you are openly LIE. All this is the fruit of your pride and self-conceit, and that's what separates people in the first place.
                    1. alicante11
                      alicante11 April 28 2014 16: 26
                      -1
                      you know little, you talk about everything, you cannot perceive the information received, but you proceed with poison.


                      What exactly is that I don't know? Lives of the saints? Yes shit with them, all the same bullshit. What am I talking about? I do not argue, but give specific examples and facts on the basis of which I draw conclusions. From you, except for "sacred" anti-scientific texts of insults - nothing. We merge quietly, you see.

                      I have never said that "all the kings and princes who handed over power normally are such souls that they would not do it during the reign, and everyone who was sewn by loyal subjects are thieves and tati" - now you are openly LIE


                      And your surname Ishimova? Dunduk, learn to learn something other than the gospel.

                      So what about the answers to my questions and examples? If possible without inflating cheeks? Or merge?
                2. Orik
                  Orik April 28 2014 09: 15
                  +1
                  Quote: AAF
                  The mass of the kings killed by the Romanovs themselves or their immediate circle - Peter-3, Paul - where shall we go? Also departed from Gd? And why did the Lord grant Victory in the 45th sworn atheist Bolsheviks? ..

                  The killing of kings in this consequence of the degradation of the noble elite. Especially Paul, who tried to return the duty of life service to the nobles. The killing of any person is a sin, the killing of an anointed kingdom is a pure sin, the Bible clearly says "do not touch my anointed ones, and do not do evil to my prophets." (Psalm 104: 12-15). Before committing any sin, and especially killing, a person departs from God.
                  And who needed to give victory in the 45th? Satanist and occultist Hitler or the remnants of the Third Rome, where Stalin restored the Russian Church, where the people according to the census in the village by 2/3, and in the city 1/3 recognized himself Orthodox. The answer lies on the surface.
                  1. alicante11
                    alicante11 April 28 2014 16: 28
                    -1
                    In, well, I said that the people are bad, the elite is bad, and "God is not Antoshka, he sees a little" and other sacred crap. All are bad, only God and the king are good. ...
  • nnz226
    nnz226 April 26 2014 12: 06
    +4
    Well, if the "owner of the Russian land" allowed the February revolution, then the system is really rotten! With a good system, revolutions do not happen during a war !!! And with a bad one - remember the Paris Commune, at least! Also the Emperor of France Napoleon III, he clapped something. Defeats in the war are not a reason for rebellion, in 3-1941 no one in the USSR rebelled, and there is no need to bleat about the "population frightened by the Stalinist satraps from the NKVD"! The system worked !!!
    1. mongoose
      mongoose April 26 2014 12: 23
      -1
      Ie to blame anyone other than Judas proper?
  • A1L9E4K9S
    A1L9E4K9S April 26 2014 12: 25
    0
    Quote: Vladimir Filippov.
    According to the surface fashion of our time, it is customary to interpret the royal system as blind, rotten, worthless tyranny.

    Well, gentlemen, you liberals are bending to the cold, tyranny just didn’t exist, you are lying. There would be tyranny, Russia would now live in a different dimension, and America would mince before Russia. And Nikolai was a weak-minded man who fell under the influence of his wife, by the way in our time, too, one ruler listened to his wife Velikaya Raisa and came to the point of betraying his homeland. And what do you tell gentlemen liberals to call the time from the beginning of Gorbachev’s reign to the end of Yeltsin’s reign, as the triumph of democracy in Russia?
  • La-5
    La-5 April 26 2014 14: 11
    -2
    Good country leaders come from good military men.
    1. RoTTor
      RoTTor April 27 2014 00: 24
      +1
      Just not in our country. Or are our military not like that?
      1. Orik
        Orik April 27 2014 12: 40
        0
        Quote: RoTTor
        Just not in our country. Or are our military not like that?

        Rather, not now, before yes.
  • Sour
    Sour April 26 2014 15: 10
    -2
    Nicholas II is certainly guilty of the collapse of the country. But it is not he alone who is guilty, but his predecessors to the same extent. Nikolai 2 is to blame for missing the most important, most crucial time for the development of the country. This is the first half of the 1th century, when new technologies quickly developed in the World, and it was this time that was decisive. And the descendants are to blame for taking the wrong path. Instead of strengthening the state, turning it into an efficient machine, they took the path of liberalization. The era of Nicholas II was the most liberal time in Russian history, with the exception of Gorbachev. The result is obvious.
  • sled beach
    sled beach April 26 2014 15: 16
    0
    A few parallels: This is some kind of memory feature. It is worth remembering childhood and nostalgia rolls in, they say everything was much better, cleaner, etc., etc., but it is worth diving deeper into memory (difficult childhood) and it turns out that now it is much better, much freer .Da volya is not to everyone's liking and not to everyone's strength. Only not that western "will" where the strong eats the weak but consent, complicity.
    1. Sour
      Sour April 26 2014 15: 24
      -2
      Quote: Sanya Beach
      where the strong eats the weak

      And who is there who "eats"? Do they have a more bloody history there than ours? I would not say.
      If one person lives better than the other and the third, this does not always mean that he is a scoundrel who "eats" someone. This ideology is a road to a dead end. Enough for a man with five rubles in his pocket to count five times worse than someone who only has a ruble. There is nothing good in this view of people and cannot be.
  • w2000
    w2000 April 26 2014 17: 30
    -1
    This scum nikolashka, not even worth soiling paper on which it is written about him.
    1. Sour
      Sour April 26 2014 20: 08
      -2
      Nikolashka, of course, does not deserve respect.
      Kerensky is even worse, by the way.
      But no matter how bad and hateful the rulers of Russia are, it must always be protected.
      To defend only that Russia in which power is like is the ideology of a traitor.
      Traitors were in 1914-1917, and in 1941-1945. They were no different in essence. Yes, they waved different flags. But that didn’t change anything.
      "Down with the tsarist regime" in 1917 is the same as "down with the Stalinist regime" in 1941.
      The Bolsheviks and Vlasovites are one and the same in essence.
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 April 27 2014 06: 10
        0
        Once again, the Bolsheviks were not involved in the overthrow of the tsar.
        1. ioann1
          ioann1 April 27 2014 13: 53
          0
          You and your ancestors are probably involved. Keep dancing in the churchyard!
          1. alicante11
            alicante11 April 27 2014 15: 16
            0
            Sorry, they were not, they were not, they were not involved, at least in the overthrow of tsarism :).
            There were peasants who moved to Siberia from Ukraine and Belarus, wild Mordovians, highlanders Chechens, Far Eastern settlers, convicts. But there were no commissars with Mausers, mongrels, and lousy telegents.

            But I’m sorry, not Dunk Maclaud, to overthrow the king, and then communicate with you on the Internet :). Are you generally sober or inadequate at all?
  • Artem1967
    Artem1967 April 26 2014 20: 21
    +1
    Nicholas 2 is a good (possibly) man, a wonderful family man, but an absolutely weak emperor and Supreme Commander! The selection of facts in the article is extremely tendentious and clearly exaggerates the merits of the tsar and does not at all mention Generals Alekseev, Yudenich, Brusilov and many others (the true creators of the victories of Russian weapons).
    The Russian empire, under the leadership of this unfortunate emperor, was doomed even from the inglorious Russo-Japanese War and the tsar’s criminal behavior before, during and after it.
    1. Sour
      Sour April 26 2014 21: 30
      0
      Quote: Artem1967
      generally does not mention the generals Alekseev, Yudenich, Brusilov and many others (the true creators of the victories of Russian weapons).

      Absolutely.
      Trebizond, Sarykamysh and especially Erzurum are some of the most brilliant victories of Russian weapons in the history of Russia.
      Undeservedly forgotten under the Bolsheviks, after all, it was impossible then to recall N.N. Yudenich in a positive sense.
      Of the warlords of a rank lower than you mentioned, I would mention Evert, Kaledin, Keller.
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 April 27 2014 07: 26
        0
        Trebizond, Sarykamysh and especially Erzurum


        Somehow, the Brusilov breakthrough was forgotten. But who were these victories against? Against the unfortunate Turks and Austrians who knew how to beat only Italians. As soon as a firefighter Linsingen appeared with the German troops on Stokhod, the offensive was curtailed, ending with a Kovel meat grinder and again with thousands of prisoners in the bridgeheads.

        Sarykamysh is also not a masterpiece of military talent. If instead of the braked Turks there would be normal German troops, there would be an excellent boiler. And so, instead of maneuvering normally, they themselves heroically overcome the difficulties in defending the rear position created by themselves (well, albeit from the advice of the German advisers to the Turks).
    2. xan
      xan April 26 2014 21: 44
      -1
      Quote: Artem1967
      Nicholas 2 is a good (possibly) man, a wonderful family man, but an absolutely weak emperor and Supreme Commander!

      I completely agree! I’ll add from myself - having an education, at least some kind of mind can behave in wartime only by a very weak-willed and inspired person. He would have had the courage and a cold head, would have given the throne, and Russia would have won and had not washed her face with blood. Pope Alexander 3 could tighten the screws, but apparently in the sky it was decided to punish Russia.
    3. ioann1
      ioann1 April 27 2014 13: 59
      0
      General Alekseev betrayed the Emperor. But he died almost immediately! Brusilov, like many officers in the thousands of contingents in Moscow, did not bother to defend the Kremlin from the presumptuous sailors who arrived from Petrograd. The defenders were junkers and cadets. Learn the topic
      this is in anticipation of a clash with the west, very relevant!
  • RoTTor
    RoTTor April 27 2014 00: 19
    -2
    "He retained the rank of colonel for life, since he did not consider it possible for himself to raise the rank". This is not Nikolay’s merit: traditionally ALL Russian emperors remained in the same military rank in which they ascended the throne.
    M. Kasvinov is right when he wrote in his book about Nicholas II "23 steps down": he would have been an excellent regimental commander, but he turned out to be a bad emperor. "That's why he let go of power ...
    "Not for Senka's hat", Monomakh's hat.
    Unlike a military engineer who was not preparing to take the throne, Nicholas I, one of the greatest rulers in our history.
  • Brave
    Brave April 27 2014 00: 45
    -1
    He turned out to be weak, he paid with the empire and his family ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • AAF
    AAF April 27 2014 23: 55
    -1
    Quote: RoTTor
    Unlike a military engineer who was not preparing to take the throne, Nicholas I, one of the greatest rulers in our history.

    Against the background of Nicky v 2.0, even Pavel will seem like a genius. But "one of the greatest in history"? Um ...
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 April 28 2014 04: 42
      0
      Nicholas the First is not to blame for the fact that, upon accession to the throne, the Decembrists crossed his path, and at the end of the reign, all of Europe took up arms against Russia.
      By the way, with him was the last expansion of Russia - the Primorsky Territory and the Amur region were annexed. But after him, Russia began to decline, starting from Alaska.
  • Kostya pedestrian
    Kostya pedestrian 5 May 2014 04: 38
    0
    What is there to blame external forces - this is already understandable.

    It is necessary to analyze the internal. With such money and the power to become a victim - this must be tried! In general, it could be considered that Nicholas 2 became a traitor to the Motherland and the army when he voluntarily relieved himself of the authority of the commander in chief during the fighting of his Army. Vopors that pushed Him to this.

    And the second question, as far as I know the country in which I grew up, is difficult for the Bolsheviks to reproach for cruelty. The same Dzerzhinsky saved thousands of lives of street children. Therefore, in the tragic fate of Nicholas 2, the most cruel is the murder of his children and women.

    And here, it seems to me, not so distant events of already modern Russia give an answer to this. Who could order the hostage-taking of children in both Budenovsk and the Nord-Ost. Zuid West? Best Judas? Greek god Hades? Sydney firm Zest? Zed Evil?

    PieS: Nicholas 2 prayed to the wrong god. It would be necessary to pray to the god who needs wars, not martyrs. As Vysotsky sings: "Pray to the gods of war -Artellerists ..."

    And to exorcise (steal) the "spirit of prediction" from oneself, to allow the apostles from the Scottish or Maltese Wrights, in return accepting their repose.

    By the way, no one thought about the connection between Glasgow and Mango. For me personally, my "all-seeing eye" is dearer than anything in the world, as well as my male dignity and honor.

    By the way, a good advertisement for Sonya Bravia: "Latvian shooter advertises a TV brand that has not yet appeared in the world"
    1. Kostya pedestrian
      Kostya pedestrian 5 May 2014 17: 54
      0
      I want to amend my comment on the Scots.

      The role of Sean Connery, who exposed the Lithuanian submarine commander as a traitor, is simply disgusting, not to mention their national color - men's skirts.

      But we must pay tribute to them in entrepreneurship and ingenuity.
      In addition, I always considered them fraudsters, although it could very well have been created by a third party, in order to cut friendly relations in Europe and Russia by the new New York ITC.

      I came across the history of the Buick and Toyota logos. Toyota Buick is not suitable for use, not to mention quality and design.

      So, I concluded that this Buick should hold such a market share, which Toyota occupies. The fact is that Toyota is the changed name of the founder of Toyota. Where D was replaced by t, so that there were 8 hieroglyphs, which in Japan is considered good luck. If you look at the Bika logo of 1930, then it’s just on. number 8.

      But the most interesting thing is where Toyota Automobile is produced in Colin, Czech Republic.

      In short, the secret of the Asian tiger is not of Japanese hard work or genius, but in their magical talents of thieves. Not for nothing, a jump in the development of Japanese technology occurred when anyone for $ 100 got access to the development of Soviet scientists, while talented Soviet scientists puzzled how to feed their families with coupons.

      Intersno who are the yellow dragons? Is it not the very ones that made respectable Germans, including those of Arab blood, advertise the shameful yellow star of David.

      Just don’t tell me that the Japanese were burying living people, and the Czechs were victims of Nazism, not to mention the fact that they can judge people. I am already silent about the White-Czechs, who were just where Nikolai 2 was under house arrest.

      In short, on the face, a case of discrediting the indigenous population of Europe and the North Sea.