Military Review

Sixteenth decisive

One hundred years ago, 1 (14) of January, the Russian Empire met the New, 1916 year. The outgoing, 1915, was marked by military failures and attempts by the opposition to seize power. These attempts were unsuccessful, forcing her to regroup and prepare for a more successful attack. The new year was to be the key - a lot depended on who took the initiative on the political front. There were, however, other fronts on which much was also decided.

Emperor Nicholas II in the Tsar Stake. 1915 – 1916 years


The situation on the military front favored the government. As far as the year 1915 was a failure, the year 1916 became so successful. It was a success on the eve of the collapse, but they are still impressive.

By the revolutionary 1917 year, the Russian army was thoroughly enlarged, armed and re-equipped. Russia formed the 60 army corps, whereas we started with just 35. The number of our army amounted to 6 million 845 thousand people.

The Russian military industry produced 130 thousand rifles per month (in the 1914 year - only 10 thousand). At its disposal was 12 thousand guns (at the beginning of the war - 7 thousands). The production of machine guns increased 17 times, ammunition - more than doubled. Shells hunger was overcome.

The industry has released 30 974 678 shells for the front (1915 9 567 in 888 year). The problem of the transfer of troops was largely solved by the powerful railway construction.

In 1916, 2252 tracks were built in Russia, 608 was still under construction. At the same time, a railway line was put into operation at 2000 versts connecting the port of Romanovsk (now Murmansk) with the center of the country. The chemical industry developed at an accelerated pace. Only in 1916, the 13 plants for the production of sulfuric acid were built.

In the same period, 25 benzene appeared. In Nizhny Novgorod and Grozny, construction of plants for the production of TNT has started. The aircraft received bombs and machine guns, anti-aircraft artillery emerged in the country.

In the new year, the Russian army began to advance successfully. Erzerum (February) and Trebizond (April) were taken in the Caucasus direction. During the Erzurum battles, the losses of the Turks amounted to 60 thousand people.

Some success was achieved in March during the offensive in the area of ​​Lake Naroch. Our troops recaptured the enemy 10 square. km Not very much, frankly, but the very fact of a successful offensive raised the morale of the troops.

Sixteenth decisive

Alexey Brusilov

Although, of course, the most successful was the spring-summer offensive of the South-Western Front, known as the Brusilov Breakthrough, after the front commander, General Alexei Brusilov.

Then the Russian troops utterly defeated the enemy who had lost 1,5 million people killed, captured and wounded. Brusilov attacked at once in four directions, one of which was the main one, the rest were secondary. Thus, he did not allow the enemy to maneuver.

The offensive itself was prepared in the most thorough way and came as a complete surprise to the enemy. It is indicative that the majority of high-ranking army men did not agree with Brusilov’s plan.

Thus, the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Commander, General Mikhail Alekseev, believed that the offensive should be carried out by forces of all fronts, with the exception of Brusilovsky.

And other front commanders also spoke against the offensive of the South-Western Front. However, the Supreme Commander himself - Tsar - Brusilov supported, and this resulted in such a deafening success. Although it must be said that success would have been even greater if Brusilov had been stopped on time and had not allowed him to stubbornly besiege Kovel, which was unrealistic to take.


The success of 1916 of the year is largely due to the fact that the king himself assumed the supreme command, relieving his uncle, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich, from this position. At the last discipline in the army remained very low. I had to strengthen it, and with very tough methods. So, Alekseev passed the order of the king:

“His Majesty commands not to stop before any measures for the establishment of strict discipline among the troops and severe punishments in relation to those who have left the ranks of their ranks and in respect of robbers, marauders and arsonists.”

The Austro-Hungarian soldiers surrender to the Russians. Illustration from french magazine

In addition, it was done with the "fogging." Nikolai Nikolayevich turned out to be strict where it was not necessary, and many generals were afraid to report their real failures and the success of the enemy. And the grand duke believed in all this “bullshit” that it had a corrupting effect.

The frequent visits to the new supreme units at the front, which inspired the soldiers and officers, also affected. The king believed that the victory of Russia is almost inevitable, and it will knock out all the cards from the hands of the opposition. There is a big political mistake, because the opposition understood this as well, having played 1917 ahead of the year in February.

Meanwhile, much has been done in terms of internal transformation. The socio-economic system was transformed in the direction of "state socialism".


Yes, it was about such socialism in the 1916 year that the liberal press shouted, attacking the tsarist government. And these attacks, besides political ones, also had commercial objectives. The relationship between liberals and big capital has proved too close.

And the latter was not even averse to profit from the war. At the same time, the state was actively used, and the head of the Main Artillery Directorate, General Aleksey Manikovsky, very aptly called the whole orgy “a crusade against the official chest”.

First of all, ultrahigh revenues were achieved by sharply inflating prices for military products, for which often the system of state orders was used "competently". Moreover, politicians-merchants, of course, of a liberal nature, participated in such quite official scams.

Thus, the Chairman of the State Duma, the Octobrist Mikhail Rodzyanko, took the contract for the manufacture of a solid batch of birch lodges for rifles. All anything, but the assistant to the Minister of War, General Mikhail Belyaev ordered to throw him one ruble per piece.

Less fortunate was the largest breeder, landowner and banker Mikhail Tereshchenko, who took an active part in opposition maneuvers (in the Provisional Government he will occupy the posts of Minister of Finance and Foreign Affairs). This clever businessman started to build a plant for the manufacture (in a three-year period) 10 thousand machine guns of Maxim's system.

At the same time, he intended to receive for each 2700 machine gun rubles - provided that the treasury provides him with barrels, semi-finished products, etc. Moreover, the production itself was proposed to organize the technical forces of the state-owned plant. At the same time, the production of one such machine gun at the state-owned plant cost only 1370 rubles.

The robbery of such a deal was obvious, it threatened to overpay the state with 15 million rubles. However, to break it turned out to be very difficult, for this it took the efforts of Grand Duke Sergei Mikhailovich, who made a personal report on this subject to the Tsar.

Nevertheless, big business had incredible super-profits from war and work with the treasury. The most common thing was to get on the supply of 300%, and sometimes it came to 1000%.

“The capitalists, under the protection of the so-called commercial secret, hid in every way the profits they received; but even from the official reports that some large enterprises have published in the newspapers, it is clear what huge profits they have gained from the war, ”writes the famous Russian general and historian Yevgeny Martynov. - For example, in the 1916 year, the Sormovsk joint-stock company brought a net profit of 10 550 thousand rubles, with the main capital of 15 million rubles.

Insurance company "Volga", which had a fixed capital of only one million, gave 1 657 161 ruble 55 kopecks of net income for the same year. For 1915 – 1916 a year, the Tula Copper Plant earned a net profit of 15 510 thousand rubles, and the South Russian Dnieper Metallurgical Society - 12 110 thousand rubles, which far exceeded the fixed capital of enterprises ”(“ Tsarist Army in the February Revolution ”//“ Politics and Sociology ” ").
However, the prices were inflated on all goods, about which the press wrote a lot, in particular, the right one. So, the conservative Moscow Vedomosti exclaimed: “It came to the point that it is difficult to point out at least one item of widespread, mass consumption, which would not have been subject to a monstrous tax in favor of obvious and secret industrial and banking organizations ...

There is an orgy of profit everywhere - industrial sharks, ranging from a petty shopkeeper to a brilliant businessman, are no longer satisfied by a hundred or one hundred profits: the rampage of greed pushes on ... a new price increase, and for this purpose hundreds of thousands of pounds of goods are hidden everywhere or “forgotten”. ”
By the way, "friends of freedom" distinguished themselves in this field. So, cadet Andrei Shingaryov controlled the society of wholesale purchases - not by himself, of course, but through trusted representatives.

He ensured that this institution received 100 thousand rubles from public funds for free, and even 50 thousand rubles in the form of a loan. Society sold goods at a higher price. Not satisfied with this, Shingaryov also wanted 1750 thousand rubles - ostensibly as a loan to supply people with food.


In the end, the government seriously decided to curb this orgy and limit the influence of big business, which lobbied its interests through the so-called military-industrial committees (MIC). 22 June 1916 was adopted by a decree that prescribed to cut their mediation functions.

From now on, military censorship missed criticism of the military-industrial complex, which had previously been banned. In addition, strict control was established over the budgets of the All-Russian Zemstvo Union, the All-Russian Union of Cities and other proliberal organizations oriented towards big business. The Ministry of War has increased the requirements for the profile products. Special authorized representatives of the Council of Ministers arrived at the enterprises.

They did not forget about the banks by adopting a special resolution “On the expansion of government supervision over commercial credit banks”. The government was preparing to create its own metallurgical plants and expand its transport engineering network. (It is characteristic that after the February Revolution, large-scale businessmen achieved the creation of a special commission that curtailed the former system of state regulation.)
Nationalization began, and its first results were very impressive. The government took custody of the famous Putilov factory, bankrupt due to financial frauds of its owner. And here's the result: prior to nationalization, the plant practically did not release six-inch shells, but after that it gave half of the total number of shells.

Group of workers at the gates of the Putilov factory

“After the mobilization of the defense industry by 1917, military production in Russia grew 2,3 times, fully satisfying the needs of the front in weapons and ammunition, - historian Vasily Galin comments on this and other measures of the government. - The production of some shells increased 40 times. There were so many shells that they were enough for the entire Civil War, and even in 1941 the Red Army used shrapnel in 1917 ”(“ Trends. Intervention and Civil War. ”T. 2).

At the beginning of 1914, the government intended to introduce five-year planning cycles. State planning was supposed to schedule the pace and timing of the construction of railways, ports and large hydropower plants (Dnieper and Volkhov). This is the application for a planned economy.

It is safe to say that the tsarist government was going to go about the same way that the Bolsheviks went. After all, it has even introduced a surplus.

29 November 1916, Minister Alexander Rittih signed a decree “On the development of grain breads and fodder acquired for defense-related needs”.

According to him, the peasants were obliged to sell grain at a price set by the state. Moreover, in return for the grain, receipts or paper stamps were often issued. It was prescribed to create special food battalions on the basis of the rear and reserve military units, which were to withdraw surpluses.

Since the spring of 1916, the rationing system is being introduced, in July it was already operating in eight provinces. (In October, at a special meeting on the food issue, its widespread introduction was even discussed.)

According to the Special Meeting, the card system existed entirely in 8 provinces, 59 individual cities, 39 district cities with counties (or simply in counties). For example, in 1916, cards for salt, sugar, flour, and other foodstuffs were introduced in all cities in the Ufa province.


In the 1915 year, when the Russian army was failing, the slogan of mobilizing the general public in its support was put forward. As a result, military-industrial committees emerged, the network of which covered the whole country. The central military industrial complex was headed by the octobrist Alexander Guchkov, the industrialist and progressive Pavel Ryabushinsky became the head of the Moscow military industrial complex.

It turned out that from the very beginning social mobilization took place under the leadership of the liberals. And they made every effort to wrap it in their favor, to extract the maximum political benefit.

The public was not so much helping the army as criticizing the government. An important role was played here and powerful Zemgor, formed as a result of the merger of the Zemsky and the City Unions.

In August 1915, the majority of the Duma members (236 deputies from 442) merged into the Progressive Bloc. It is characteristic that not only liberals (Cadets, Octobrists and others), but also some right-wing ones who created the faction “progressive nationalists” entered it.

At the head of the bloc were three cadets and one progressive - Andrei Shingaryov, Pavel Milyukov, Nikolai Nekrasov, and progressive Ivan Efremov. At the heart of the bloc’s program was the requirement to create a “ministry of public trust”. Thus, the king was faced with a broad opposition front.

And at the same time the government fronde began: the majority of ministers opposed Nicholas II to become the Supreme Commander (instead of his uncle Nikolai Nikolayevich). Thus, a blow was struck from two sides. However, the king did not make concessions to both the fronders and the opposition.

The first he sent in resignation, and the work of the State Duma was temporarily suspended.

Although, having shown his hardness, the king also showed willingness to cooperate. The new prime minister, Boris Stürmer, appointed instead of Ivan Goremykin, was a supporter of a fairly soft line with respect to the Duma.

And Nicholas II himself made a broad gesture, deciding to attend the first (after a temporary break) Duma meeting. But the Duma opposition did not appreciate all this and headed for confrontation. The opposition leaders organized secret meetings (already with the participation of the socialists), where they compiled a list of ministers of the new government, which was to replace the Sturmer cabinet.


The opposition attempted to formalize a wide front. In May 1915, the Central Committee of Community Organizations for Foodstuffs (CCECD) was formed.

And in the meeting on its formation, the Central Military Industrial Committee, Zemsky and the City Unions, corporate, agricultural and workers' organizations took part. The new structure explicitly stated that the government should have transferred to it all functions related to food.

He headed the CECC Cadet Mikhail Fedorov, who almost simultaneously held a secret meeting in his apartment with the participation of Alexander Guchkov, Pavel Milyukov, Mikhail Rodzyanko and other leading opposition figures. It was headed for the implementation of the coup.
It was supposed to remove Nicholas II from power, making his son Alexei monarch under the regency of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich monarch.

Guchkov was actively preparing a real military coup, hoping to use Guards officers for this purpose (there were no willing people). Milyukov and other leaders of the Progressive Bloc were in solidarity with him, but only they were preparing to replay it.

Guchkov himself planned to carry out a coup against the background of mass street demonstrations. And here he had high hopes for the so-called working group of the Center for Military-Industrial Policy, which consisted of Mensheviks (Kuzma Gvozdev and others).

It is curious that the Bolsheviks in such groups refused to work, considering it a "betrayal of the working class." They themselves continued to operate underground, despite the defeat of 1914, when the arrests affected the Bolshevik faction in the State Duma and members of the Russian Bureau. But in 1915, the bureau was restored. In 1916, it was headed by Vyacheslav Molotov, Alexander Shlyapnikov, and Peter Zalutsky.

This body worked quite carefully. He “did not reveal himself by establishing contacts with the workers and because of this he escaped defeat even when the newly reconstituted Bolshevik Petrograd Committee was arrested on the denunciation of the provocateur Chernomazov just before the start of the revolution.

That is why the members of the Russian Bureau were able to take part in the 27 and 28 demonstrations in February, as well as in the formation of the Petrograd Soviet ”(G.N. Katkov.“ February Revolution ”).

The bureau maintained relations with Vladimir Lenin, who was then in Zurich and was more interested in the global trends and fates of the Western socialist movement.

He actively stigmatized all the “defencists”, “compromisers” and pacifists, gave advice to the Scandinavian socialists, asked about the activities of the Boston radicals, wondered if it was possible to raise the question of separating the Hawaiian islands from the USA in order to shake the situation there.

Vladimir Lenin in Zurich, Switzerland. Winter 1916 of the year

In 1916, he publishes the brochure Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism. In it, Vladimir Ilyich points to the uneven development of capitalism and puts forward a rather controversial, from the point of view of Marxism, the thesis that the socialist revolution will occur in different countries at different times (on the basis of this, the concept of building socialism in one single country will be created later).

In relation to the Russian revolution, Lenin was somewhat skeptical. At the beginning of 1917, he admits:

“We, the elderly, may not live to see the decisive battles of this impending revolution.”

Let us return, however, to the liberal opposition, which believed (and not without reason) that the autocracy would fall soon. (The opposition’s closed documents indicated the date 1 of April 1917 of the year.)

In the first floor. 1917 of the Year The “public” was active, but the Duma behaved quite quietly, bearing in mind the failure of 1915 of the year. She saved her strength for a powerful shot. Although in May and June there was one very important event.

The parliamentary delegation of Russia visited England and France, and the majority of the delegation was made up of the opposition. Western leaders greeted the Russian parliamentarians very warmly, and as a result, an “inter-parliamentary allied group” was created, to which the Russian side could appeal in the event of a serious conflict with the tsar.

Milyukov, who met with the king of Great Britain, the president of France, the British and French prime ministers, had a particularly busy schedule. Obviously not left without the results of a meeting with representatives of the banks of the Rothschild and Morgans.

The respite ended on November 1, when the regular session of the State Duma began its work. Opposition from the quarry attacked the government of Sturmer. The culmination was the famous performance of Pavel Milyukov, in which he rushed to the government with the phrase: "Stupidity or treason?". This speech then sold out in thousands of copies, and in many cases it was very talented to “finish writing” it.

The Duma attack “unexpectedly” was supported at the very top: the grand dukes spoke out for the prime minister’s resignation. In the end, Sturner was replaced by Alexander Trepov, who sympathized with some of the ideas of the Progressive Bloc. True, he did not last long; at the beginning of 1917, Nikolai Golitsyn was appointed his successor. Meanwhile, the frequent change of cabinet heads, as well as of key ministers, seriously disorganized the situation.

There were other disruptive factors. Thus, in addition to the ministries, the “Special Meetings”, which were actually independent of them, consisted of officials, soldiers, businessmen and others. And on the ground, along with the governors, the administrative functions of the Zemstvo governments were vested with administrative functions.

The king, who stood at the top of the entire management pyramid, spent most of his time at Headquarters (Mogilyov) and on the road related to front affairs.

As we see, the liberals managed to achieve serious disruptions in the work of the government machine, which turned out to be especially fraught in the conditions of war. And this is despite the fact that at the beginning of 1916, the king was ready to cooperate.

But instead he got the real elite war. One of the acts of this war was the murder on the night of December 17 of Grigori Rasputin, who is close to the king and his family. There is every reason to assume that in January-February 1917, the king planned to launch a counteroffensive on the political front.

So, he appointed energetic monarchist Ivan Shcheglovitov as chairman of the State Council. It is possible that a series of emergency measures would have its effect.

However, the political initiative was lost in the decisive year - in 1916.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. 34 region
    34 region 19 January 2016 12: 37
    What time! Even in those days, the state-owned enterprise was more efficient in producing products. And private business is highly profitable. And what course do we take in modern realities?
    1. lukewarm
      lukewarm 19 January 2016 13: 16
      Guess from 3 times ... Forum Gaidar, Yeltsin Center ... Comrade. Mendel spoke again about privatization. Like, it's about time, the treasury is empty ...
  2. 34 region
    34 region 19 January 2016 12: 43
    Interesting! Liberals destroyed everything then, in the 90s, and they are falling apart now. And we persistently continue to support the course towards liberalization. For many, it will probably be the discovery of the surplus-appraisal, cards, contacts of the elite with the West in tsarist times.
  3. lukewarm
    lukewarm 19 January 2016 13: 19
    A fairy tale is a lie, but there is a hint in it! And here is not a fairy tale, and not a hint, but a cry! We will wait for something too. Already now it is unbearable, and this is only the beginning. I think for many "events" will be some way out and a hopeless situation. And it turns out that the king also used "manual control" ...
  4. Papapg
    Papapg 19 January 2016 14: 04
    This will continue until we put the horse in front of the cart, when we finally understand that there should be more milk to feed the cow, and not beat the collective farm bull in the testicles, until we understand that producers must earn and pay taxes, not banks that not banks at all, but usurers.
  5. MrK
    MrK 19 January 2016 14: 13
    As the author wants to prove that all the problems of Russia you see only from the liberals. But the king you see plowed like a slave in the galleys. Liberals, of course, are the ones that are current. But the king to match them.
    Read the book of the gendarme general A.I. Spiridovich "The Great War and the February Revolution of 1914-1917 years."
    What can I say - Nicholas II was still a "slave in the galleys." For example, here is the end of June of the 1915 of the year and the king urgently wanted to drive a car beyond 200 km from Stavka to Belovezhskaya Pushcha in order to have breakfast under centuries-old oaks. But you imagine, the trip almost fell off! Spiridovich writes: “The sovereign arrived only at three o’clock. From the front, information was received from Alekseev about the German breakthrough. The sovereign canceled the trip, but, having received additional information about the successful liquidation of the breakthrough, he left».
    As for the “successful” liquidation of the German breakthrough at the front, Spiridovich in another place very sparingly reports this “success” as follows: “In half of July, the Germans crossed the Vistula. 22 we left Warsaw, and 23 Ivangorod ... On August 4 the fortress of Kovno fell. The commandant fled ... Novogeorgievsk surrendered on August 6. ... On 10 of August Osovets fell. Evacuate Brest-Litovsk. The headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief passed from Baranavichy to Mogilev. For example, in the fortress of Novogeorgievsk 83 000 officers of the Russian army surrendered, including 23 general and 2100 officers, and the commandant of the fortress General Bobyr ran to the Germans. The Germans in the fortress got 1204 guns and more than a million shells. Let me remind you that at this time on all fronts, Russian artillery experienced an acute shortage of shells».

    And here is an excerpt from a book by contemporary author Alexander Kurlandchik on Prose. RU. : “The front commanders respond positively to the question of the desirability of renunciation: Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich (Caucasian Front), General Brusilov (South-Western Front), General Evert (Western Front), General Sakharov (Romanian Front), General Ruzsky (Northern Front) Admiral Nepenin (Commander of the Baltic Fleet). Admiral Kolchak, commander of the Black Sea Fleet, wags like a prostitute: he refrained from sending a similar telegram, but he “unconditionally agreed” with the opinions of others, like General Headquarters Headquarters General Alekseev, one of the steering conspiracies.
    The main conclusion from many books and articles of contemporaries - Nikolai 2 was incomprehensible.
    But Eliseev is trying to prove that having overthrown the tsar, the Russian people made a mistake. Not how the soil about the new tsar in Russia is probed. Of course, these will be the king of GDP. It is disgusting to read these licks of one place in a long rotten nothingness ....
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 19 January 2016 14: 52
      The gendarme general A.I. Spiridovich was a very capable, intelligent and dexterous man, extremely dexterous. Even the Bolsheviks did not shoot him, but calmly released him in peace (to France), where he then composed his memoirs.
      At the same time, we can recall that Spiridovich was responsible for the death of Stolypin, and was brought to the investigation (a fair charge for not taking protective measures), but only the tsar’s intervention saved Spiridovich’s career.
      To put it as an expert (to quote), I would not be a dodger.
      1. MrK
        MrK 19 January 2016 19: 16
        Quote: bober1982
        To put it as an expert (to quote), I would not be a dodger.

        And here the dexterity of Spiridovich and his diaries. Did he even dodge in the diaries? And therefore it can not be exposed as an expert?
        Again from Courland. "Soviet power was established throughout the country with virtually no resistance, and the regime was very soft, until about June 1918. So, the arrested members of the Provisional Government were soon released, the cadets who defended the Winter Palace and organized resistance in Moscow were released under the promise that they would no longer oppose the Soviet government.
        Krasnov, who organized a trip to St. Petersburg, escaped with house arrest. Purishkevich, who organized a conspiracy in support of General Kaledin, was amnestied on the occasion of the 1 of May. By March 1918, all activists of the sabotage “Union of Employees of State Institutions” and so on were released from custody. And this soft regime existed before the intervention and the Civil War.
        So the Bolsheviks released him with everyone who wanted to leave. And certainly not for dexterity. And as an expert, I use Spiridovich’s diary, written several years before the revolution.
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 19 January 2016 20: 03
          I agree with you only on one thing: Soviet power was established throughout the country with virtually no resistance. That's right. It’s hard to agree about the soft regime.
          Here is how Metropolitan of Kiev and Galitsky Vladimir (Epiphany) was brutally murdered:
          On January 23 / February 7, 1918, the Bolsheviks broke into the Metropolitan’s bedroom, led him outside the ramparts, at dawn his body was found — his face and back of his head were pierced with a bayonet, a lacerated wound in his chest, his right eye was pierced by a bullet.
          How brutally the Supreme Commander-in-Chief General Dukhonin (November 20 / December 3, 1917) was brutally murdered, he was simply torn apart by a revolutionary crowd.
          This is only a drop in the sea of ​​blood, and the massacre began even before the October Revolution. You can read in the memoirs of Gen. Denikin, Krasnov. By the way, General Krasnov’s campaign in Petrograd was fake, and he didn’t organize it, but Kerensky
          1. MrK
            MrK 19 January 2016 20: 43
            Quote: bober1982
            23 January / 7 February 1918 Bolsheviks broke into the bedroom of the Metropolitan, led him outside the rampart, at dawn his body

            Of course, you can hang everything on the Bolsheviks today. There is no one to justify.
            Only here the church hierarchs themselves had previously recognized the non-involvement of the Bolsheviks in this murder.
            In 1974, the Archbishop of the Russian Church Abroad (Taushev), in his XNUMX year, said: “... it is generally accepted that the Kiev Metropolitan Vladimir fell victim to the Bolsheviks. But the investigation showed that the Bolsheviks, as such, in this crime, in fact, did not even take any part. The Metropolitan was killed by bandits promoted by the Bolsheviks, invited for this heinous villainous goal by some of the monks of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, who also succumbed to Bolshevik propaganda and viciously slandered their Archpastor as if he was "robbing" the Lavra, which receives large incomes from pilgrims. "
            “The Satanic nature of rebellion” // Archbishop Averky. T. IV, Jordanville, 1976, p. 165.

            Moreover, according to the assertions of other church leaders, Muravyov himself guaranteed his protection to the metropolitan.

            “Subsequently, I found out under what circumstances Vladyka Vladimir was killed. Alexey Doroditsyn also played a role in the villainy, but his blood was also on the monks of the Lavra. Doroditsyn created a painful situation for Metropolitan Vladimir, which reached the point where he felt in the metropolitan chambers in the Lavra, as in a besieged fortress. When Kiev was taken, the commander of the Bolshevik troops Muravyov came to the governor of Lavra with a warning: “I will live in the Lavra hotel, I have a telephone with you. If gangs rush to you with a search, demanding money or something else happens, call me, ”he said.”
            “The path of my life. Memoirs. ”// Metropolitan Eulogius (St. George). Revolution. Church Council (1917 — 1918) // Chapter 16. Paris: YMCA-Press, 1947

            The aforementioned Alexei Doroditsyn was the archbishop of Vladimir, who actively intrigued against Vladimir and later went over to the side of Petliura. "Samostiinik", a supporter of separation from the Russian Church. He was the head of the committee for convening an all-Ukrainian church council. The already mentioned link tells about it.

            And Metropolitan Vladimir was a strong supporter of the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church.
            So do not lie and blame everything on the Bolsheviks, as filthy liberals do.
            1. bober1982
              bober1982 19 January 2016 21: 03
              Archbishop Averky (Taushev) was a member of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, our Russian Church for a long time considered them schismatics.
              I do not trust his words.
              The security guarantees that Muravyov promised were empty words were worthless. When they killed Dukhonin, they also promised security.
              1. MrK
                MrK 19 January 2016 22: 10
                Quote: bober1982
                when they killed Dukhonin, they also promised security.

                Journal Questions of History Lelevich G. October at Headquarters. Gomel.
                In addition to the official report cited above, I give some details of the murder of General Dukhonin: “In the days preceding the entry of Soviet troops into Mogilev, the Mogilevites ran to inquire about the news at the station. {with. 90}
                For the same purpose, I came to the station in the evening of November 20 (old style) of 1917 of the year - on the day Comrade Commander entered the city. Krylenko. {with. 91}
                When I stepped onto the platform, a train consisting of cool wagons immediately caught my eye. In front of him was the crowd flooding the platform.
                In the crowd, here and there, the brown hats of the sailors flickered. They said that in one of the cars is the arrested General Dukhonin. There were menacing exclamations demanding the immediate execution of the prisoner. After one such exclamation, a group of sailors loaded rifles and approached the carriage in which Dukhonin was placed. However, the sailor guard standing by the car did not let them into the car.
                Soon, Comrade Comrade appeared on the platform of the car. Krylenko made a speech. He spoke slowly, engraving every word and surprisingly popular, surprisingly simple, understandable to everyone. He said that Dukhonin should be taken for trial to Petrograd, that lynching would be in the nature of a simple murder, staining the honor of the Soviet regime, that they would burst into Dukhonin only through his corpse.
                The crowd began to disperse.
                Suddenly, on the platform where Dukhonin had just stood, a tall, hefty sailor appeared in a huge bu- {s. 92} swarm a fur hat and addressed the crowd with a speech: “Comrades, he said, we let Kornilov run away, we let him out of our hands. We will not let out, at least, Dukhonin. "Suddenly the news flashed through the crowd with lightning that Dukhonin was killed. The crowd rushed to the other side of the train, from which I had just left. A terrible crush began.
                The sailors from the train guard began to disperse the crowd, and when it thinned out, I saw a bloody mass in front of the carriage. It was the body of Dukhonin. He was instantly covered with something. They sent to the emergency room for a stretcher and carried the general's body there. I heard a peasant who was there and then remarked: “This is what he needs, the dog! It is not necessary to bury him. He needs to be lowered into the cesspool. "
                ("News of the Gomel Gubkoma", No. 15).
                and {with. 93} ending with the murders of Black Hundred officers in Kronstadt in March 1917. But in the interests of historical truth, it should be admitted that the real culprits in the murder of Dukhonin should not be considered angry sailors and soldiers, but those renegades of socialism who pushed Dukhonin onto the path of active counter-revolution.

                I want you to understand a simple thought. History may be a science, or it may be a public girl of politics. If History is a science, then this is a preceding experience: without knowing the history, you will make mistakes already committed before you, without knowing the history, you may not find profitable solutions to the problems of today. In my opinion, Bismarck very stupidly remarked: “only FOOLS LEARN FROM THEIR EXPERIENCE. Smart learn from someone else. ” History is the experience of others, on which an intelligent person should learn, and if you are not interested in history, then admit to yourself that you are fools .... You, all those who are minus me, of course, with the fact that you fools ... disagree, not understanding that with your disagreement only confirm Bismarck's thought. Best regards
    2. antivirus
      antivirus 25 November 2016 15: 57
      The main conclusion from many books and articles of contemporaries - Nikolai 2 was incomprehensible.
      Bad (or poorly managed) organizer, moderator coordinator is different from dumbass
  6. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 19 January 2016 15: 50
    All the nonsense, it’s known that the Tsar was no king at all, and he was not Russian, but German, and he was soft, and not hard, and in general everything was bad with him, so there was a civil war, after which immediately throughout the country began to grow pineapples ....
    It was a joke. Though sad. In fact, many thanks to the author for the article. Unfortunately, we actually know very little about the activities of Tsar Nicholas 2. Most of them are from the old history textbooks of the Soviet era, in which the Tsar is an absolute evil, as well as new "studies" according to which he is no longer evil, but a kind of amorphous creature sitting near his wife's skirt. And the fact that he really worked, and worked very, very much for the good of the Motherland in the realities of that time, and not in the realities of "developed socialism", as it is silent.
    1. MrK
      MrK 19 January 2016 19: 42
      Quote: Trapper7
      Most of them are from the old history textbooks of the times of the USSR, in which the tsar is an absolute evil, as well as new "studies", according to which he is no longer evil, but a kind of amorphous creature sitting near his wife's skirt. And the fact that he really worked, and worked very, very much for the good of the Motherland in the realities of that summer time, and not in the realities of "developed socialism", as it is silent.

      And what does the time of developed socialism have to do with it. Literature must be known. Today thousands of books of authors of various political orientations are published.
      Here's another from A. Kurlyandchik's book "The Cursed Soviet Power" ...

      Excerpt from the diary of another monarchist, conservative and Black Hundred M.O. Menshikov, written after the revolution: “... not we, monarchists, traitors to him, but he to us. Is it possible to recognize the king and the heir who, at the first hint of the overthrow, themselves renounce the throne? The throne is the main state post, the highest guard at the main shrine of the people - national greatness ... Anyone who refuses power with such cowardice is, of course, unworthy of it. ”
      The diary of one of the professors of the Moscow Theological Academy (entry from 23 on March 1917), also a monarchist: “Thousands of revolutionaries did not drop the autocracy, monarchy, throne and Romanov dynasty as this German woman did with her vile Rasputin, with her Germanism, with his vile Khlystovism, with his estrangement from Russia and almost betrayal in favor of Germany, his estrangement even from all members of the imperial house, and almost with delusions of grandeur.
      ... And the king injured himself and the monarchy by lack of will, laziness, carelessness, addiction to wine (apparently), slow-witted submission to his ober-cliche, inability to manage, unwillingness, at least during the war, to make an office in the image of the constitution. Miserable people, and miserable now, and even before, family, unhappy family! Morally, mentally and culturally, both heads of the family fell even before the coup and the final fall. ” Such reviews of Nicholas could make up a thick volume - the reviews of generals, ministers, pillars of monarchism, in no way liberals.
      I will end with two opinions of foreigners. One of them, British Prime Minister Lloyd George, was a contemporary of events. And the Englishman described Nicholas as "a crown without a head."
      Another is the American historian Robert Massey, who at times looks like a big Russophile than the Russians themselves. He is imbued with the hottest reverence for Nicholas, but he also cannot stand it: “During the war, the people did not want revolution, but only reform. But Alexandra, prompted by Rasputin, passionately protested against any diminution of the tsarist government. Yielding to his wife, fighting for the salvation of the autocracy and denying all the arguments in favor of the government responsible to the people, Nikolai made the revolution and Lenin’s final triumph inevitable. ”
      It is easy to see that all the critical reviews about Nicholas come down to one thing: this was a man out of place. And he was shallow.
      If we want to get a more complete impression of the life of Russia of those times, then, rightly, we should turn to the work of such writers and scholars as L. Tolstoy, A. Chekhov, I. Shmelev, N. A. Krylov, V. Zasodimsky, and Zlatovratsky, G. Uspensky, D. Mamin-Sibiryak, F. Reshetnikov, M. Gorky, I. Bunin. Or would they write differently about the life of tsarist Russia today?
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 19 January 2016 20: 32
        Look, all these nonsense was probably composed in the bowels of the Kaiser intelligence, or English. The people of that time were certainly fooled.
        A revolution (unrest, chaos) was inevitable, everything was rotten, and the people themselves, and the generals, and members of the royal court, etc.
        and you quote the words of some crooks - heinous Khlystism, addiction to wine, German woman, morally fell, pillars of monarchism, etc.
        Everything begins in a new way, although a hundred years have passed.
      2. veteran66
        veteran66 19 January 2016 20: 41
        Quote: mrark
        Or would they write differently about the life of tsarist Russia today?

        each has his own outlook on life, it is possible to write about the USSR and about the present time in such a way that it seems true both there and there, but it will sound completely different. As for Nicholas, if you read the primary sources, for example, Nicholas’s last letter to his wife, you can understand that renunciation was not weak-willed, but a desire to save Russia, because such clicks, like the scribblers you listed, unanimously whistled that it would be The best way out for Russia and its people.
        1. MrK
          MrK 20 January 2016 10: 23
          Quote: veteran66
          because such clicks, like the scribbler you listed, unanimously whistled that this would be the best way out for Russia and its people.

          Well, if for you L. Tolstoy, A. Chekhov, I. Shmelev, N. A. Krylov, V. Zasodimsky, I. Zlatovratsky, G. Uspensky, D. Mamin-Sibiryak, F. Reshetnikov, M. Gorky, I. Bunin - scribblers, a logical question arises: and who, in comparison with them, are you.

          We have a lot of good people. But a good person is not a profession. And the activity of any leader of a great state is evaluated not by letters to his beloved wife, but by that - what country did he leave behind