Military Review

120 years ago, the last Russian emperor Nicholas II took the throne

141
120 years ago, the last Russian emperor Nicholas II took the throne

120 years ago, 2 in November 1894, the last Russian emperor Nikolai II Alexandrovich took the throne. Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov, 26-year-old son of Emperor Alexander III, inherited the throne after the sudden death of his father. On the same day, officials, courtiers and troops took the oath to the emperor.

Nikolai Alexandrovich himself was a good man and a family man. In calmer times, he would rule for the joy of himself and the people, Russia continued to gradually strengthen. But he was very unlucky. First, his father died suddenly, and Nicholas committed unexpectedly the throne ahead of time. Secondly, the Romanovs' empire was in deep crisis, and it needed to be radically reformed, and it had to be done quickly, but without a break (Stalin had to do everything very quickly to save civilization and the people). Thirdly, it was during the reign of Nicholas II that the “world community” (the “civilized West”) sentenced Russia to division. The whole world came to a new era and the old empires, including Russia, had to become a thing of the past. The masters of the Anglo-Saxon project prepared the planet for a big repartition. Germany and Russia had to exhaust each other in a fierce struggle, and their resources served as the foundation of the New World Order.

In general, Nicholas II was not lucky. He did not have the iron will of Father Alexander III and great-grandfather Nicholas I to resist the sophisticated and insidious enemy, as well as the capabilities and ruthlessness of Peter I, to radically rebuild Russia. In order for it to stand in world war and be able to win, come out updated. And without a radical transformation, the old, Romance Russia could not survive. Too deep contradictions lay at its core. For three centuries of its existence, the safety margin of the “White Empire” has been exhausted.

Peter I is usually accused of distorting historical the path of Russia, "cut a window to Europe" and Westernized the country. However, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Peter only completed the lengthy process that his predecessors began. Without raising the theme of the accession of the Romanovs to the throne (this is a separate, vast and complex topic), it is obvious that from the first Romanovs Russia gradually began to be rebuilt in a Western manner. To begin with, the Romanovs achieved complete freedom from society, gradually reducing the role of Zemsky Sobors and other people's institutions to zero. Then the Romanovs and the power-hungry church hierarchs dealt a terrible blow to the basis of Russian society - the Russian faith, which carried the “Kitezh-grad” (God's Kingdom on Earth) civilization values. The spiritual tradition was suppressed, the line of Sergius of Radonezh and his students, non-possessors, archimandrite Dionysus and the elders of the Solovetsky monastery. After all, it was the Russian faith that was the source of the people's energy, their strength, capable of accomplishing any miracle.

Nikon and other "reformers" who introduced modern Greek rituals, made a complete substitution of the meaning of faith. Living faith was replaced by an empty, formal religion. Avvakum and other “Old Believers” were brutally suppressed. Holy Russia, which the Nikonians reduced to rituals, the total nationalization of the church, bureaucratic servility and police supervision of the parishioners (the priests were obliged to "knock" on suspicious parishioners), in fact, went underground. The most healthy part of Russian society, the Old Believers, became persecuted for steadfastly preserving their ideals. It is they who, with their hard work and patience, will later create the Russian national capital. And before that, for two centuries, they were retreating to the most remote parts of Russia, preserving their own way.

Nikon and Romanovs stopped this life-giving source, the Russian faith. Suffice it to recall how the troops from 1666 to 1674. besieged Solovetsky monastery, the last stronghold of the Russian spirit. Taking it through betrayal, the troops brutally killed the monks, who heroically fought for their abode. They were drowned in ice holes, skinned and hung on meat hooks. As a result, the split led to the formation of a huge gap between the people and the government. This split completely took shape under Peter, when two people were formed in Russia - the Russian people themselves, and the German and French-speaking "elite". At the same time, the best part of the people (up to a quarter of the population) went into a “split”, forming their own, “parallel” Russia. Old Believers retained the Russian faith, spiritual and physical sobriety, honesty and perseverance.

Peter the First completed the case, abolishing the patriarchate and making the church a department of the state. Gradually, most of the population lost faith, and the clergy lost their authority. Faith was kept only by certain old men, like Seraphim of Sarov. The official "Orthodoxy" degenerated, became a formality. Therefore, it is not surprising that the people as a whole showed indifference to the killing of churchmen, the destruction of churches and monasteries during the years of the Civil War. It should be noted that the current "state Orthodoxy" is not at all better than what was in the Russian Empire, the disease has not been eradicated. It is impossible to revive spirituality with beautiful tempering novelties and empty ceremonialism. Thus, in its spirituality and kindness, the Soviet society of the period 1940-1950. It is an order of magnitude higher than the Russian society of the 2000 model.

The attempt of the Romanovs to recode the Russian civilization, turn it into Europe completely failed and ended with the national disaster of 1917 of the year. But it took more than 300 years. Peter I was not the first Westerner, but it was he who made Westernization irreversible. Peter's Cultural Revolution designed a turn towards Europe. The autocrat literally with an iron fist drove Western culture into Russia, with brutal reprisals, such as the execution of archers, when the king personally cut off their heads and forced them to do so, suppressing any resistance. There is nothing fun in shaving beards, dressing up in foreign clothes, sending young people who are most easily amenable to suggestion, recoding, abroad, women's participation in joint parties, these are all elements of the cultural revolution, replacing their values ​​with others. New capital - St. Petersburg has become the western city, the place of residence of the new "elite". No wonder the city carried and carries a lot of Western, including hidden, Masonic symbolism.

The deepest meaning of Peter’s policy was best expressed by one of his closest associates, Peter Saltykov: “The Russians are in every way similar to the Western nations, but they are behind them. Now we need to put them on the right path. " These words became the guiding star of all the "reformers" and "perestroika" who tried to remake Russia and the Russian people in the Western style. This view of Peter was formed under the influence of foreign mentors, and at the same time companions.

As a result, Peter created the powerful Russian empire with all its ups and downs, and he also predetermined her death. The tragedy of his son Alexei is a kind of sign, speaking about the future of Romanovskaya Russia. Peter was able to modernize Russia in a Western way, make it a mighty military, maritime and economic power, but the spirit of the people, its cultural code was distorted, which in the future predetermined the death of the Russian Empire.

The Russian people were divided into two parts - the gentlemen and the impoverished population. Gentlemen possessed a high, Western culture, they could receive an excellent education, travel, live in clover, and the population was reduced to the level of almost slaves who had to fight for the empire, bear all costs, pay taxes. At the same time, the “elite” gradually degraded. Unfortunately, such Russian people in the spirit as Lomonosov, Suvorov, Ushakov, Nakhimov, Kornilov were not enough for the whole of Russia, they could not close all the “embrasures”. In general, the “elite”, having lost the iron tsar-reformer, who did not spare anyone, including himself, decomposed, saturated with Western values. "Elitist" even killed the sovereign Paul when he tried to restore discipline and order in the aristocracy. As a result, it was the “elite” that made the February 1917 revolution of the year, the charter to endure such “remnants” as autocracy. The pro-Western "elite" wanted to finally join Europe, make Russia look like England or France.

Under Alexander III (and even a little earlier), the Russian Empire got a chance for transformation, restoration on the basis of the Russian way. The Eastern (Crimean) War and the Berlin Congress 1878 of the Year, which deprived us of the fruits of victory over the Ottoman Empire, showed that Russia has no friends and allies in Europe. It was under Alexander Alexandrovich that the foreign and domestic policy of Russia began to rapidly “grow into Rus’s”. In Russian culture, traditional motifs began to appear. She unexpectedly took up the search for the deep foundations of Holy Russia, the moral sources of Russian life. Tolstoy, Leskov, Tyutchev, Dostoevsky, Leontyev, Fet, Savrasov, Levitan, Nesterov, Mussorgsky, Dal, Danilevsky and many others revealed the depths of Russian existence. The major figures of Russian culture knew perfectly well and appreciated European culture, but it came to the realization that it was alien, that Russian culture and civilization were original and self-sufficient. As a result, the Russian people and the state opened up opportunities for radical transformations based on the Russian way.

However, Russophile Alexander III fell ahead of time, and Nicholas II could not change the situation and save the empire, create a new elite in Russian spirit, eliminate illiteracy, conduct industrialization and restructuring of agriculture. At the same time, continuing the foreign policy course of Alexander the Peacemaker, without getting involved in external conflicts, focused on the internal arrangement of the Russian Empire.

Especially dangerous for the then Russia was to fight. She could not fight anyway. The most far-sighted people, like Durnovo, Stolypin and Rasputin, warned about this (the last two Masonic structures were physically eliminated). Already the Russian-Japanese war 1904-1905. showed all the rottenness of the empire and the precariousness of the internal situation, where the hardest political, socio-economic and national contradictions have ripened. The war revealed the problem of the lack of strategic planning for decades to come. Russia had dozens of years of peace in the Far East, but did not use them for a serious development of the region. The war showed the weakness of the “peacetime” generals; among the generals there were no Suvorovs and Schelians, ready for decisive and swift actions, able to use the unique combat potential of a Russian soldier and officer. That Russian diplomacy is not capable of resolving disputed issues with Tokyo amicably, delimiting the spheres of influence in China and Korea, making the Japanese friends and allies in the Pacific. That officials and the bourgeoisie are amazed at corruption and robbing the army (this was during the Crimean War and will be in the First World War). And for this collapse and theft, no one answered.

The war revealed a deep division in Russian society. The common people did not know at all what the country was fighting for, and the liberal intelligentsia openly wished their country defeat. Army betrayed at all. Even after a series of defeats and heavy losses, the Russian army was not defeated and intensified, and the Japanese army was on the verge of a military catastrophe. By the summer of 1905, Japan was exhausted, Russia was able to concentrate a powerful army in Manchuria, which was finally ready to launch a decisive offensive. It was possible to defeat the Japanese, return Port Arthur, generally throw the enemy out of China and Korea. Japan was on the verge of financial collapse, its military and demographic resources were exhausted, the Japanese would have to ask for peace. However, at a convenient moment in Russia, the revolution was provoked, the United States persistently offered mediation in the negotiations, and Russian politicians like Witte actively supported the peace initiative. Russia acknowledged defeat on the eve of its victory.

In general, the war with Japan was a warning that Russia could not be at war. Behind any adversary of Russia will be England and the USA, wishing to destroy Russia with someone else’s hands and take their resources into their hands. They skillfully set off the Russians and the Japanese, and then the Russians and Germans.

At the same time, Russia's external enemies have worked for decades to create a heterogeneous “fifth column” within Russia. They were all sorts of socialists, anarchists, nationalists, separatists, Liberal Democrats, Freemasons and other vermin. And the most dangerous were not the Bolsheviks, who were on the sidelines of political life, but high-ranking liberals, members of the Masonic lodges — grand dukes, generals, bankers, industrialists, Duma leaders, major publishers and journalists, lawyers, etc. the empire was overwhelmed by liberalism, gentleness and strange inaction. She did everything except her immediate responsibilities. Revolution 1905-1907's. became a test of the stability of the empire, its immunity.

A heroic attempt to keep the empire from collapse was made by Stolypin. But his policy partially collapsed, not having met the support of the authorities and the people, was partly designed for a long peaceful period of development, which the country did not have. In addition, he was killed, as Stolypin stubbornly stood for peace at any cost. World War I became the death sentence of the empire. All the best forces and resources were thrown to the front. The cadre army, which could give a hard rebuff to the revolutionaries, was killed in the battles. Almost in all spheres of life destabilization occurred, chaos began to grow. The Fifth Column was given the opportunity to prepare and carry out a coup d'etat in February 1917. Nicholas II was doomed, the sovereign and his family made ritual sacrifices that symbolized the death of Russia and the Russian people.

True, the enemies of the Russian people miscalculated. Russia and the Russian people were able to get out of this pit, albeit at the cost of millions of victims. It should be noted that the current situation in the Russian Federation has an obvious similarity with the late Russian Empire. The head of state Vladimir Putin (or his successor) must conduct the “Russification” of Russia, the “nationalization of the elite”, the new industrialization, regain the independence of the country's finances, prevent the country from being drawn into a big war in its initial period (it will have to participate in it one way or another) , complete the rearmament of the armed forces, etc. Otherwise, Russia will face another unrest.
Author:
141 comment
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. tanit
    tanit 2 November 2014 05: 30
    +6
    Still from the biography of the "saint" - the body of his father was not yet buried, but the "saint" had already celebrated his wedding. Against this wedding - just the father (not a saint) was against it.
    1. 225chay
      225chay 2 November 2014 06: 27
      +31
      Quote: tanit
      Still from the biography of the "saint" - the body of his father was not yet buried, but the "saint" had already celebrated his wedding. Against this wedding - just the father (not a saint) was against it.


      The question is probably not this, but that the Naglosaxon jackal tore and wrecked Russia into wars and is now ready at the first opportunity to bite us with its purulent and jawbones of others.
      Under no circumstances should one help the Naglosaxon empire and its henchmen, as Russia helped Britain, the Franks, or the recognition of the United States.
      It is necessary to help them drown, burn, and also their accomplices are full in Russia itself and even in the Kremlin ...
      1. tanit
        tanit 2 November 2014 07: 49
        +10
        And again I do not argue. Once France did not help - instead of Prussia they received the German Empire. Once overseas guys helped - they got the USA.
        The only good news is that now we know who to drown and burn. And tomorrow?
        1. avt
          avt 2 November 2014 09: 43
          +13
          Quote: tanit
          . Once France did not help - instead of Prussia they received the German Empire

          But how can Hesse not help the Hottentorp Germans on the Russian throne? laughing By the way, in the questionnaire, "the owner of the Russian land" that the home language is German. The author correctly grasped the essence of the "Western" reforms of the Romanov clan, which really began in the struggle for power openly during the time of Godunov ----- ,,. To begin with, the Romanovs achieved complete freedom from society, gradually reducing the role of Zemsky Sobors and other people's institutions to zero. Then the Romanovs and the power-hungry church hierarchs dealt a terrible blow to the foundation of Russian society - the Russian faith, which brought “Kitezh-grad” (the Kingdom of God on Earth) to civilizational values. The spiritual tradition was suppressed, the line of Sergius of Radonezh and his students, non-possessors, Archimandrite Dionysus and the elders of the Solovetsky Monastery. After all, it was the Russian faith that was the source of the people's energy, its strength, capable of performing any miracle. ",, The First World War became the death sentence of the empire." --------- In which, again, the spineless Nika # 2 was drawn by his inner circle.
          1. Russian
            Russian 2 November 2014 14: 51
            +11
            And what, another event forgot ??
            Today is November 2, that day 293 years ago. Russia became an empire.

            On November 2, 1721, Peter I accepted the title of Peter the Great, Father of the Fatherland, Emperor of All Russia. From now on, Russia became an empire, which was evidence of its new role in international affairs. Immediately the new title of the Russian Tsar was recognized by Prussia and Holland, two years later - Sweden, and in subsequent years, other countries. In Russian historiography, Peter I is considered one of the most prominent statesmen who determined the direction of Russia's development in the 18th century.
        2. Drummer
          Drummer 2 November 2014 10: 02
          +11
          Not only "did not help France", but also actively helped Prussia in the diplomatic field and showered the victorious Prussian generals with orders. Sobering up came later, after the Berlin Congress.
        3. Gato
          Gato 2 November 2014 11: 20
          +5
          Quote: tanit
          And again I do not argue. Once France did not help - instead of Prussia they received the German Empire. Once overseas guys helped - they got the USA.

          So helping the enemies of your enemies is the principle of politics. What's wrong? Did Prussia and the USA participate in the invasion of Crimea? And France participated - for which she ogrebla in 1871 from the Prussians, got her own and Austria, against which Russia was forced to keep the best parts on the western border.
          But the USA strongly supported Russia. Anyway, the relations between RI and the USA until 1917 (and after that too) were, if not allied, then extremely friendly.
          But, unfortunately, there are no clairvoyants in politics request
          And it would be nice to know the ransom ...
      2. Interface
        Interface 2 November 2014 12: 58
        0
        that the impudent Saxony jackal vomited and poisoned Russia in wars


        The Russian Empire was the largest debtor in the world: 8 billion 800 million rubles

        Multiply this by 1071.
        We get 9 424 800 000 000 (trillion) rubles at the modern rate.

        Most of this debt came from France.

        For brotherly Serbia, you say, fought?
        1. sprut
          sprut 3 November 2014 08: 42
          +3
          This may be an indicator, but clearly not the main one. Now, a lot of countries (including economically developed ones) exist with huge external debts and nevertheless struggle with this and continue to live and develop ...
          At the same time, I want to note that the foreign debt of the USSR by the year 92 amounted to $ 96,6 billion (even that money) and continued to grow rapidly!
          The problem was not in debt, but in a weak king. If we swap Nicholas II and Alexander III, then our history would certainly have a different development ...
          1. Interface
            Interface 4 November 2014 14: 15
            0
            Now, a lot of countries (including economically developed ones) exist with huge external debts and nevertheless struggle with this and continue to live and develop ...
            At the same time, I want to note that the external debt of the USSR to the 92 year amounted to $ 96,6 billion (of that money) and continued


            Especially for you I went to the "Single portal of the budgetary system" http://budget.gov.ru/

            RF budget revenues-- 9 439 600 000 000 at 1 September 2014
            Government debt RI --------- 9 424 800 000 000 at current prices in 1913 year.

            Thus, the government debt of Russia 100 years ago was equal to the revenues of our entire budget.


            Now about the USSR.

            The union budget for the 1991 year was 250 157 450 000 rubles. We translate this into dollars at prices of 1991 of the year (RUB-USD exchange rate of 0,67 rubles --- $ 1 for May 20 of 1991 of the year).

            250 157 450 000 x 0,67 = $ 167 605 491 500

            The budget of the USSR in the 1991 year ---- $ 167 605 491 500
            State debt of the USSR in 1991 year --- $ 96 600 000 000

            A lot, I do not argue. But it must be borne in mind that for reasons that are not completely understood, the debt under Gorbachev grew almost 2,5 times. hi
            1. Trapperxnumx
              Trapperxnumx 5 November 2014 10: 18
              0
              And what was the budget income of the Republic of Ingushetia for 1913?
      3. Princely
        Princely 2 November 2014 15: 59
        +1
        The article is the highest rating. Everything is very correct.
        The Russian faith is especially well and correctly said.
        The death of the empire as a geopolitical catastrophe is expressed very precisely.
        "But he was very unlucky. Firstly, his father died suddenly, and Nicholas completely unexpectedly received the throne ahead of time. Secondly, the Romanov empire was in a deep crisis, and it had to be radically reformed, and this had to be done quickly, but without breaking (Stalin had to do everything extremely quickly to save civilization and the people.) Thirdly, it was during the reign of Nicholas II that the "world community" ("civilized West") sentenced Russia to partition. The whole world approached a new era and old empires, including Russia, had to become a thing of the past. The owners of the Anglo-Saxon project were preparing the planet for a big redistribution. Germany and Russia had to exhaust each other in a fierce struggle, and their resources would serve as the foundation of the New World Order.

        In general, Nicholas II was not lucky. He did not possess the iron will of Father Alexander III and great-grandfather Nicholas I to resist a sophisticated and insidious enemy, as well as the abilities and ruthlessness of Peter I in order to radically rebuild Russia. In order for it to withstand the world war and be able to win, come out renewed. And without a radical transformation, the old, Roman Russia could not survive. Too deep contradictions were at the heart of it. For three centuries of its existence, the safety margin of the "White Empire" has been exhausted. "
        1. Dimy4
          Dimy4 2 November 2014 16: 23
          +5
          In general, Nicholas II was unlucky

          This Russia was not lucky with him, he was poking around in the garden, but he was born the heir to the throne.
          1. avt
            avt 2 November 2014 18: 17
            -3
            Quote: Dimy4
            This Russia was not lucky with him, he was poking around in the garden, but he was born the heir to the throne.

            Well, maybe he would be a good commander of a cavalry regiment.
          2. Fin
            Fin 2 November 2014 20: 52
            +2
            Quote: Dimy4
            This Russia was not lucky with him, he was poking around in the garden, but he was born the heir to the throne.

            That's for sure. I could only stamp children, but breed snot.
            Nikolai Alexandrovich himself was a good man and a family man.

            It would be better to taxis.
          3. sprut
            sprut 3 November 2014 08: 24
            -1
            Precisely. If at that time in his place there would have been a man with the character of Stalin ...
            1. smart Fox
              smart Fox 3 November 2014 21: 58
              0
              Or Nicholas I. The emperor was weak.
      4. 1812 1945
        1812 1945 2 November 2014 16: 07
        +8
        Quote: 225chay
        The question is probably not this, but that the Naglosaxon jackal tore and wrecked Russia into wars and is now ready at the first opportunity to bite us with its purulent and jawbones of others.

        You are absolutely right. The author wrote an interesting article, used many reliable facts to explain what happened. Underestimated, however, the external influence on the development of events at the beginning of the twentieth century, namely, the Anglo-Saxons. It is rightly said that Russia lost such people as Stolypin and Rasputin at the most inopportune critical moment for the country. In the First World War provoked by the Anglo-Saxons, it was impossible to enter the moment they needed - England and France. The clear superiority of Germany would force the United States to enter the war and not make money on it, but to ruin its indoor army and huge funds. I am sure: if Peter Arkadyevich Stolypin would be at the head of the government, he would correctly determine the moment when Russia should say its word. Russia would become even stronger, the straits would be ours, and the Black Sea, in fact, would be an internal body of water ... There is no subjunctive mood in history, but it is not worth all the Grand Dukes, all aristocrats to be recorded as traitors and agents of Western influence. And many thanks to the author for mentioning a significant date!
        1. Serg 122
          Serg 122 4 November 2014 17: 05
          +2
          Underestimated, however, the external influence on the development of events at the beginning of the twentieth century, namely, the Anglo-Saxons

          Why should he underestimate? Brother believed his word, that’s all. In the photo: Russian Emperor Nicholas II and the English King George V. (Cousins. Find 10 differences)
        2. massad1
          massad1 4 November 2014 19: 47
          0
          Forgive me, dear, but now it is not necessary to write about the "blessed old man" Grigory as the messiah here, who Grishka Rasputin was, everyone knows - an ordinary drunk who clings to the hysterical German princess Alexandra Feodorovna, whose story is overgrown with mysticism, rumors and fables. Read Pikul's "Unclean Power" - it is described in detail there, as well as about the "holy" Emperor HII (alcoholic and intriguer), who received the throne under very murky circumstances, yes, and it is also written about the Monk Seraphim of Sarov - there too somersaults were "bless you", and how he was canonized is also a very interesting story. The only person whom the Empire really lost at the wrong time is Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin, there is no doubt about it, but everyone has long known about the talents of the above-mentioned gentlemen and holy fathers ...
          1. Trapperxnumx
            Trapperxnumx 5 November 2014 10: 55
            0
            Quote: massad1
            Forgive me, dear, but now it is not necessary to write about the "blessed old man" Grigory as the messiah here, who Grishka Rasputin was, everyone knows - an ordinary drunk who clings to the hysterical German princess Alexandra Feodorovna, whose story is overgrown with mysticism, rumors and fables. Read Pikul's "Unclean Power" - it is described in detail there, as well as about the "holy" Emperor HII (alcoholic and intriguer), who received the throne under very murky circumstances, yes, and it is also written about the Monk Seraphim of Sarov - there too somersaults were "bless you", and how he was canonized is also a very interesting story. The only person whom the Empire really lost at the wrong time is Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin, there is no doubt about it, but everyone has long known about the talents of the above-mentioned gentlemen and holy fathers ...

            If for you a fiction and literary novel, written more than biased and full of gossip and jaundice about the described period, is a historical document, then accept my congratulations. You can also read the new "scientific research" of modern Ukrainians. The document will also be))))
      5. valokordin
        valokordin 2 November 2014 18: 54
        -1
        Quote: 225chay
        It is necessary to help them drown, burn, and also their accomplices are full in Russia itself and even in the Kremlin ...

        Hope this is virtual. This is not humane. But the author forgot to write about the great role of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, who preserved the Russian Empire, returned the patriarchate, and won the Great War. He is worthy to be a saint for this, he defeated all opponents, taught people to be honest, and to be patriots of the country. It is a pity that he did not have time to return the Old Believers.
    2. dyremar 66
      dyremar 66 2 November 2014 11: 55
      +5
      False. The wedding ceremony was not delayed until the end of the office. Some French hodinka invested in the reception and the tsar, having served the protocol, immediately left
    3. maxiban
      maxiban 2 November 2014 12: 37
      0
      He was weak, he ruined his family and two-thirds of the country's population. God be his judge.
    4. ioann1
      ioann1 2 November 2014 12: 50
      +5
      Do not blaspheme.
    5. Denis fj
      Denis fj 2 November 2014 20: 11
      +8
      11 facts about Nicholas II that you do not know.
      1) Nicholas took the throne in the Crimea. There, in Livadia, the royal estate near Yalta, his father Alexander III died. Confused, literally crying from the responsibility that has fallen on him, the young man was how the future king then looked. Mother, Empress Maria Fyodorovna, did not want to swear allegiance to her son! The younger, Mikhail - this is whom she saw on the throne
      2) And since we were talking about Crimea - it was in Yalta that he dreamed of moving the capital from the unloved Petersburg. The sea, the fleet, trade, the proximity of European borders ... But he did not dare, of course.
      3) Nicholas II almost passed the throne to his eldest daughter Olga. In 1900 he became ill with typhus (again in Yalta, well, right the fateful city for the family of the last Russian emperor). The king was dying. Since the time of Paul I, the law has prescribed: the throne is inherited only through the male line. However, bypassing this order, we were talking about Olga, who was then 5 years old. The king, however, climbed out, recovered. But the idea of ​​arranging a coup in favor of Olga, and then marrying her to a suitable candidate, who will rule the country instead of the unpopular Nicholas - this idea long disturbed the royal relatives and pushed them into intrigues.
      4) It is rarely said that Nicholas II became the first global peacekeeper. In 1898, upon his submission, a note was issued on the general limitation of armaments and a program for an international peace conference was developed. It was held in May next year in The Hague. 20 European states, 4 Asian, 2 American participated. In the heads of the then advanced intelligentsia of Russia, this act of the tsar simply did not fit. How so, because he is a militarist and imperialist ?! Yes, the idea of ​​the prototype of the UN, of conferences on disarmament originated precisely in Nikolai’s head. And long before the World War.
      5) It was Nikolai who completed the Siberian railway. It is still the main artery connecting the country, but for some reason it is not customary to credit this king. Meanwhile, he ranked the Siberian railway as his main task. Nicholas generally foresaw many of the challenges that Russia then had to rake in the XNUMXth century. He spoke, for example, that the population of China is growing astronomically, and this is an occasion to strengthen and develop Siberian cities. (And this at a time when China was called sleeping).

      Nicholas' reforms (monetary, judicial, wine monopoly, working day law) are also rarely mentioned. It is believed that since the reforms were started in the previous reigns, then the merits of Nicholas II seem to be nothing special. The tsar "just" pulled this strap and complained that "he works like a convict." "Only" brought the country to that peak, in 1913, by which the economy will then be compared for a long time. He only approved the powers of two of the most famous reformers - Witte and Stolypin. So, 1913: the strongest gold ruble, income from the export of Vologda oil is higher than from the export of gold, Russia is the world flagship in the grain trade
      6) Nicholas was like two drops of water similar to his cousin, the future English king George V. Their mothers are sisters. "Nicky" and "Georgie" were confused even by relatives.
      7) Raised foster son and daughter. More precisely, the children of his uncle Pavel Alexandrovich - Dmitry and Maria. Their mother died in childbirth, his father quite soon entered into a new marriage (unequal), and in the end the two little grand dukes were personally raised by Nicholas, they called him “dad”, the empress - “mother”. Dmitry loved as his own son. (This is the same Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich, who then, together with Felix Yusupov, will kill Rasputin, for which he will be exiled, will survive during the revolution, will flee to Europe and even manage to have an affair with Coco Chanel there).
    6. Denis fj
      Denis fj 2 November 2014 20: 15
      +2
      CONTINUED.
      8) I experienced the ammunition on myself. Checking the army suppliers - whether they put on rotten cloth - he put on his overcoat and full outfit of a private soldier and walked like that for 14 kilometers in the heat.
      9) Of all the wines, I liked Crimean port the most, but I knew when to stop. Although not without pleasure, he recorded in his diary: "I tried 6 sorts of port and slightly sprinkled it, which made me sleep well" (August 1906). The king smoked like a steam locomotive - one after the other.
      10) I could not stand female singing. He escaped when his wife, Alexandra Fedorovna, or some of her daughters or maids of honor sat down at the piano and started romances. The courtiers recall that at such moments the king complained: "Well, howled ..."

      11) I read a lot, especially contemporaries, wrote out a lot of magazines. Most loved Averchenko.
    7. Andrey NM
      Andrey NM 3 November 2014 07: 52
      +2
      Everything is correct. And if you also read the diaries of this "holy man", you can see that he was not involved in state affairs, a complete entertainment, visits to guests, etc. What are his "outings to the army", where he writes that until lunchtime he was on duty in the regiment, and then drank champagne with the officers. It was a weak-willed henpecked and such an end was natural.
      1. Andrey NM
        Andrey NM 3 November 2014 19: 50
        +4
        To catch up ... Here's how to treat it? Three days "around" the famous events of January 9th. From Nikolai's diary:
        January 8th. Saturday. Clear frosty day. There were many cases and reports. Breakfast Fredericks. I walked for a long time. Since yesterday, all plants and factories have been on strike in St. Petersburg. From the vicinity, troops were called up to strengthen the garrison. Workers still behaved calmly. Their number is determined at 120000 people. At the head of the union is some kind of priest-socialist Gapon. Mirsky arrived in the evening with a report on the measures taken.
        January 9th. Sunday. Tough day! Serious disturbances occurred in St. Petersburg as a result of the workers' desire to reach the Winter Palace. The troops had to shoot in different places of the city, there were many killed and wounded. Lord, how painful and hard! Mom came to us from the city right to the mass. Had breakfast with everyone. Walked with Misha. Mom stayed with us for the night.
        January 10th. Monday. Today, there were no special incidents in the city. There were reports. Uncle Alexey had breakfast. Accepted the deputation of the Ural Cossacks, who came with caviar. Walked. We drank tea with Mom. To combine actions to end the unrest in St. Petersburg, he decided to appoint Gen.-m. Trepova, Governor General of the capital and province ...
        And so on.

        Well, how is that? The busiest day of all in the diary - up to 4 hours, was terribly tired ... And when the police brought workers to him, what did he tell them? You kind of riot against me and the government started? We will resort to military force, which will lead to casualties. I know that your life is hard, but you must honestly understand and be fair to your owners and reckon with their conditions. I believe that you are honest and loyal to me, so I forgive you your guilt.

        Here is such a guardian for the people. Hundreds of thousands are on strike in the streets, and he is walking.
        And in the days of the Tsushima battle? The notes sound something like this: information came about the death of almost the entire squadron. The day was wonderful, which added sadness even more. To escape, we walked, rode on horseback, in kayaks and boats, rode in Pavlovsk and Menagerie.
        The leader and master of the country must tear and throw in order to find a way out of the situation, and here ...
    8. The comment was deleted.
    9. siberalt
      siberalt 4 November 2014 22: 03
      0
      Russia is not the West! But the authorities are still there. The state is private, the church is privatized. Obligations are declarative, responsibility at the level of other legal entities. And who will follow the hands? The system needs to be changed.
  2. pinecone
    pinecone 2 November 2014 05: 45
    +8
    Quote: tanit
    Still from the biography of the "saint" - the body of his father was not yet buried, but the "saint" had already celebrated his wedding. Against this wedding - just the father (not a saint) was against it.


    Wrong. Nicholas married on November 14, 1894, a week after the funeral of his father (Alexander III).
    1. tanit
      tanit 2 November 2014 06: 09
      +3
      Wrong? I will not argue. Only - "got married" and "celebrate" are still different concepts?
  3. tor11121
    tor11121 2 November 2014 05: 47
    +5
    Wow .. Such a good king was. And no Th that the people stuck to him the nickname - Bloody?
    1. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 2 November 2014 06: 33
      +12
      Quote: tor11121
      Th, that among the people they nicknamed him - Bloody?

      Do you think people the clerks of the Rothschilds, Coons and Leeb, who flooded R.I. weapons and inflammatory leaflets? Whose hands was the press then? In the same as now! Something "chosen people" headlong climbed from the Pale of Settlement into Russian cities, and then there were songs about the bloody regime. Trotsky exterminated the Russian people by several orders of magnitude more, but for some reason they don't call him bloody.
      1. denis_redis
        denis_redis 2 November 2014 10: 23
        -1
        What do you mean? And what about Trotsky? Bloody Sunday, the first revolution, the Russo-Japanese War. Nicholas subjects during their lifetime called bloody.
        1. 11111mail.ru
          11111mail.ru 2 November 2014 10: 44
          +5
          Quote: denis_redis
          And what about Trotsky? Bloody Sunday, the first revolution, the Russo-Japanese War.

          Let's leave out of the brackets for the time being Bloody Sunday, organized mainly by provocateurs from both sides, but in the first "Russian" revolution LB Bronstein was heavily lit up in St. Petersburg. And this "g-revolution" itself was necessary to stab the "rotten" tsarist regime in the back, which got stuck in a war with Imperial Japan. It was not his subjects who called him "bloody", but agents of foreign influence.
          1. Interface
            Interface 2 November 2014 15: 30
            -7
            And this "g-revolution" itself was necessary to stab the "rotten" tsarist regime in the back, which got stuck in a war with Imperial Japan.


            The facts of cooperation of the RSDLP with foreign intelligence are in the studio.


            Leave "sensational investigations" from VGTRK for political education of grandparents. For them, Lenin is a hero.
            1. 11111mail.ru
              11111mail.ru 2 November 2014 18: 04
              0
              Quote: Interface
              The facts of cooperation of the RSDLP with foreign intelligence are in the studio.

              If possible, please be more specific: what years are you interested in, what is the specific period? 1898-1903; 1904-1907; 1908-1913; 1914-1917; 1918-1922; 1923-1925?
              1. Interface
                Interface 2 November 2014 21: 13
                -3
                For all the time.

                Links to documents from the archive are required.
                Do not confirm the allegations against Trotsky in words, that means-- you are a liar.
                1. 11111mail.ru
                  11111mail.ru 3 November 2014 19: 03
                  +4
                  Quote: Interface
                  For all the time.

                  I do not have access to the KGB and Mi 6 archives. Surnames: Parvus, Reilly, Robins, Reed don't tell you anything?
                  Quote: Interface
                  Do not confirm Trotsky’s accusations with words

                  Will Lenin's words characterizing the aforementioned person: "Judaism" and "political protagonist of that duck" suit you?
                  Quote: Interface
                  mean-- you're a shit

                  Quote: Interface
                  Digging out a goat from the nose and smeared on a piece of paper.

                  At the end of the discussion: today, from 6-00 to 17-30, I drove 541 km by car, put the car in the garage, drove home, had dinner and now I have been unsubscribing for almost an hour and a half. I did not even look through the current topics. Now the content of the popular wisdom "do not throw pearls before ..." begins to reach me. Carefully collect your verbal diarrhea towards your opponent, type it on a piece of paper and re-read it instead of prayer in the morning and evening. You deserve it!
          2. Interface
            Interface 2 November 2014 21: 45
            -3
            he was called not by his subjects, but by agents of foreign influence.


            And the rumors that the empress is sleeping with rasputin, who dismissed in high salons? The Bolsheviks?
            1. massad1
              massad1 4 November 2014 20: 04
              -1
              oh, whether it was rumors ???
        2. Codename49
          Codename49 3 November 2014 17: 22
          -1
          Listen to the Bolshevik HOW IT KILLED IT AND THE WHOLE COUNTRY SPEND 1200 tons of pure gold in the country there is no more !!!
        3. massad1
          massad1 4 November 2014 20: 01
          0
          I don’t understand why they’ll take you for nothing, and what does Trotsky do with it?
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. 11111mail.ru
          11111mail.ru 2 November 2014 18: 07
          +3
          Quote: Interface
          1. And how much did he interrupt? Not "offhand", but for sure.
          2. A reference to a serious unbiased historical work in the studio.
          3. It is advisable to reinforce the reference to labor with data from archives,

          To questions of the 2nd and 3rd in detail: http://www.otchizna.info/Arhiv2008/Otchizna17/Rossiiskaya_demografiya_19_-20_vek

          On the 1st question in detail: http://topwar.ru/61549-ekzamen-dlya-naroda.html# Extreme (third comment). By the way, the opponent modestly did not answer.
          1. Interface
            Interface 2 November 2014 21: 24
            -1
            Firstly, the No 1 link does not work.

            Secondly, I requested a link to a SERIOUS HISTORICAL POLITICALLY UNAGGED LABOR.
            Archive, not the author’s point of view. Without reference to documents, all this nonsense is the fruit of a sick imagination.

            Thirdly, what does it have to do with it?
            Opened. The third comment was written by the user Tolmach, recommends a book by the completely Soviet author Kara-Murza, who treats Lenin very favorably.


            Digging out a goat from the nose and smeared on a piece of paper. (c) V.V. Putin
            1. lg41
              lg41 3 November 2014 09: 55
              +5
              Dear Interface (3)!
              Be kind, behave correctly!
              1. massad1
                massad1 4 November 2014 20: 15
                -2
                yes, he behaves normally. Here they just started for health - finished for peace. Trotsky got his own in Mexico, what does he have to do with Nikolasha's tricks "the second"? I, too, am outraged when I see so many (excuse my French in advance) who fap mercilessly on Nicholas II !!! Note that I am far from being a communist by conviction, but here I completely agree with them - the main part of the blame for the collapse of the Russian Empire lies precisely with this mentally unstable drunk, mediocre military leader and double-headed henpecked !!!
            2. 11111mail.ru
              11111mail.ru 3 November 2014 18: 28
              +3
              Quote: Interface
              Firstly, the No 1 link does not work.

              Gaidai's film "Prisoner of the Caucasus", reading out the protocol: "... and on the ruins of a chapel of the XIV century ..., Shurik: This too ... me?"
              Quote: Interface
              Secondly, I requested a link to a SERIOUS HISTORICAL POLITICALLY UNAGGED LABOR.

              If you seriously hope to get indicated in CAPITAL LETTERS, then this is most likely the Bible.
              Quote: Interface
              Archive, not the author’s point of view. Without reference to documents, all this nonsense is the fruit of a sick imagination.

              https://lib.rus.ec/b/160911/read
              Vadim Erlichman LOSS OF POPULATION IN THE XX CENTURY. I hope this link on your tip will not be blocked? You can archive in at least RAR, at least in ZIP.
              How do you feel about V.V. Mayakovsky? He has a poem "150". If this figure is subtracted from the population of Imperial Russia in 000 (excluding Khiva and Bukhara and their environs, then we get 000-1916 = 170 million losses. The fact that Trotsky bears the lion's share (damn it, not on purpose!) Is exactly the LION's share of responsibility for what he did, I have no doubts! Will you say that he personally did not kill anyone? Pol Pot is also like that, the intelligentsia!
            3. The comment was deleted.
            4. siberalt
              siberalt 4 November 2014 22: 21
              0
              The main thing to remember the last line about the nose laughing The article is normal and unbiased. Want links? Did you try to study in libraries until closing time? Or so, on "chewing gum" you grunt?
      3. Hon
        Hon 2 November 2014 15: 35
        +2
        Do you think the Holstein-Gottorp is Russian?
    2. predator.3
      predator.3 2 November 2014 09: 13
      +5
      Quote: tor11121
      .No che that the people stuck to him the nickname - Bloody?

      As the hero of one novel said: "It began with Khodynka, and ended with Khodynka!"
      The Khodynsky catastrophe is a mass crush that occurred in the early morning of May 18 (30), 1896 on the Khodynsky field (northwestern part of Moscow, the beginning of the modern Leningradsky Prospekt) on the outskirts of Moscow during the celebrations on the occasion of the coronation of May 14 (26) of Emperor Nicholas II, in which killed 2000 people and crippled more than 900.
      Then there was "Bloody Sunday" -1905. Well, the revolution of the 17th!
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 2 November 2014 18: 39
        +4
        Quote: predator.3
        "It began with Khodynka, and ended with Khodynka!"

        Crush of people at the funeral of Stalin
        When Joseph Stalin, the leader of the Soviet people and the world proletariat, died at his dacha in Kuntsevo on the morning of March 5, the whole country froze in anticipation. What will happen now? Who will replace genius? This is on the one hand. On the other hand, it was necessary to prepare such a funeral, which had not yet been arranged for any political figure in the world.
        For four days in the Soviet Union, nation-wide state mourning was declared. In fact, all departments, ministries, departments, factories, factories stopped working these days. Everyone was waiting for the main day - the funeral scheduled for March XNUMXth. For three consecutive days, a living multi-kilometer human river, meandering along the streets of Moscow, headed towards Pushkinskaya street (now Bolshaya Dmitrovka) and along it to the Column Hall of the House of Unions. What happened then? The city’s commandant’s office and the Ministry of State Security ordered that the Trubnaya Square be fenced off with military trucks, and a human Niagara surged from Sretenka from the descent, people were forced to crush each other, climb through houses and apartments, they died, there were cases when children died. It was like a crowd rushing to football or boxing. Those who had never seen Stalin alive wanted to see him even dead, but they never saw him. I did not see either ... People did not cry. Cried when they heard a message about the death of the leader, in the kitchens, on the streets. Here everything turned into a struggle for survival, into a struggle for life. People died, squeezed into this artificial square from trucks. How many people died in that stampede? We will never know about this. At that time, everything was done secretly, secretly. After a crush, the bodies of all the dead were thrown onto the same trucks and taken away in an unknown direction. It was hard to say whether there were more deaths than during the Khodynka disaster. But, most likely, there were much more than one and a half thousand. Millions wanted to participate in the funeral of their beloved leader.
    3. dyremar 66
      dyremar 66 2 November 2014 12: 01
      +3
      Compared to Lenin and Trotsky, do you think the Tsar is bloody?
      1. Interface
        Interface 2 November 2014 21: 36
        +1
        Lenin and Trotsky


        This can be established only if comrade dyremar 66 rus knows the real numbers of victims of the so-called "red terror" and from the use of tsarist troops against demonstrators and rioting peasants.

        You know? I think not, if you unfoundedly elevate Lenin to the rank of killer. Just some seen enough sensational investigations from VGTRK.


        By the way, the surplus appraisal and a special meeting at the Ministry of Internal Affairs were invented not by the Bolsheviks, but by the honored nobles.
        1. DRA-88
          DRA-88 2 November 2014 21: 52
          +5
          Quote: Interface
          You know? I think not, if you unfoundedly elevate Lenin to the rank of killer. Just some seen enough sensational investigations from VGTRK.


          “Many of the affairs of our party and people will be perverted and spat on, above all, abroad, and in our country too. Zionism, striving for world domination, will cruelly avenge us for our successes and achievements. He still sees Russia as a barbaric country, as raw appendage. And my name will also be slandered, slandered. Many atrocities will be attributed to me.
          World Zionism will strive with all its might to destroy our Union so that Russia can never rise again. The strength of the USSR lies in the friendship of peoples. The spearhead of the struggle will be directed primarily at breaking this friendship, at separating the outskirts from Russia. Here, I must admit, we have not done everything. There is still a lot of work here. "
          I.V. Stalin.
          1. Andrey NM
            Andrey NM 4 November 2014 08: 57
            +3
            Here you are arguing about the revolution, the Bolsheviks, who destroyed who more ... And the people that were used in 1917, that on the Maidan. How many Ukrainians are in power in Kiev now? Now look how many Russians, Ukrainians, etc. was in power then. Continuous "rollers", "Kolomoisky" and the like. And then it was not necessary to legalize property. The whole country is owned. And the people are processed. And the isolation of unwanted authorities. The scheme is one. Down with the tsar, autocracy, bourgeois and masters (oligarchs, dictators, etc.). In a revolutionary mess we export valuables, gold, everything that can be carried away. And what's next - we'll figure it out in the course of the play. Everywhere there are differences, but the scheme ...
        2. Interface
          Interface 3 November 2014 11: 30
          +2
          For minusers I explain:
          1. Food Survey was introduced in the Republic of Ingushetia in 1916
          2. The Special Meeting of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Ingushetia was created by Alexander III in 1881
    4. Bayonet
      Bayonet 2 November 2014 18: 59
      +5
      Quote: tor11121
      Wow .. Such a good king was. And no Th that the people stuck to him the nickname - Bloody?

      If Nikolai is "bloody", then what should you call those who killed him, killed his children, Dr. Botkin, and his servants with bayonets? I consider them scum and fanatics, but in the USSR, the old participants in this massacre, proudly talked about their "exploits"!
      1. Userpic
        Userpic 2 November 2014 20: 31
        +3
        Quote: Bayonet
        How many people died in that stampede? We will never know about this. At that time everything was done secretly, secretly
        If everything was done secretly, then where did so many people come from at the funeral, where did the conclusions about the mass of the dead come from?

        Quote: Bayonet
        in the USSR, the old participants in this massacre proudly talked about their "exploits"!
        And their stories paradoxically contradict each other.

        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 2 November 2014 21: 16
          +5
          Quote: Userpic
          And their stories paradoxically contradict each other.

          It’s not a matter of contradiction. How can a normal person tell with pride how he KILLED CHILDREN ???
          1. Userpic
            Userpic 2 November 2014 21: 27
            +2
            Quote: Bayonet
            It’s not a matter of contradiction. How can a normal person tell with pride how he KILLED CHILDREN ???

            The point is precisely in the contradictions: most of these stories date back to the period of "debunking the cult of personality", and the beginning of their massive injection into the information space - the period of "perestroika", which in itself seems to hint.

            We don’t know what exactly and why then happened, we can’t even be absolutely sure that the shooting took place: among the whole history of the Bolsheviks, well-known enough, but, depending on the political situation, interpreted differently, the shooting of the Romanovs It remains a blank spot, and it is too early to draw conclusions on this issue.

          2. Interface
            Interface 4 November 2014 00: 41
            -3
            Killing a weak one is certainly terrible. But you do not take into account the psychological state of the people in the 18 year.
            Frenzied and fair hatred of the monarchy was the reason for the execution.

            Imagine. You are a worker at a winter factory of the beginning of the 20 century, say. About the fact that the chemical plants of that time were death factories-- I will not tell.

            There you work on 12 hours a day, sleep in the stinking cloaks where 5 people are still sleeping, dirty, sweaty, obsolete, sorry, but it's true, man. To say that the toilet in the 100 factories years ago was in most cases a garbage dump-- to say nothing. Some factories generally had only 1 points for a couple of thousand workers.




            And this worker, with the blessing of this, forgive the Lord, the emperor, who lived in these slop conditions, should think of divine patience, and think of Orthodox compassion? No.
          3. The comment was deleted.
          4. siberalt
            siberalt 4 November 2014 22: 29
            0
            The revolutionary change of the elite is always with the destruction of the former. No other invented. Find out how the Romanov dynasty came to power. And how many millions of Russians she plagued the earth. The death of the last royal family is essentially a ritual murder not characteristic of Orthodoxy. But before that, it was necessary to change religion. From there, the civilian began. The New Power was driven in until the age of 41, when the people united by a common goal. And not the first time in its history.
    5. smart Fox
      smart Fox 3 November 2014 22: 06
      -1
      The Tsar was excellent: bloody Sunday, the first Russian revolution, the first world war, after the Russian-Japanese lost in the smoke, the profaned domestic political situation with the Bolsheviks, the collapse of the empire, even his relatives were not saved. And so the king was nitsche, normal!
  4. dimontmn
    dimontmn 2 November 2014 05: 47
    +9
    This Tsar of Yanukovych reminds me of ...... Everything was there, there was a country and Nichrome did not.
    1. maxiban
      maxiban 2 November 2014 12: 40
      +5
      And me Medvedev during the presidency.
      1. Aleksander
        Aleksander 2 November 2014 13: 35
        +3
        Quote: maxiban
        And me Medvedev during the presidency.


        And pay attention to the striking outward similarity of these two characters! One person!
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. tan0472
        tan0472 4 November 2014 07: 20
        +2
        Quote: maxiban
        And me Medvedev during the presidency.

        God is with him, with his face. The main thing that unites them is the lack of will. Medvedev is good when Putin is behind his back. He himself knows about his weakness. Understands that others know it. Likes to confirm his imaginary importance. It was not in vain that after the events of 08.08.08 in several interviews he said - "It was I who made the decision to send troops to Ossetia. I, I, I ..."
  5. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 2 November 2014 05: 51
    0
    He started for health, and finished for peace. The author has hay straw in his head.
  6. FREGATENKAPITAN
    FREGATENKAPITAN 2 November 2014 06: 07
    +13
    The figure is ambiguous ... but it was our Emperor!
    1. Egoza
      Egoza 2 November 2014 06: 22
      0
      Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
      but it was our Emperor!

      Are you sure "our"? By the time of the accession of the last Nicholas, 2 drops of blood from the Romanovs remained in his veins, as the French ambassador noted. Indeed, so many "infusions" of European elites into the reigning house have completely removed the RUSSIAN BLOOD from the royal family. No wonder they didn't care about Russia. And although the abdication of Nicholas is controversial, they say that it is a forgery or "he was forced", but it was this abdication that allowed England to declare that "the Emperor of Russia, we would have saved, but we will not save the nobleman Romanov." And withdrew her ships.
      1. tanit
        tanit 2 November 2014 06: 31
        +17
        Dear Elena hi But "blood" has nothing to do with it. There was such a "purebred" German woman, Catherine the Second, she is Great.
        1. Egoza
          Egoza 2 November 2014 07: 00
          +1
          Quote: tanit
          But "blood" has nothing to do with it.

          Dear Vadim! Unfortunately, "moreover". Ekaterina - yes! Became Great, relying on the Russian nobles. And after that? Look at the whole chain, at least after Anna Ioanovna. Where are the Russians? !!!
          1. tanit
            tanit 2 November 2014 07: 10
            +13
            Elizaveta Petrovna. Was after Anna Ioannovna.
            But after that there was still a "chain" of Aleksandrov - Russians - non-Russians, but the Empire stood and did not bow to the bullets.
            Yours faithfully, but not in "blood" business.
            1. Hon
              Hon 2 November 2014 15: 38
              -4
              the empire did not bow to bullets, for which the French licked their heels, and put a huge number of Russian soldiers, so that Paris would not fall in the First World War. Paris did not fall, the empire was gone.
              1. FREGATENKAPITAN
                FREGATENKAPITAN 3 November 2014 09: 03
                0
                Well, why do you throw everything in one basket? This is an allied duty! But you are aware that at one time Russia refused to send England (at that time the best in the world) troops to America to suppress Americans who rebelled for independence? (So ​​I think maybe in vain? ..- a joke) .... And how many Frenchmen fought with fascism in the Red Army? Far from one squadron Normandy-Neman ??????
                1. Hon
                  Hon 3 November 2014 11: 33
                  +2
                  the debt was not allied, but real in money, all our industry belonged to the paddling pools. and because of this, our soldiers were thrown in an unprepared offensive, so that the enemy forces could be pulled back against themselves.
          2. Orik
            Orik 2 November 2014 12: 06
            +1
            Quote: Egoza
            Quote: tanit
            But "blood" has nothing to do with it.

            Dear Vadim! Unfortunately, "moreover". Ekaterina - yes! Became Great, relying on the Russian nobles. And after that? Look at the whole chain, at least after Anna Ioanovna. Where are the Russians? !!!

            Nothing that Catherine was after Anna Ioannovna. laughing Anna Ioannovna-Elizabeth-Ekaterina, specialists.
            1. chehywed
              chehywed 2 November 2014 12: 25
              +2
              Quote: Orik
              Anna Ioannovna-Elizabeth-Ekaterina, specialists.

              After Anna Ioannovna was still barely noticeable Anna Leopoldovna, the year ruling the Empire, with the young John Antonovich.
            2. FREGATENKAPITAN
              FREGATENKAPITAN 3 November 2014 09: 05
              +1
              They are generally two Catherine, one before Anna, and the other of course after
          3. RUSS
            RUSS 2 November 2014 17: 14
            0
            Quote: Egoza
            Quote: tanit
            But "blood" has nothing to do with it.

            Dear Vadim! Unfortunately, "moreover". Ekaterina - yes! Became Great, relying on the Russian nobles. And after that? Look at the whole chain, at least after Anna Ioanovna. Where are the Russians? !!!


            They say a lot on the site that Russian is a state of mind, not a nationality? Do you agree? And if, for example, Nicholas II had "partially" Kalmyk or Chechen blood, would he have the right to be Emperor ???
            1. BIG
              BIG 12 November 2014 06: 33
              0
              Quote: RUSS
              Russian is a state of mind, not a nationality

              Totally agree with you!
              The trouble with the Romanov dynasty lies in the fact that they forcibly dragged Russia onto the European path, deeply alien to it. And constant marriages with foreigners did not allow the love of a distant homeland to cool down.
              Actually, all the greatness of Catherine II lies in the fact that she managed to feel herself not as a seedy princess from the German outback, but as Empress Vei of Russia! And accordingly, do not play the role of the Friedrich mongrel, but pursue an independent policy.
          4. FREGATENKAPITAN
            FREGATENKAPITAN 3 November 2014 08: 54
            +3
            I’ll throw it over .... Maybe you don’t know, but in the present Queen of England (and in the Dutch and others) a significant share of Russian blood flows ... However, I did not notice their special love for Russia!
        2. avt
          avt 2 November 2014 09: 52
          +2
          Quote: tanit
          But "blood" has nothing to do with it.

          Yeah! ???? But just that and, moreover, "is one of the most important conditions for the leader of the dynasty to give healthy offspring. And Nicky No. 2 neglected this OBLIGATION, everyone understood that Grandma Victoria resisted on the island, but no, the ardent lover achieved his incestuous marriage and an heir with hemophilia was born and away we go ...
          1. Turkir
            Turkir 3 November 2014 23: 29
            0
            incestuous marriage

            from which side was the "Hessian fly" his sister?
      2. rodevaan
        rodevaan 2 November 2014 07: 10
        +4
        Quote: Egoza
        Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
        but it was our Emperor!

        Are you sure "our"? By the time of the accession of the last Nicholas, 2 drops of blood from the Romanovs remained in his veins, as the French ambassador noted. Indeed, so many "infusions" of European elites into the reigning house have completely removed the RUSSIAN BLOOD from the royal family. No wonder they didn't care about Russia. And although the abdication of Nicholas is controversial, they say that it is a forgery or "he was forced", but it was this abdication that allowed England to declare that "the Emperor of Russia, we would have saved, but we will not save the nobleman Romanov." And withdrew her ships.


        - So these are all European elites mixed with each other for centuries. And that was normal. The monarchs did not belong to themselves - they belonged to the country, they were instruments of politics, first of all, and not people. Therefore, what can we say about Romanov’s blood.
      3. horseradish
        horseradish 2 November 2014 08: 19
        +15
        So what? maybe Bagration is not a Russian general? de Tolly? and thousands of others ???? and note, this is what I say, a Russian nationalist (not to be confused by the Jewish Nazis-Potkin and company)
      4. Sergei1982
        Sergei1982 2 November 2014 11: 38
        +8
        By the time of the accession of the last Nicholas, 2 drops of blood from the Romanovs remained in his veins
        In Catherine the Great there was not a drop of Russian blood, but she made for the country no less than all the genes put together. Soviet secretaries.
        1. kompotnenado
          kompotnenado 2 November 2014 18: 27
          +1
          Well do not. Joseph Vissarionych did much more than Catherine.
          1. Sergei1982
            Sergei1982 3 November 2014 05: 09
            +1
            Joseph Vissarionych did much more than Catherine.
            In which place, to transplant half of the country, yes, Stalin’s only merit if it weren’t for him we would have lost to the warrior (although it’s his fault that the enemy defeated our troops in the very first days), look at how much land Catherine the Great joined, with the glory of Russian weapons was at such a height that the Soviet rulers could not even dream of, troops under the command of Rumyantsev, Suvorov and others smashed armies outnumbering them in numbers 5-7 times.
          2. ovgorskiy
            ovgorskiy 3 November 2014 11: 37
            +3
            The Bolsheviks, Lenin and Stalin first heroically destroyed the country, then heroically restored at the cost of human blood. During the revolution, civil war, collectivization, repression, etc., the country lost more than 10 million people. Those. 10 million human lives for Lenin to be able to test his theoretical fabrications about building communism in a separate state. In 1914, Russia in all development parameters was in the top three developed countries of the world, after a revolution organized by the Bolsheviks, the country slipped below the first hundred countries. The country reached the level of development of the 14th year only at the end of the 50s. Those. Stalin and Co. threw the country back 30 years. Something like this.
          3. tan0472
            tan0472 4 November 2014 07: 26
            0
            Quote: kompotnenado
            Well do not. Joseph Vissarionych did much more than Catherine.

            Both of them did a lot. The difference between them is that Stalin himself decided everything, and Catherine was able to surround herself with such people who could make reasonable decisions.
      5. RUSS
        RUSS 2 November 2014 17: 11
        +2
        Quote: Egoza
        Are you sure that "our"


        I'm sure!
      6. Bayonet
        Bayonet 2 November 2014 18: 43
        +2
        Quote: Egoza
        Are you sure "our"?

        Not a single nation so badly treats its history, its rulers and its country as our compatriots! Example? - read the comments on this forum ...
      7. FREGATENKAPITAN
        FREGATENKAPITAN 3 November 2014 08: 51
        +2
        I bring to your attention that the Great Empress of Russia, Catherine the Second, didn’t have her (Romanovskaya’s blood) at all ... However, this was OUR queen to the marrow of the level of Peter the Great! And yet ... I have repeatedly said that Russian is not a nationality, but membership in a great civilization ... regardless of who you are, Slav, Tatar or Jew!
        1. BIG
          BIG 12 November 2014 08: 38
          0
          Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
          OUR queen to the bone level of Peter the Great

          It remains to determine the level of Peter.
          1. As a result of a 20-year war, under the Nishtad Treaty, Peter left Karelia, Ingria, Estonia and Livonia for Russia. He returned to the defeated Sweden captured Finland and paid an indemnity of 2000000 yefimkov.
          2. Two wars with Turkey, the result is zero! (That is, the deaths of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers and huge material losses did not lead to anything)
          3. During the reign of Peter the population of Russia decreased by 25%.
          4. The economy is completely destroyed. (at the same time, a powerful military industry was created, which, as you know, does not increase the standard of living of the people)
          5. The administrative and economic structure is destroyed. Here it is enough to remind about Peter's organization of the administrative division into 8 provinces, according to the number of divisions of the Russian army, and the appointment of division chiefs responsible for collecting taxes on the territory of the province assigned to them. The taxes were collected by military teams. Their primary responsibility was to provide for the army. H'm. Well, where the money was flowing in reality, and what methods they were going to use one can only guess. Note: since 1712, civil servants have ceased to be paid salaries. As if "everything for the front". We understand what such movements lead to.
          6. The church continued to lose credibility, drunkenness and smoking were propagated, traditions and habits were broken, old laws were repealed and ... often new ones were not introduced.
          The people fled. To Turkey, to Siberia, to the far north, wherever, if only to be away from this diabolical power.
          7. Question: in whose interests did the Russian troops act, liberating Pomerania, Holstein, Mecklenburg from the Swedes?
      8. lg41
        lg41 3 November 2014 09: 52
        +3
        Britain made the largest investments in the coming to power of the Provisional Government headed by Kerensky (by overthrowing the Emperor of Russia). Naturally, the corresponding statement of England "We would have saved the Emperor of Russia, but we will not save the nobleman Romanov" in order to save face.
  7. tor11121
    tor11121 2 November 2014 06: 21
    +2
    And to compare, all the more to draw an analogy between the Bolsheviks and the fifth column is not worth it. The Bolsheviks, good or bad, were personalities, and modern liberals, from the category of insignificance, cause nothing but disgust.
  8. 020205
    020205 2 November 2014 06: 49
    +9
    The more I read about that time, the more I am inclined to believe that this was the first color revolution
    1. horseradish
      horseradish 2 November 2014 08: 35
      -4
      you know, and I'm even glad about the events on ukroin, this is a serious blow to all supporters of revolutions and lovers of butchers of revolutionaries
    2. kompotnenado
      kompotnenado 2 November 2014 18: 20
      +3
      Here is not a single gram that agrees with the tone of the description of Nicholas II. There is a war in the country, spies and saboteurs are walking around, and no action is being taken. There is no organized counterintelligence. And sabotage intelligence on enemy territory. In wartime. This is criminal negligence.
  9. 11111mail.ru
    11111mail.ru 2 November 2014 06: 52
    +7
    My opinion coincides with the author, gentlemen-comrades: the retinue once again betrayed their monarch to a ritual slaughter. General Dragomirov's foresight was confirmed: "It is good to sit on the throne, but it is not capable of standing at the head of Russia." They do not change horses on the crossing. Before the victory of the Entente there was no more than a year, but the "allies" needed Russia only as cannon fodder, as once criminals leaving Siberian kichi took a well-fed sucker to provide themselves with a protein product. The king was removed and brought to power Trotsky & Sº.
  10. A1L9E4K9S
    A1L9E4K9S 2 November 2014 07: 24
    +2
    Yes, it was a difficult, cruel time, and after hundreds of years, some of us living in the present will firmly say that we should have acted in no other way than how can we condemn the last emperor of Russia to whose share the final part of the death of old Russia went and which walked his way to the end and died at the hands of killers. We now know these predators who for many centuries have been trying to destroy Russia and the name of them is the Anglo-Saxons, who still continue their dirty work in the hope of destroying our country.
    1. tanit
      tanit 2 November 2014 07: 37
      +4
      Stalin ... Yeah, a typical Anglo-Saxon who dreamed of "destroying"? Glory to the holy emperor Nicholas number two dash Bloody? laughing
      But that's me, on emotions.
      Any ruler dreamed (is dreaming) of only one thing - to “destroy” the governed state ?! wassat Nikolai 2 had a dream come true, Gorbachev 1 had the same dream.
    2. 00105042
      00105042 2 November 2014 08: 20
      +11
      Quote: A1L9E4K9S
      trying to destroy Russia and the name of them Anglo-Saxons
      for centuries, it’s right, but it succeeded only under Nicholas II. The article did not name the main reason — it was liberalism and weak power. When Nicholas fell into tolerance (idiocy, when terrorists and revolutionaries made excuses or fattened on government grubs in exile) and accepted * universal values ​​* - the death of the empire was predetermined. In Russia, there must be STRONG power and there should be no place for Western liberalism, you should have your own NATIONAL IDEA. And not the slightest creeps that corrode tolerance society, hom syatiny, political correctness and liberalizma.Takovo my vision.
    3. flSergius
      flSergius 2 November 2014 09: 39
      -1
      which of us living in the present with firm certainty will say that it was necessary to act in no other way than how can we condemn the last emperor of Russia to whose share the final part of the death of old Russia went and which went its way to the end


      I don’t understand the work of a system administrator or a plumber, it is impossible for a person to know and be able to do everything. Yes, and do not need it. But it is quite possible to evaluate the result - if the printer does not print, and fecal water is pouring from the toilet onto the floor, then someone did a poor job. And in which specific part he screwed up - this is his business. And where exactly Nikolashka most of all with his beak clicked me too does not care. Those. as a person who is interested in history and politics cares, but the result is still the same.
  11. Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 2 November 2014 07: 51
    -3
    Did not save Nikolai Stolypin Pyotr Arkadevich !!!!! He climbed to fight, put the best troops of the Empire for ideas of others! And Kaiserovskaya Germany slipped two Trotsky trolls and Lenin's grandfather (5 COLUMN) we all know the result. And the story repeats itself !! Oh, Grishka Rasputin is sorry.
    1. tanit
      tanit 2 November 2014 07: 59
      0
      But shy to ask? What did Germany win? Or the same notorious Anglo-Saxons? Revolutions and Tips Around the World?
      Yes, in distant Brazil the Council was proclaimed, did not last long, but was.
      1. horseradish
        horseradish 2 November 2014 12: 58
        0
        competitors were killed and robbed
    2. avt
      avt 2 November 2014 17: 23
      +4
      Quote: Siberia 9444
      and two Trotsky trolls and Lenin’s grandfather

      If you bother to ask the question, then Bronstein / Trotsky was generally financed by the Anglo-Saxons and got to Russia from America through Canada. So these are chicks from different nests. Lenin / Ulyanov - yes, Gelfand was led, connected with German intelligence and later settled in Germany. And Krasin tied this whole tangle of bosom associates. But the most remarkable thing is that the revolutionaries were deeply in ... who gave money, they were ideological guys, they believed in the world revolution, as Niki # 2 in his anointing to the kingdom, as much as "the owner of the Russian land" called himself in the census questionnaire, and one hell would be kneaded at the first opportunity, both of them.
      1. saag
        saag 2 November 2014 17: 57
        +4
        Quote: avt
        . But the most remarkable thing was that the revolutionaries were deep in .... who gave the money, they were ideological guys, believed in world revolution


        Yes, you can shout about the agency and espionage as much as you like, only it doesn’t play. Lenin and his comrades easily and simply threw all those who gave them money and did what they did
      2. Siberia 9444
        Siberia 9444 2 November 2014 19: 54
        0
        Well, how else now, and I’ll take up this question who sent Trotsky. repeat

        Only the meaning does not change! hi

        1. avt
          avt 2 November 2014 20: 02
          +1
          Quote: Siberia 9444
          Well, how else now, and I’ll take up this question who sent Trotsky!

          You shouldn’t be ironic, you’ll find out the rationale - on a completely different side, you will see the events of the summer of 18 in Moscow and the role of the Cheka detachment in them, and Dzerzhinsky himself with his deputy, again, the attempt on Lenin’s life will play very interestingly in a part of the close-knit collective of old Bolsheviks - the “Leninist Guard” which Stalin calmed down, as well as why he was so eager to overwhelm Trotsky. But if you grasped the essence of things and illuminated you with true knowledge of everything at once, then of course you should not bother your brain.
          1. Siberia 9444
            Siberia 9444 2 November 2014 22: 03
            0
            I agree with you it is very interesting (without irony) But I do not want to waste time remembering to read how these comrades tore each other's throats for the power of the Soviets in the place with Koboi. If you made a historical mistake, then sorry. BUT I can definitely say that when the Empire collapsed, these comrades stuck a knife in the back of the state.

            Any state is oppression. Workers are obliged to fight even against the Soviet state - and at the same time take care of it, like the apple of an eye.
            1. avt
              avt 2 November 2014 22: 54
              +1
              Quote: Siberia 9444
              ) But I do not want to waste time remembering to read how these comrades tore each other's throats for the power of the Soviets in the place with Koboi.

              No. Very sharply you narrow your perspective of the review of historical events. Understand that many events cannot be taken out of the context of the Big Game, and even more so to understand the logic of decision-making by its Players; with this approach, it is reduced to simple slogans. Moreover, now you can more or less have a non-black and white picture, although not very much in color - many documents are still under the stamp and may never be published. Believe not me - but a Stalinist diplomat whom Stalin recommended to practice English in America by attending services in churches in the USA. So Gromyko in his declining years said, and people of his circle, wider than his family, heard it - "If I told how it really was - the world would turn upside down."
              1. Siberia 9444
                Siberia 9444 3 November 2014 07: 23
                0
                Believe me not, but a Stalin diplomat, whom Stalin recommended practicing in English in America, attending divine services in USA churches. So Gromyko said in his declining years, and people in his circle heard this more broadly than his family.

                This is a completely different story.

                “If I told how it really was - the world would turn over."

                I do not think though: There is no prophet in his own country
              2. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
  12. Vadim2013
    Vadim2013 2 November 2014 08: 10
    +4
    It is rightly said: "Living faith has been replaced by an empty, formal religion." This also explains a lot in the death of the USSR.
  13. barbiturate
    barbiturate 2 November 2014 08: 10
    +2
    Yes, everything is clear, just the right person was not in power and there was a "color" revolution)
    I’m still wondering what Nicholas II was hoping for when choosing a hemophiliac wife? After all, everyone knew about it, it was absolutely no secret that the girls from the family of Alice of Hesse are carriers of hemophilia for male descendants. What kind of heir and how did he want to give Russia, if such people did not live to 16, and his daughters were doomed to small marriages in order to calculate kinship with the tsar inside Russia, for which rulers would want poisoned children? How could you do this with your country? Or did he know that the last ruler of Russia?
    1. Egoza
      Egoza 2 November 2014 08: 45
      0
      Quote: barbiturate
      what was Nicholas II hoping for when choosing a hemophiliac wife? After all, everyone knew about it

      And he DIDN'T THINK about Russia! Only his personal feelings! "Luboff"! repeat
      1. tanit
        tanit 2 November 2014 09: 20
        +2
        But for this - he, as a person, is worthy of respect. But ... How is the Emperor?
        1. avt
          avt 2 November 2014 18: 00
          0
          Quote: tanit
          But for this - he, as a person, is worthy of respect.

          For what ? For incest!? laughing
          Quote: Orik
          . On the couch, wagging your tongue is always easier.

          However, deep historical knowledge, straight eyes opened to the fateful events of Russian Gishtoria laughing laughing .
          Quote: Orik
          , such screamers who do not even know stories, in his place,

          One of these "screamers" was his father and who opposed this marriage, well, not counting Queen Victoria, who did not give consent from the bride for a long time, she perfectly knew everything from the experience of her family {for nothing, perhaps all the heirs of the male the floor of the Aglitsa line is cut off - as if it is known that the line is degenerating from incestuous marriages and the men cannot fertilize without surgical intervention} than this "romantic" passion of Nika No. 2 and Alice, which is so touched and through which admirers from the monarchist , the noble assembly of the Proletarsky district of Moscow "will turn into offspring, which, according to the law of that time, should have inherited the throne. For nothing, even when the" Quietest "tsar from all over Russia, girls were taken to the bride - old people knew what they were doing, in contrast to the enlightened "degenerate descendants. Although what can you take from them - the descendants were the current Euroitegrators - sadomites" common to all mankind ", mainly from the Germanic lands, and from one family.
      2. Orik
        Orik 2 November 2014 12: 12
        +3
        Quote: Egoza
        Quote: barbiturate
        what was Nicholas II hoping for when choosing a hemophiliac wife? After all, everyone knew about it

        And he DIDN'T THINK about Russia! Only his personal feelings! "Luboff"! repeat

        I thought that there would be such screamers who do not even know stories in their place, then they would understand why. On the couch, wagging your tongue is always easier.
      3. Dimy4
        Dimy4 2 November 2014 17: 01
        +2
        And does the king the emperor have no right to afford such a luxury - to marry for love, he, as it was correctly written, belongs to the state.
    2. Drummer
      Drummer 2 November 2014 09: 56
      +2
      It would be an inheritance, and there would be heirs, this is not a big problem.
  14. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Gato
        Gato 2 November 2014 12: 05
        +6
        Quote: Drummer
        William II, Charles I and Mehmed V such empires prosrali. There is no excuse for them for this.

        laughing laughing
        +100500. And yet there is no excuse for Alexander, Romulus Augustus, Hirohito, Pu Yi negative And the last Aztec emperor Kuautemoka should be branded with shame by every Mexican patriot who respects himself am
        1. padonok.71
          padonok.71 2 November 2014 21: 57
          -1
          The fountain of wit. And if it’s not clear what I mean, then let's try such a thing as decrease / increase.
          Let’s take not a nicholas, but any landowner and his children, let it be you, our sad merry fellow - Drummer and Gato. And so, your daddy inherited his daddy (your grandfather) not a frail household. Mill, fields, woods, a couple of villages with serfs, a candle factory with a soap factory. Fine? Fine! And your daddy, instead of multiplying your future inheritance, got married on some Eskimo, which in Russian is not a sissy. He brought with her her shaman, who sometimes sang her .. chanted. The farm abandoned. He appointed a thief manager, he started a lawsuit with the neighbors, who lost with a whistle and heavy losses. And then fumbling a long distance, he reposed. The bandits killed him with his Eskimo wife, for example. And now you go to the manager, come on, they say, our inheritance is quick. And he answers you, there is no inheritance, everything was pledged a long time ago, there are only one debts. And in general, the estate is now not yours, but those bandits that your dad banged.
          Really not very funny?
          But you laugh, laugh, and at the same time remember (or read, if you don’t know the story well) what happened to the empires, and especially to their population, after their sunsets. And yet, it is one thing to lose an empire in the struggle, fighting to the end, or to retreat before an illness, old age, and quite another - just to ... out of meanness, laziness, love of love, drunkenness.
          1. Gato
            Gato 3 November 2014 12: 11
            -2
            Quote: padonok.71
            But you laugh, laugh, but at the same time remember (or read, if you don’t know the story well) what happened to the empires

            Yes, so far to our fountains of wit to your source of wisdom (especially historical).
            And what do you suggest? Together to grieve over the sad fate of the Russian monarchy? Or do you think that after the rot that the last Romanovs demonstrated with rampant corruption, theft, Rasputin shamans, liberalism with revolutionaries, war, at last, nothing would have fallen apart? That RI would quietly and peacefully merge in the manner of the British Empire?
            The population is sorry, yes. But not only Latvian arrows and Chinese mercenaries fought in Civil, all in Russia tore their throats to each other. Fortunately, this did not end with the collapse of Russia, but with the birth of a much more powerful empire.
            However, she, too, fell apart, but the story does not end there ... despite our gnawing and your seriousness. hi
            1. padonok.71
              padonok.71 3 November 2014 14: 00
              0
              Quote: Gato
              Your source of wisdom (especially historical)
              and it’s not mine (source), as you rightly noted, it’s historical, i.e. common. Take a book - read, join, since no du.rak (do not take it personally).
              Quote: Gato
              And what do you suggest? Together to grieve over the sad fate of the Russian monarchy?
              But what, is this a reason for joy? In my opinion it’s not sadder.
              Quote: Gato
              the rot that the last Romanovs demonstrated with total corruption, theft, Rasputin shamans, liberalism with revolutionaries, war, finally
              But because of all this, I can’t call the last emperor except Nikolasha. Here you are 100% right.
              Quote: Gato
              nothing would have fallen?
              , and you know, it might not have fallen apart. A strong sovereign, an iron hand, one-man management, perhaps it would be .... But we will leave this to the alternativeists.
              Quote: Gato
              Fortunately, this did not end with the collapse of Russia
              that is exactly what ended.
              Quote: Gato
              and the birth of a much more powerful empire.
              but it was already a completely different country (and not an empire).
              Quote: Gato
              and your seriousness.
              excuse me forgivingly, but at that time my family had 2/3 of the men killed and jokes on the bones of their ancestors ..... no, thank you hi
  15. parusnik
    parusnik 2 November 2014 08: 50
    +4
    In general, Nicholas II was unlucky... And that's enough ...
  16. flSergius
    flSergius 2 November 2014 09: 25
    -5
    The sweetest and most pleasant in communication (according to the recollections of his contemporaries) tsar is about the Empire, and the rude and harsh Georgian revived it and made it a nuclear superpower. Nikolashka would run the country, but he would run around the churches. On the contrary, he had to do sins -

    Yes, maybe I am a sinner. Maybe as a person, I am a sinner. But as a king, I am righteous! ©
  17. saag
    saag 2 November 2014 09: 27
    +4
    Something is a trend lately, the monarchy is being raised from naphthalene, at one time "dear Leonid Ilyich" stars were hung on the chest, and the current ones have thought of making Putin the emperor?

    "... To begin with, the Romanovs achieved complete freedom from society, gradually reducing the role of Zemsky Sobors and other people's institutions to zero."

    Something reminds me of it, just like the current
    1. tanit
      tanit 2 November 2014 09: 33
      0
      But for fun, read the Kerensky sample until 1917. hi
      Something reminds me too. wassat
  18. Vladimir-R
    Vladimir-R 2 November 2014 09: 56
    +2
    Any state has its fuses in the form of power structures and a spiritual basis, which puts limits in the minds of people on not committing meanness .. And, in general, it is amazing how easy all these powerful structures were overturned .. The role of the last king in this tragedy , was colossal .. A good person .., this is not a profession .. and even more so when you are responsible for the whole Empire. From the moment of accession to the throne, He was introduced to inform.-forecasts for the development of events .., the same thing (testament of Seraphim of Sarov ..)., Transmitted specifically to Him., Through time. What analytics were the smartest people of Russia, on the consequences of entering the war !. - Nothing was perceived! Of the choices, the Worst was made !. bearing irreparable consequences for both the Country and Him! personally .. Yes I’m guarding the Guard. His support .., ineptly ruined .. One Semenovsky regiment in ..5th year, Moscow cleaned up .. The consequences of the past, we still slurp .., every family has this memory ..
    1. tanit
      tanit 2 November 2014 10: 16
      0
      Kerensky - why not a fuse? Was broadcasting. And the most interesting, he believed in his broadcasting.
      Averchenko broadcast the same thing. First against whom? And then?
      Broadcasting is a calling. And not necessarily for the money.
      1. 11111mail.ru
        11111mail.ru 2 November 2014 14: 18
        +1
        Quote: tanit
        Kerensky - why not a fuse?

        As a rubber disposable product - YES!
        1. tanit
          tanit 2 November 2014 17: 42
          0
          Well, no, Kerenskoy fought to the last word. Well, I won.
  19. cerbuk6155
    cerbuk6155 2 November 2014 09: 58
    +4
    Quote: parusnik
    In general, Nicholas II was unlucky... And that's enough ...

    This RUSSIA was not lucky, and Nikolai for millions of lives, chaos in the empire for the collapse, death, etc. answered a little more. This is our empire unlucky and not him. soldier
  20. Internal combustion engine
    Internal combustion engine 2 November 2014 10: 16
    +6
    In fact, the Germans are closely related to the British. These are the peoples of the German family group. This is why they have similar behaviors. And first of all, it is their aggressiveness and tendency to appropriate the fruits of another's labor. The modern well-being of their countries is entirely based on the robbery of other peoples.
  21. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 2 November 2014 10: 27
    0
    The author "began for health, and ended for the repose." This is a typical mistake of "sofa" amateur historians idealizing the so-called Russian people and the Orthodox faith of Ancient Russia and blaming the gradual "Westernization" of the country under the influence of various kinds of reformers for all subsequent troubles. I do not want to enter into polemics with the "Russophiles" here, but I have to say that Ancient Rus was still a "spider". There was no single Russian people, but there were tribes, clans, families that spoke different languages ​​and dialects and professed different versions of paganism. This is the first thing. Secondly, constant civil strife, it was possible to say the lifestyle of the "ancient Rus", which was very well used by our "neighbors". Thirdly, the so-called adoption of "Christianity" - which, in fact, was a unifying act for the nation, and it was from this that the creation of the nation began - it was still a violent act, which led to ethnic cleansing and genocide of those who disagreed, and it was with this and the so-called "split" in society began. But these "splits" were, then many, for various reasons, they are well described in the historical literature. "Westernization" is a necessary act for every nation, because nations and states do not exist in an "airless" space, but are surrounded by hostile peoples and are forced to defend their interests and fight for their existence. The "archaization" of a nation or a state is a road to a dead end, for once locked inside a nation begins to degrade culturally and technologically and becomes vulnerable to external enemies. Therefore, the task of the "elite" is to study everything that is interesting and new in the world - to recycle and implement in their country, moreover, on how smart and educated this elite is and how correctly these innovations will be tested for "internal" application and how they are correct will be implemented. The fact that in Russia "Westernization" went through the "ass" and with great costs, this is precisely what characterizes us-Russians, who live according to the proverb "Russians harness for a long time, but drive fast." "Westernization" is not an evil that led to "a split of the people, as the author of the article tries to present, but a necessary historical process of the development of any state, any nation, necessary for its survival (take, for example, Japan with its" Meiji revolution " ).
    1. Monster_Fat
      Monster_Fat 2 November 2014 10: 27
      +3
      Another thing is that "Westernization" should be carried out on time and gradually, and all state, political institutions, all layers of society should be "Westernized" - then there will be no catastrophic "distortion" in the life of all strata of society, there will be no "split" which the author writes. For example, "westernizing" political and state institutions and industry in Russia, slavery and serfdom were not abolished, which led to the subsequent inequality and split of society. If we take, for example, the current state of our society, then the "westernization" that is going on in our country has affected only the rich, and even then the rich "westernize" only their outer shell, their standard of living, but not their morality, exploiting their labor force and accumulating wealth in an Asian way without spending them on the development of the whole society. Also, the institutions of control and management are not "westernized" in our country - they remain "archaic" in many respects clan and "family" because of this, the systems that move the "Western" society - "career lifts", "social justice" , "economic incentives", etc. This is the reason for the growing split in society, and the growing social injustice. It is precisely "archaism" that is the main source of all troubles for us, that is, the inability to understand, correctly process for ourselves and competently apply the Western experience of the development of statehood, society, etc. we want "everything at once", "we rush from one extreme to another "instead of the gradual and systematic modernization of the state and society based on world experience. Well, if we talk about the ill-fated Nicholas II, then he is not an unhappy one - he is just a "d.u.r.a.k" who "scored" on his duties as a leader and gradually "closed" on his family, and did it at the most difficult moment for the state, which led to the disaster. I simply cannot read his "diary" without disgust, where he describes his feelings about the petty "problems" of his family and his entourage, how he spends time playing cards, walking and traveling with dear Alex, church rituals, shooting crows in park, how he tries to avoid receiving military officers who have come from the front for an audience as they "smell bad" and makes them ventilate the premises after them and all this while his country is bleeding to death on the fronts of the First World War.
  22. sevtrash
    sevtrash 2 November 2014 10: 56
    +2
    Quite often, they are replaced by the backwardness of the state, society and the inability to reform them in any particular way, such as the state, culture as a certain messiah, it is not known what. And this is the road to nowhere, or rather for the state, the path to its collapse. New technologies of production and trade are constantly appearing in the world, following them or with them new relations of society, hence the structure of the state / states. And the number of skimming cream is limited, these are the very first ones, the rest are to varying degrees of loss. We must work, we must catch up, but it is better to keep up, and even better to overtake. Russia was almost always lagging behind, at best catching up. It seems that looking for one's own, special path in conditions of technological lag is a path to backwardness, ultimately to the death of the state. You can’t break the connection with the leaders.
  23. denis_redis
    denis_redis 2 November 2014 11: 02
    0
    The author adjusts the facts to his theory. The usual manipulation.
    Peter the Great - did away with bad seven-boyars, (like building a power vertical). the problem is that a dream could solve the issue with a successor. And Nikolai the bloody liberal. (Oligarchy, a thought, she’s a hut talking room), moreover, a mediocre commander. Good!!!
    And with a split simplified to impossible. The rituals unified, that in Serbia, that in Bulgaria, that in Voronezh, the services are the same. Orthodoxy became the foundation of the Russian world. Which everyone is talking about now. For example, the Balkan wars (the author of the staple mention), hence the legs. In addition, united Orthodoxy opposed Uniatism.
    Another thing is how it was all done. Fanatically and ruthlessly. So maybe it's because the national character and way of life with us is like that.
    1. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 2 November 2014 14: 19
      +2
      Quote: denis_redis
      Peter the Great - committed suicide

      This is in the new textbooks. so is it written
      1. denis_redis
        denis_redis 2 November 2014 15: 23
        0
        Avenging for Trotsky?
        I’m typing from the phone, auto-dialing fails. Instead of Khovanshchina a typo. )))
        Perth fought for power, including with the boyars. It seems like I cleaned up the 5th column, so that as you say, "the retinue would not hit in the back."
        He succeeded, won the war with a strong enemy, traitors - Mazep "soaked in the toilet." And for Nikolai, the opposite happened.
        1. 11111mail.ru
          11111mail.ru 2 November 2014 17: 49
          +1
          Quote: denis_redis
          Avenging for Trotsky?

          Ramot Mercader worked on Trotsky. As for the seven-boyars, this phenomenon belonged to the Time of Troubles, about 70 years before the birth of Peter I. Write more precisely, do not substitute for trifles and you will be happy.
  24. Skobelev
    Skobelev 2 November 2014 11: 11
    +1
    Interesting article, read in full. Russia was not lucky with the last emperor. In 1991, at a demonstration in Moscow, his portrait in a square cordon was carried.
  25. fomkin
    fomkin 2 November 2014 11: 45
    0
    It is very surprising that the grief of the Russian people in the person of Nikolai2 was canonized.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. greshnik80
        greshnik80 2 November 2014 12: 09
        +4
        And under the Soviets, bread cost 18 kopecks, and now - 30 rubles. And people lived quite normally. And so what?
      2. Userpic
        Userpic 2 November 2014 13: 56
        +5
        Quote: dyremar 66 rus
        spyen hive blanca
        1. The comment was deleted.
      3. flSergius
        flSergius 2 November 2014 16: 34
        0
        Sovereign, don’t speak freely, Russia lived and the goose was worth three pennies!


        And at Yaropka all go with gilded iPhones, live in penthouses, go to ferrari and officials do not take bribes ... Do not be fooled by a brand based on emotional images, not facts. Although the revolution was organized by 5-columners, it was very easy for the simple people to accept it. So there were reasons to want a change of power.
  26. The comment was deleted.
  27. chehywed
    chehywed 2 November 2014 12: 07
    +3
    Quote: Author Samsonov Alexander
    And without a radical transformation, the old, Romanesque Russia could not survive. Too deep contradictions lay at its core. For three centuries of its existence The White Empire’s safety margin has been exhausted.

    It’s very controversial about the exhausted safety margin. After the 1917 of the year, the 4 of the year fought with themselves, in fact, a dead industry. Yes, and they nagged their own more than the Germans in the First World War. Looks like it was ...
    There was such an anecdote in the USSR:
    The party worker was late for the plenum. He quietly went in, took a seat on an empty seat and asked a neighbor.
    -Voted already?
    -Yes, in two sentences. First, to award Nicholas II the Order of the October Revolution.
    -So what?
    - Unanimously in favor.
    -For what?!
    -How is this for what? He created a revolutionary situation in the country, he didn’t spread rot on the Bolsheviks, he abdicated from the throne ...
    - I see. And the second sentence?
    -Award him the Order of the Red Banner of Labor.
    -So what?
    - Unanimously no.
    - ???
    -Yes for what? There was enough bread and nails for 70 years!
    1. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 2 November 2014 14: 22
      +3
      Quote: chehywed
      for what? There was only enough bread and nails for 70 years!

      In reality, Soviet history textbooks practiced comparison with the "level of 1913".
  28. Prager
    Prager 2 November 2014 12: 11
    +2
    Emperor Nicholas II is a controversial, controversial figure in our history. Apparently, God was pleased that it was at that time that he was headed by Russia, and no one else.
  29. Demetry
    Demetry 2 November 2014 12: 17
    +2
    There is such an expression "A society that has turned to the past necessarily turns backwards to the future"
  30. Orik
    Orik 2 November 2014 12: 25
    +2
    A very good article, with the exception of small errors such as "meat hooks" in the Solovetsky Monastery, the monks do not eat meat, meat hooks could be there if they were brought with them, which is doubtful. Unfortunately, to understand the article, one must have knowledge of history in a volume that is much higher than average, and not only history. Otherwise, we get the existing flurry of responses from "specialists" who, for example, do not even know the succession to the throne in the Russian Empire.
    1. RV-83
      RV-83 2 November 2014 18: 23
      +2
      For reference, it’s a well-known fact that many monasteries from time immemorial have led and are now conducting various subsistence farming, including and raise livestock. Usually help workers, novices and local residents (both for a fee and volunteers). They slaughter cattle, and the monastery sells products in the region. So there is nothing unusual in the hooks from the article. hi
  31. ioann1
    ioann1 2 November 2014 12: 47
    +3
    The author of the article chose a topic that is quite relevant for modern Russia. The people need to show the true truth of that time, but the author failed to develop the topic in a sufficiently broad and deep sense. There are a great many such articles, but those who came from a scientific perspective to the Orthodox faith should illuminate the reign of the holy Tsar-martyr. At least, the vision of the historical movement of Russia then becomes more complete.
  32. Georg Shep
    Georg Shep 2 November 2014 13: 18
    +6
    Russification for today's Russia as air is necessary. In power should not be cosmopolitans and liberals, but representatives of the state-forming nation, thinking and caring for the interests of the country and people.
    1. Userpic
      Userpic 2 November 2014 14: 15
      +2
      Quote: Georg Shep
      Russification for today's Russia as air is necessary. In power should not be cosmopolitans and liberals, but representatives of the state-forming nation, thinking and caring for the interests of the country and people.

      Representatives of the state-forming nation, regardless of which country they are talking about, think and care exclusively about their own interests, and as a result - about the interests of their class and its "food base".
      And if capital is at the helm of the state, then be it at least three times national — you can forget about upholding the interests of the people, which are the interests of the country.

    2. Normal
      Normal 2 November 2014 14: 47
      +1
      Quote: Georg Shep
      Russification for today's Russia as air is necessary.

      On the one hand, of course, you are right and I have two hands "FOR"! But...

      The leader and conductor of the large symphony orchestra was asked:
      - And why do you have almost all Jews in your orchestra?
      “And where will I find fifty Russians with violins?”

      Yes
      Quote: Userpic
      And if capital is at the helm of the state, then be it at least three times national — you can forget about upholding the interests of the people, which are the interests of the country.

      Userpick, unfortunately, is right. Although...
      I still want to hope that the Russian national capital will relate to Russia a little better than the supposedly non-national, but in fact, well-known nationality.
      1. Userpic
        Userpic 2 November 2014 15: 45
        0
        Quote: Normal
        I still want to hope that the Russian national capital will treat Russia a little better

        And rob a little less? )))

        Even if your hope is justified, the fact of robbery will still remain a fact of robbery, albeit in slightly smaller volumes.

  33. kovalev2014
    kovalev2014 2 November 2014 13: 51
    -4
    Nicholas 11 is a disgrace to Russia! Shame on the empire and surrender to the Jews is a disgrace! It is a disgrace to the rest of the family members who, in difficult times, surrendered the Empire and paid for their betrayal. However, all other European monarchs in the 20th century turned out to be a useless load for their powers ....
    1. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 2 November 2014 14: 25
      +1
      Quote: kovalev2014
      Nicholas 11 "This is a disgrace to Russia! To bring the empire to collapse and surrender to the Jews is a disgrace! Shame to the rest of the family members who, in difficult times, surrendered the Empire for which they paid for their betrayal.

      Well, damn it, and in the distant future, the same parsley ... Just think, and the number eleventh disgraced! No prospects however ...
  34. Aleksander
    Aleksander 2 November 2014 14: 01
    +5
    Nicholas II - yes, a decent, deeply religious person, yes, a wonderful family man (his daughters were very nice and well-mannered), yes, a martyr, worthy of canonization for the transferred. If he were a teacher in a gymnasium, it would be wonderful. But as a statesman, it turned out worse than no one. And the saddest thing is that, unconditionally aware of this, he was not able to surround himself with a worthy team that would compensate for his inability ... It’s a pity, it’s a pity ...
  35. zakidon73
    zakidon73 2 November 2014 14: 16
    +3
    Emperor Nicholas 2, ascending the throne, kissed the cross and swore on the cross faithfully to serve Russia, took an oath before the Lord ..., he violated his oath, in the most difficult period he did not keep his oath.
  36. saag
    saag 2 November 2014 15: 05
    +1
    Quote: zakidon73
    he violated his oath, in the most difficult period he did not keep his oath.


    And then they made him a saint
    1. Aleksander
      Aleksander 2 November 2014 20: 28
      +2
      Quote: saag
      And then they made him a saint


      They made him a saint for martyrdom, and this cannot be taken from him ...
      This does not justify his absolute failure as the leader of the country. Ah, Alexander III would have lived longer ...
      1. Userpic
        Userpic 2 November 2014 21: 42
        +2
        Quote: Aleksander
        They made him a saint for martyrdom, and this cannot be taken from him ...

        And why didn’t they canonize the executed along with the Romanovs? Not tormented enough?
        1. DRA-88
          DRA-88 2 November 2014 21: 47
          +2
          Quote: Userpic
          And why didn’t they canonize the executed along with the Romanovs? Not tormented enough?

          Is General Karbyshev less worthy of canonization?
          1. Userpic
            Userpic 2 November 2014 21: 55
            +6
            Quote: DRA-88
            Is General Karbyshev less worthy of canonization?

            And the simple soldiers who rotted alive in camps and shed their lungs during gas attacks?

            But here's the curious thing:

            1. azkolt
              azkolt 4 November 2014 17: 12
              0
              Quote: Userpic
              Quote: DRA-88
              Is General Karbyshev less worthy of canonization?

              And the simple soldiers who rotted alive in camps and shed their lungs during gas attacks?

              But here's the curious thing:

              Well, what is so curious? Brezhnev was three times a Hero of the Soviet Union, did many ordinary soldiers who perished in millions receive such an honor? Patriarchs and monks were recognized as saints because such was their path! And the peasants and workers received for their hard work both money and the title of hard workers (who was actually a hard worker). So do not put a shadow on the wattle fence!
          2. family tree
            family tree 2 November 2014 21: 58
            +3
            Quote: DRA-88
            Is General Karbyshev less worthy of canonization?

            Do we need it? We already remember him as a father, deceased. There was a fighter, and death as a warrior took, but how many unknown? That near Kursk, right in sight, cheeky mined tank-hazardous. Everyone in the saints? So for me they are so holy. But Nikolashka, the non-colonel, he went, deserved it, but he was sorry for the children, a trailer, scum, nothing sacred.
      2. avt
        avt 3 November 2014 14: 34
        +1
        Quote: Aleksander
        They made him a saint for martyrdom, and this cannot be taken from him ...

        Church hierarchs made him a saint. Some are the descendants of those who did not fight for the Tsar in the Civil War, but quite declared to themselves that Russia was not a Romanov patrimony, thus settling the score retroactively for losing the war, while others, for a small share, acquired additional forces in the form of the church generals and its parishes For one thing, using the official version {Now I don’t remember Lenin or Sverdlov said - "No one will ever know what we did with him"} arranged the "funeral" of the official first applicants for the property of the Romanov clan abroad, even Likhachev pulled out the All-Drunken Ebon, and after the commemoration, a new head was instantly elected by the majority of the Romanov kagal to divide the inheritance. Well, the Kirillovichs, headed by M. Bagratuni - Hohenzeoiller, walked past the cash register laughing And the Russian Orthodox Church, which Stalin formed, of course, in the course of someone there with the help of a KGB major with Radzinsky, who were digging and digging in the skulls in Ganina's pit {they got a little screwed up - for example, they forgot the shards from the acid vessels in the first bookmark, but corrected the second time - shards ,, found "}, as well as Boryusik Nemtsov was buried and to this day, recognizing the" new martyrs "remains, then they do not recognize them.
  37. anip
    anip 2 November 2014 15: 28
    +2
    The Russian people were divided into two parts - the gentlemen and the enslaved population. Gentlemen had a high, western culture, they could get an excellent education, travel, live happily ever after, and the population was reduced to the level of almost slaves who were supposed to fight for the empire, bear all the costs, pay taxes.

    1 in 1 about the current time is written.

    The head of state Vladimir Putin (or his successor) must carry out the “Russification” of Russia, the “nationalization of the elite”, the new industrialization, restore the country's finances to independence, and prevent the country from being drawn into a big war in its initial period (one will have to participate in it anyway) , complete the rearmament of the armed forces, etc.

    And does anyone still believe that?
  38. 1536
    1536 2 November 2014 15: 39
    +3
    The author forgot to say that both Peter I and Nicholas I relied on the Russian people, and not on the "enlightened intelligentsia" oriented towards the West. Fundamental changes in the country became possible thanks to the support of the broad popular masses. And Stalin relied primarily on the people, despising Mr. but the nation. The current situation in the country, unfortunately, is really similar to the situation in the reign of Nicholas II. In the same way, as in his time, the priority is given to the so-called "elite", which, not only is not such, and causes disgust among ordinary citizens of the country, but also constantly harms, because by the will of fate controls the cash flows from the sale of useful fossil and other industries, without investing anything either in industry, or in education, or in science, without which Russia cannot exist. The "elite" is terribly afraid of the people, despises them, because they have lost all connections with them and are engaged in verbiage and already undisguised deception from TV screens. This means that the Constitution must be changed, a large-scale reform of public administration, and first of all the government, as a bright "representative body" of the modern Russian "elite" must be carried out. Nicholas 3.0 in Russia should not appear.
    1. DRA-88
      DRA-88 2 November 2014 15: 45
      +1
      Quote: 1536
      And Stalin relied primarily on the people, despising the city but the nation. The current situation in the country, unfortunately, is really similar to the situation in the reign of Nicholas II.

      "Tsarist Russia was the greatest reserve and an appendage of Western imperialism not
      only in the sense that it gave free access to foreign capital,
      holding in hands such decisive sectors of the national economy of Russia as
      fuel and metallurgy, but also in the sense that it could benefit
      Western imperialists have millions of soldiers. Remember the 14 millionth Russian
      an army that shed blood on the imperialist fronts to provide
      rabid profits of the Anglo-French capitalists.
      I.V. Stalin. ("On the Foundations of Leninism") vol. 6, p. 75.)
    2. saag
      saag 2 November 2014 17: 17
      -1
      Quote: 1536
      and Nicholas I bet on the Russian people

      When did he bet on the people?
      1. 11111mail.ru
        11111mail.ru 2 November 2014 19: 50
        +1
        Quote: saag
        When did he bet on the people?

        "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality". Count S.S. Uvarov http://sotok.net/russkij-mir/3045--graf-sergej-semenovich-uvarov-pravoslavie-sam

        oderzhavie-narodnost.html
        1. saag
          saag 2 November 2014 20: 48
          0
          Quote: 11111mail.ru
          autocracy, nationality

          one contradicts the other
    3. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 2 November 2014 19: 45
      +1
      Quote: 1536
      The author forgot to say that both Peter I and Nicholas I relied on the Russian people,

      As for Peter I, from such a "stake" the people quickly "made their feet" from the tax collectors, and the schismatics were burned. Peter Romanov relied on foreigners!
  39. Finches
    Finches 2 November 2014 16: 19
    +2
    I have a very negative attitude towards Nicholas II! You can say anything, but in the shooting of yourself and your family, revolutions, defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, the most bloody, but ineffective World War I for the Russian army, etc. only he is to blame! His thoughtless policy, weakness and weak character!
    Therefore, it would be better if he did not enter the throne!
  40. Megatron
    Megatron 2 November 2014 16: 57
    +1
    It was the forerunner of humpback.
  41. vostok1982
    vostok1982 2 November 2014 17: 24
    +3
    This person is personally responsible for the fact that our flags have different flags.
    1. flSergius
      flSergius 2 November 2014 17: 36
      +1
      vostok1982, You have little plus for this comment, if we lived in the same city I would put down drinks soldier
    2. sevtrash
      sevtrash 2 November 2014 17: 44
      +1
      Quote: vostok1982
      This person is personally responsible for the fact that our flags have different flags.

      You put too much on him; he was mediocrity. Rather, the blame is on the system that brought this mediocrity to power. Like, by the way, like the fault of the subsequent system, the All-Union Communist Party of the Bolsheviks - the CPSU, which ultimately put another mediocrity in power - Gorbachev. Therefore, it turns out that democracy, no matter how bad it is, but still with it there is a chance of avoiding such insignificance to power.
  42. valokordin
    valokordin 2 November 2014 19: 01
    -2
    Quote: Finches
    I have a very negative attitude towards Nicholas II! You can say anything, but in the shooting of yourself and your family, revolutions, defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, the most bloody, but ineffective World War I for the Russian army, etc. only he is to blame! His thoughtless policy, weakness and weak character!
    Therefore, it would be better if he did not enter the throne!

    I agree one hundred percent, but everyone is strong in hindsight. Here you Zyablintsev put at the head of state, endow with dictatorial powers and can you steer in the right direction? You can anticipate the consequences of your decisions. Thrashing with the back mind is the national fun of our people. It is time to be real, and in the experience of our ancestors to act as conscience dictates.
    1. Finches
      Finches 3 November 2014 18: 32
      +1
      Somewhat late, but I will answer you!

      I do not impose my point of view on you! And I, as you put it, do not tremble, but speak out! By the will of fate, they did not endow me with royal authority, but Nicholas. Is it about his actions that, over the years, will I judge or would you like everyone to be silent or to positively evaluate the affairs of the past days?
      In order to act according to one’s conscience one must have one’s own judgment! Here I have it about Nicholas, there is a weak-woolen rag that got up at the helm of a great power and ruined it!
      You have a different opinion, slander, only easier on the turns!
  43. Barboskin
    Barboskin 2 November 2014 19: 41
    +2
    An exceptionally liberal-western article, with a cheap touch on the Russian spirit and patriotism.
  44. Bursak
    Bursak 2 November 2014 20: 13
    +2
    "History is written by the victors" The Soviet government won and wrote OWN history, as you know you can write anything about the defeated ... There is only one question, if the monarch is so hateful, punish him, why kill his children, were they afraid ???
  45. AntonR7
    AntonR7 2 November 2014 21: 01
    +2
    Disgusting and vulgar article throwing mud at the Russian church and the dynasty that made Russia a superpower. Yes, there were mistakes, but what Nikon did was necessary, and after that the people did not lose faith. The people began to lose faith with the rise of the interim government, which intensively sows mud at the past power and took up the baton of the Bolsheviks. And the emperor was not at all so weak, remember Paul 1, when against you the "elite" no matter how tough you might not be, traitors can be more agile. No tough ruler is immune to successful betrayal.
  46. Captain45
    Captain45 2 November 2014 21: 12
    +3
    Quote: dyremar 66 rus
    under the Sovereign, don’t say, Russia lived freely and the goose was worth three pennies!

    I heard a ditty or a saying from my father, I don’t know how to do it right, but he heard it from my father (my grandfather was born in 1895 so I knew what he was talking about):
    When the king was at Nikolashka, they ate white olashki (pancakes),
    And Sovetsk’s power came — myakina rested against ..!
  47. The comment was deleted.
  48. Klim2011
    Klim2011 3 November 2014 08: 43
    0
    Instead of an official photo portrait to the article. This rare photo is more suitable for articles about Nicholas 2
  49. The comment was deleted.
  50. Klim2011
    Klim2011 3 November 2014 08: 48
    -3
    Instead of official portraits, this photo is better suited to articles about Nicholas II: