Russian Emperor Nicholas 2. Nicholas II: the life of the last Tsar

From abdication to execution: the life of the Romanovs in exile through the eyes of the last empress

On March 2, 1917, Nicholas II abdicated the throne. Russia was left without a king. And the Romanovs ceased to be a royal family.

Perhaps this was Nikolai Alexandrovich’s dream - to live as if he were not an emperor, but simply the father of a large family. Many said that he had a gentle character. Empress Alexandra Feodorovna was his opposite: she was seen as a harsh and domineering woman. He was the head of the country, but she was the head of the family.

She was calculating and stingy, but humble and very pious. She knew a lot: she did needlework, painted, and during the First World War she cared for the wounded - and taught her daughters how to make bandages. The simplicity of the Tsar's upbringing can be judged by the letters of the Grand Duchesses to their father: they easily wrote to him about the “idiot photographer”, “filthy handwriting” or that “the stomach wants to eat, it is already cracking.” In her letters to Nikolai, Tatyana signed herself “Your faithful Voznesenets”, Olga - “Your faithful Elisavetgradets”, and Anastasia signed it like this: “Your loving daughter Nastasya. Shvybzik. ANRPZSG Artichokes, etc.”

A German who grew up in the UK, Alexandra wrote mainly in English, but spoke Russian well, albeit with an accent. She loved Russia - just like her husband. Anna Vyrubova, maid of honor and close friend of Alexandra, wrote that Nikolai was ready to ask his enemies for one thing: not to expel him from the country and to let “the simplest peasant” live with his family. Perhaps the imperial family could actually live by their labor. But the Romanovs were not allowed to live a private life. Nicholas turned from a king into a prisoner.

"The thought that we are all together pleases and consoles..."Arrest in Tsarskoe Selo

“The sun blesses, prays, holds on with her faith and for the sake of her martyr. She does not interfere in anything (...). Now she is only a mother with sick children ..." - the former Empress Alexandra Feodorovna wrote to her husband on March 3, 1917.

Nicholas II, who signed the abdication, was at Headquarters in Mogilev, and his family was in Tsarskoe Selo. One after another, the children fell ill with measles. At the beginning of each diary entry, Alexandra indicated what the weather was like today and what the temperature was for each of the children. She was very pedantic: she numbered all her letters from that time so that they would not get lost. The couple called their son baby, and called each other Alix and Nicky. Their correspondence is more like the communication of young lovers than a husband and wife who have already lived together for more than 20 years.

“I realized at first glance that Alexandra Feodorovna, an intelligent and attractive woman, although now broken and irritated, had an iron will,” wrote the head of the Provisional Government, Alexander Kerensky.

On March 7, the Provisional Government decided to place the former imperial family under arrest. The associates and servants who were in the palace could decide for themselves whether to leave or stay.

"You can't go there, Mister Colonel"

On March 9, Nicholas arrived in Tsarskoe Selo, where for the first time he was greeted not as an emperor. “The officer on duty shouted: “Open the gates to the former Tsar.” (...) When the Emperor passed by the officers gathered in the lobby, no one greeted him. The Emperor was the first to do this. Only then did everyone greet him,” wrote valet Alexey Volkov.

According to the memoirs of witnesses and the diaries of Nicholas himself, it seems that he did not suffer due to the loss of the throne. “Despite the conditions we now find ourselves in, the thought that we are all together makes us happy and comforting,” he wrote on March 10. Anna Vyrubova (she stayed with the royal family, but was soon arrested and taken away) recalled that he was not even affected by the attitude of the guard soldiers, who were often rude and could tell the former Supreme Commander: “You can’t go there, Mr. Colonel, come back when you want.” They say!"

A vegetable garden was built in Tsarskoye Selo. Everyone worked: the royal family, close associates and palace servants. Even a few guard soldiers helped

On March 27, the head of the Provisional Government, Alexander Kerensky, forbade Nicholas and Alexandra to sleep together: the spouses were allowed to see each other only at the table and speak to each other exclusively in Russian. Kerensky did not trust the former empress.

In those days, an investigation was underway into the actions of the couple’s inner circle, it was planned to interrogate the spouses, and the minister was sure that she would put pressure on Nikolai. “People like Alexandra Feodorovna never forget anything and never forgive anything,” he later wrote.

Alexei’s mentor Pierre Gilliard (his family called him Zhilik) recalled that Alexandra was furious. “To do this to the sovereign, to do this nasty thing to him after he sacrificed himself and renounced in order to avoid civil war - how low it is, how petty it is!” - she said. But in her diary there is only one discreet entry about this: “N<иколаю>and I am only allowed to meet during meals, but not to sleep together.”

The measure did not remain in force for long. On April 12, she wrote: “Tea in the evening in my room, and now we sleep together again.”

There were other restrictions - domestic ones. The security reduced the palace's heating, after which one of the court ladies fell ill with pneumonia. The prisoners were allowed to walk, but passers-by looked at them through the fence - like animals in a cage. Humiliation did not leave them at home either. As Count Pavel Benkendorf said, “when the Grand Duchesses or the Empress approached the windows, the guards allowed themselves to behave indecently in front of their eyes, thereby causing the laughter of their comrades.”

The family tried to be happy with what they had. At the end of April, a vegetable garden was planted in the park - the imperial children, servants, and even guard soldiers carried the turf. They chopped wood. We read a lot. They gave lessons to thirteen-year-old Alexei: due to a shortage of teachers, Nikolai personally taught him history and geography, and Alexandra - the Law of God. We rode bicycles and scooters, swam in the pond on a kayak. In July, Kerensky warned Nicholas that due to the turbulent situation in the capital, the family would soon be moved to the south. But instead of Crimea they were exiled to Siberia. In August 1917, the Romanovs left for Tobolsk. Some of those close to them followed them.

"Now it's their turn." Link in Tobolsk

“We settled far from everyone: we live quietly, we read about all the horrors, but we won’t talk about it,” Alexandra wrote to Anna Vyrubova from Tobolsk. The family was settled in the former governor's house.

Despite everything, the royal family remembered life in Tobolsk as “quiet and calm”

The family was not restricted in correspondence, but all messages were viewed. Alexandra corresponded a lot with Anna Vyrubova, who was either released or arrested again. They sent each other parcels: the former maid of honor once sent “a wonderful blue blouse and delicious marshmallows,” and also her perfume. Alexandra responded with a shawl, which she also scented with verbena. She tried to help her friend: “I send pasta, sausages, coffee - even though it’s fasting now. I always take greens out of the soup so that I don’t eat the broth, and I don’t smoke.” She hardly complained, except maybe about the cold.

In Tobolsk exile, the family managed to maintain the same way of life in many respects. We even managed to celebrate Christmas. There were candles and a Christmas tree - Alexandra wrote that the trees in Siberia are of a different, unusual variety, and “they smell strongly of orange and tangerine, and resin flows down the trunk all the time.” And the servants were given woolen vests, which the former empress knitted herself.

In the evenings, Nikolai read aloud, Alexandra embroidered, and her daughters sometimes played the piano. Alexandra Fedorovna’s diary entries from that time are everyday ones: “I was drawing. I consulted with an ophthalmologist about new glasses,” “I sat and knitted all afternoon on the balcony, 20° in the sun, in a thin blouse and a silk jacket.”

Everyday life occupied the spouses more than politics. Only the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk really shocked both of them. “A humiliating world. (...) Being under the yoke of the Germans is worse than the Tatar yoke,” wrote Alexandra. In her letters she thought about Russia, but not about politics, but about people.

Nikolai loved to do physical labor: sawing wood, working in the garden, cleaning ice. After moving to Yekaterinburg, all this was banned

At the beginning of February we learned about the transition to a new style of chronology. "Today is February 14th. There will be no end to misunderstandings and confusion!" - Nikolai wrote. Alexandra called this style “Bolshevik” in her diary.

On February 27, according to the new style, the authorities announced that “the people do not have the means to support the royal family.” The Romanovs were now provided with an apartment, heating, lighting and soldiers' rations. Each person could also receive 600 rubles a month from personal funds. Ten servants had to be fired. “It will be necessary to part with the servants, whose devotion will lead them to poverty,” wrote Gilliard, who remained with the family. Butter, cream and coffee disappeared from the prisoners' tables, and there was not enough sugar. Local residents began to feed the family.

Food card. “Before the October revolution, there was plenty of everything, although we lived modestly,” recalled valet Alexey Volkov. “Dinner consisted of only two courses, and sweets only happened on holidays.”

This Tobolsk life, which the Romanovs later recalled as quiet and calm - even despite the rubella that the children suffered from - ended in the spring of 1918: they decided to move the family to Yekaterinburg. In May, the Romanovs were imprisoned in the Ipatiev House - it was called a “house for special purposes.” Here the family spent the last 78 days of their lives.

Last days.In the "special purpose house"

Together with the Romanovs, their associates and servants came to Yekaterinburg. Some were shot almost immediately, others were arrested and killed several months later. Someone survived and was subsequently able to talk about what happened in the Ipatiev House. Only four remained to live with the royal family: Doctor Botkin, footman Trupp, maid Nyuta Demidova and cook Leonid Sednev. He will be the only one of the prisoners who will escape execution: on the day before the murder he will be taken away.

Telegram from the Chairman of the Ural Regional Council to Vladimir Lenin and Yakov Sverdlov, April 30, 1918

“The house is good, clean,” Nikolai wrote in his diary. “We were given four large rooms: a corner bedroom, a restroom, next to it a dining room with windows into the garden and a view of the low-lying part of the city, and, finally, a spacious hall with an arch without doors.” The commandant was Alexander Avdeev - as they said about him, “a real Bolshevik” (he would later be replaced by Yakov Yurovsky). The instructions for protecting the family said: “The commandant must keep in mind that Nikolai Romanov and his family are Soviet prisoners, therefore an appropriate regime is established at the place of his detention.”

The instructions ordered the commandant to be polite. But during the first search, Alexandra’s reticule was snatched from her hands, which she did not want to show. “Until now, I have dealt with honest and decent people,” Nikolai noted. But I received the answer: “Please do not forget that you are under investigation and arrest.” The king's entourage was required to call family members by name and patronymic instead of "Your Majesty" or "Your Highness." This really upset Alexandra.

The prisoners got up at nine and drank tea at ten. Afterwards, the rooms were checked. Breakfast was at one, lunch was around four or five, tea was at seven, dinner was at nine, and we went to bed at eleven. Avdeev claimed that there were two hours of walking per day. But Nikolai wrote in his diary that he was only allowed to walk for an hour a day. To the question "why?" The former king was answered: “To make it look like a prison regime.”

All prisoners were prohibited from any physical labor. Nikolai asked permission to clean the garden - refusal. For a family that had spent recent months only entertaining themselves by chopping wood and cultivating garden beds, this was not easy. At first, the prisoners could not even boil their own water. Only in May Nikolai wrote in his diary: “They bought us a samovar, at least we won’t depend on the guard.”

After some time, the painter painted over all the windows with lime so that the inhabitants of the house could not look out into the street. It was not easy with windows in general: they were not allowed to open. Although the family would hardly have been able to escape with such protection. And in the summer it was hot.

Ipatiev's house. “A rather high plank fence was built around the outer walls of the house facing the street, covering the windows of the house,” its first commandant Alexander Avdeev wrote about the house.

It was only towards the end of July that one of the windows was finally opened. “Such joy, finally, delightful air and one window pane, no longer covered with whitewash,” Nikolai wrote in his diary. After this, the prisoners were forbidden to sit on the windowsills.

There were not enough beds, the sisters slept on the floor. Everyone dined together, not only with the servants, but also with the Red Army soldiers. They were rude: they could put a spoon into a bowl of soup and say: “They still don’t feed you anything.”

Vermicelli, potatoes, beet salad and compote - this was the food on the prisoners’ table. There were problems with meat. “They brought meat for six days, but so little that it was only enough for soup,” “Kharitonov prepared a pasta pie... because they didn’t bring any meat at all,” Alexandra notes in her diary.

Hall and living room in the Ipatva House. This house was built in the late 1880s and later purchased by engineer Nikolai Ipatiev. In 1918, the Bolsheviks requisitioned it. After the execution of the family, the keys were returned to the owner, but he decided not to return there, and later emigrated

“I took a sitz bath, since hot water could only be brought from our kitchen,” Alexandra writes about minor household inconveniences. Her notes show how gradually, for the former empress, who once ruled over “a sixth of the earth,” everyday little things become important: “great pleasure, a cup of coffee,” “the good nuns are now sending milk and eggs for Alexei and us, and cream ".

Products were indeed allowed to be taken from the Novo-Tikhvin Convent. With the help of these parcels, the Bolsheviks staged a provocation: they handed over a letter from a “Russian officer” in the cork of one of the bottles with an offer to help escape. The family responded: “We do not want and cannot RUN. We can only be abducted by force.” The Romanovs spent several nights dressed, awaiting possible rescue.

Prison style

Soon the commandant changed in the house. It was Yakov Yurovsky. At first, the family even liked him, but very soon the harassment became more and more. “You need to get used to living not like a king, but how you have to live: like a prisoner,” he said, limiting the amount of meat supplied to the prisoners.

Of the monastery's products, he allowed only milk to remain. Alexandra once wrote that the commandant “had breakfast and ate cheese; he no longer allows us to eat cream.” Yurovsky also forbade frequent baths, saying that there was not enough water for them. He confiscated jewelry from family members, leaving only a watch for Alexey (at the request of Nikolai, who said that the boy would be bored without it) and a gold bracelet for Alexandra - she wore it for 20 years, and it could only be removed with tools.

Every morning at 10:00 the commandant checked that everything was in place. Most of all, the former empress did not like this.

Telegram from the Kolomna Committee of the Bolsheviks of Petrograd to the Council of People's Commissars demanding the execution of representatives of the House of Romanov. March 4, 1918

Alexandra, it seems, experienced the loss of the throne the hardest of all in the family. Yurovsky recalled that if she went out for a walk, she would certainly dress up and always put on a hat. “It must be said that, unlike the others, in all her appearances she tried to maintain all her importance and her former self,” he wrote.

The rest of the family members were simpler - the sisters dressed rather casually, Nikolai wore patched boots (although, as Yurovsky claims, he had quite a few intact ones). His hair was cut by his wife. Even the needlework that Alexandra did was the work of an aristocrat: she embroidered and wove lace. The daughters washed handkerchiefs and darned stockings and bed linen together with the maid Nyuta Demidova.

Interview with Henryk Glembocki - employee of the Department of History of Eastern Europe, Faculty of History, Jagiellonian University

Polonia Christiana: 100 years ago, revolutionary authorities arrested the last Russian Tsar, Nicholas II, and a few months later he and his entire family died at the hands of the Bolsheviks. Many Russians consider him a martyr or even a saint, while others accuse him of leading a huge empire to collapse and handing power to revolutionaries. What is your assessment of the last king and his reign?

Henryk Głębocki: My assessment, naturally, will reflect the Polish experience of relations with the Russian Empire. For a long time, the figure of Nicholas II was viewed through the prism of the revolutionary catastrophe of his country, that is, in a negative light. In this context, entries from the Diary of Tsar Nicholas II, which was published in Poland before World War II, were often quoted to illustrate the widespread opinion about the limited mental abilities of this ruler, his weak character and narrow-mindedness.

It should be noted, however, that at that time keeping a diary was an element of education for the heir to the throne or a member of the reigning house. An example is the diary of Alexander II, the grandfather of Nicholas II, which he kept since childhood. This document clearly shows how he honed his linguistic abilities and learned mental discipline. That's why we see posts about insignificant things: the weather, regular meetings, parades, and so on. Over a quarter of a century of working in Russian and post-Soviet archives, I have seen many diaries of this kind. Nicholas II kept his notes in a similar spirit. However, in 1917, the Tsar felt that tragedy was coming, realizing the consequences of his abdication. On March 15, 1917, he writes in his diary: “At one o’clock in the morning I left Pskov with a heavy feeling of what I had experienced. There is treason, cowardice and deceit all around.”

- What does this prove?

“I think he felt that the abdication, which was soon to lead to the overthrow of the monarchy, would be like removing the axis from the complex mechanism of the empire, the main element of which was the autocracy. In 1917, in just a few months, the entire complex structure of the state literally fell apart.

Nicholas II was definitely not a stupid person, but those around him had many complaints against him. He was considered too sensitive and indecisive; he was accused of being weak-willed, of not being able to make decisions quickly, of being influenced by his environment: his beloved wife and successive ministers.

On the other hand, the last king often harbored prejudices towards different people, and as a result came into conflict with them. For example, he argued with the Minister of Finance Sergei Witte, whom Nicholas II hated, but who was a very capable politician and carried out conservative reforms in Russia, or with Pyotr Stolypin, one of the most prominent Russian reformers. They both wanted to save the monarchy and the empire, but the king could not establish relations with them, believing in the arguments of their political opponents.

An important personality trait of Nicholas II was his religiosity, which was combined with the conviction that Orthodoxy is interconnected with autocracy and guarantees the stability of the empire. He believed in the providential mission of the monarch, who continues the political and cultural tradition of the dynasty, preserves his empire and subjects, and believed in the connection between the king and the people.

- You can also say that the character of Nicholas II had many attractive features.

— The last tsar was undoubtedly a good head of the family, like his father Alexander III. In turn, the same cannot be said about his overly amorous grandfather, Alexander II. Historians sometimes call Nicholas II “the most nepotistic tsar.” He was interested in religion, science, culture, traveled a lot with his family and loved photography, which is why so many beautiful photographs of the last Romanovs have been preserved. When communicating with other people, he behaved naturally.

Nicholas II sincerely believed in the idea of ​​a conservative Russian monarchy, which is based on the Orthodox faith and the institution of unlimited autocracy. Therefore, he, like his predecessors, had a dislike for parliamentary institutions (they were considered an “alien Western product”), which the political opposition wanted to appear. Unfortunately, many of the traits that made the Tsar a good man in private life prevented him from effectively managing the vast and complex machinery of the Russian Empire. At times it seemed that this task was beyond his strength. He realized this himself, especially at the moment of accession to the throne, and shared his doubts. Indecisiveness and erroneous decisions weakened the authority of the authorities. It all started with the tragedy that happened in Moscow during his coronation: due to the crush and panic on the Khodynka field, many people died. That same day, the young king allowed himself to be persuaded and went to a ball at the French embassy. Many Russians could not forgive him for this.

Context

How Nicholas II angered the Finns

Yle 02/18/2017

Heir to the Russian throne Nicholas III

Deutsche Welle 02/06/2017

What did Nicholas II give to the Finns?

Helsingin Sanomat 07/25/2016

The Russian Empire, especially before the 1905 revolution and the emergence of constitutional institutions, was a country that limited basic social, civil, national and religious freedoms. Under the last two Romanovs, Alexander III and Nicholas II, Russification became the official political idea, the victim of which was not only the Poles, but also previously loyal peoples - Georgians, Baltic Germans. Discontent increased due to the return to this policy before the First World War. It found a way out in 1917 in slogans about the rights of peoples to whom the Provisional Government granted autonomy. After the Bolshevik coup, they began to take turns declaring independence. During the war, Germany and Austria-Hungary took advantage of the discontent of different peoples: they supported forces that sought to split the empire, including the Poles.

Do you agree with the thesis that Nicholas II was a tsar who simply “did not grow up” to the responsibilities that fell on his shoulders after the premature death of his father?

- Everything is much more complicated. Almost everyone had complaints against Nicholas II. The liberal and revolutionary parties hated him for his commitment to the institution of autocracy. Those who counted on concessions on his part might have looked differently at the “softness” of his character if he had finally decided on something, for example, cooperated with the Duma after its creation. However, Nicholas II was brought up to hate such institutions; he twice dissolved the Duma and limited its rights. He, as representatives of conservative circles, believed that the constitutional form of government and parliament contradicted the mission of the tsar and Russian tradition.

If Nicholas II had agreed to cooperate with the forces that sought to reform Russia in a conservative spirit (their representative was, for example, Stolypin), then perhaps he could have returned stability to the state.

But the ruler constantly changed his opinion depending on the situation or on the advice of his advisers. The main factor that triggered the weakening of the empire, awakened the power of anarchy and destruction hidden in its social system, and intensified the processes that had been emerging for several generations, was the war. It is noteworthy that such visionary politicians as Witte dissuaded the Tsar from participating in this conflict, which could provoke a crisis and revolution, as after the lost war with Japan in 1905.

Character traits, family tragedy (the incurable illness of the heir to the throne, Tsarevich Alexei), political fluctuations - all this was used by the opponents of Nicholas II (including in court circles) and the opposition, which spread the “black legend” about the tsar and his wife. The pretext was the figure of the influential Grigory Rasputin. True and false stories on this topic undermined the authority of the monarchy and had a particularly destructive effect during the First World War, when the Tsar assumed the title of Supreme Commander.

In turn, if we look at the last year of Nicholas II’s life, after his abdication, we will see that he showed admirable qualities, retained his presence of mind, and took care of his family. Largely thanks to this, the last tsar and his entire family were elevated to the altar in the Orthodox Church, first abroad, and then in Russia. It is interesting that the “ratings” of the most beloved rulers in Russia were and continue to be headed by people who did not shy away from violence and even crimes, but who increased the size of the empire, providing it with a strong position in the world. These are kings like Peter the Great, Catherine II or Nicholas I. And the rulers who tried to reform the country, like Alexander I and especially Alexander III, were subjected to the strongest criticism.

Multimedia

400 years ago the Romanovs ascended the royal throne

InoSMI 03/07/2013

Procession in memory of the last Russian Tsar and his family

InoSMI 07/18/2011

Nicholas II, who fell victim to communism, is now revered in Russia in two forms. On the one hand, he is an Orthodox martyr (passion-bearer) who died along with his family for the faith. At the same time, an unofficial definition of “king-redeemer” appeared. This definition, bordering on heresy, means that by his sacrifice, which was martyrdom, the tsar atoned for the sin of the people, who allowed themselves to be seduced by the godless ideology of communism.

How did it happen that events occurred so quickly in Russia that completely changed the state? It all started with the fact that on March 15, 1917, Nicholas II abdicated the throne, and on March 21 he was arrested.

— Some historians will say that this is a coincidence of circumstances: heavy snowfalls that paralyzed movement; delays in grain deliveries, which resulted in queues for bread; further - speeches of hungry women whom the Cossacks did not want to disperse. The united opposition, which included liberals and social democrats, was able to raise its head and seize the initiative. The entire revolution was actually limited to events in the capital of the empire. Some of the commanders put pressure on the king, demanding that he transfer the throne to someone more popular in order to continue the war. However, everything developed rapidly. Even now it is difficult to understand how all this could happen so quickly. That is why they often talk about some kind of conspiracies or an organized coup.

Meanwhile, in all the disputes about the causes of the collapse of the Russian monarchy and the events that were launched by the abdication of Nicholas II, long-term phenomena that prepared the ground for the revolution elude our attention. One of them is the gradual decline in the authority of the monarchy and the king, for which he himself was guilty. This phenomenon intensified against the backdrop of the military disaster. To this should be added a whole set of unresolved social and political issues of the early 20th century. Russia was one of the most dynamically developing countries in the world. Rapid economic growth under the semi-feudal system that was maintained in the Tsarist Empire, and which was protected by the Tsar, created tension. It found expression in the slogans of the opposition and revolutionary parties, but was not reflected in public sentiment until the first defeats at the front.

Evil, including social evil, gives rise to new evil. Those who tried to eradicate this evil and human suffering by violent means and usurp the role of the “saviors” of humanity led the country through revolution to even greater suffering. The prophet of the totalitarian threat of the 20th century, the great Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky, warned about such a trap when speaking about the danger of human vanity. The Russian revolution “devoured its children”: not only the Bolsheviks, but also representatives of the liberal and social democratic intelligentsia who initially believed in its power. Expressive evidence of this disappointment can be found, in particular, on the pages of the diaries of Zinaida Gippius and Ivan Bunin.

The Russian Revolution released accumulated social tensions. In 1917, many peasants still remembered serfdom, corvée, and the inhumane attitude of their owners. Belief in “black redistribution”, that is, fair redistribution of land, the desire to take away property from landowners made itself felt in 1917. The Bolsheviks cynically used these sentiments and launched populist slogans “land to the peasants”, “rob the loot”, without preparing any reforms.

A separate topic is the reaction to the Russian revolution of a world that was occupied by military massacres. The Germans, after failing to convince the Romanovs to withdraw from the war, financed the Bolsheviks to provoke a revolution and eliminate the eastern front. The British, in turn, fearing protests in their own country, refused in 1917 to save the family of Nicholas II, who simply wanted to go to their relatives in Great Britain.

Richard Pipes writes in his book A Brief History of the Russian Revolution: “When a country's leadership gives itself the right to kill its own citizens not because of their actions, but because it considers their death necessary, it enters into a world where very different people operate. moral laws, crosses the line beyond which genocide begins.” Do you agree with the idea that the death of Nicholas II, his family and all members of the Romanov family was necessary for the Bolsheviks?

“The political meaning of this crime seems clear: they wanted to destroy representatives of the ruling dynasty. This is how the murder of Tsarevich Alexei should be understood. In the spring and summer of 1918, the Bolsheviks killed all the Romanovs who fell into their hands. At the same time, they did not report these crimes, fearing not so much that they would be condemned in the world, but rather their ally, the head of the German monarchy.

The death of Nicholas II and his family, as well as the “Red Terror” that began in August 1918, more clearly than the Bolshevik coup itself, symbolize the birth of a totalitarian regime that did not take into account the lives of individuals or social groups. The Great Terror is illustrated by the national operations of the NKVD, including the “Polish operation” of 1937-38, they show that the Bolsheviks always found a reason to exterminate inconvenient groups of the population. Romanov's death was not only an omen of mass terror, but also the most striking symbol of what the then nascent Bolshevik regime actually was.

- Thank you for the conversation.

InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.

Nature did not give Nicholas the properties important for the sovereign that his late father possessed. Most importantly, Nikolai did not have the “mind of the heart” - political instinct, foresight and that inner strength that those around him feel and obey. However, Nikolai himself felt his weakness, helplessness before fate. He even foresaw his bitter destiny: “I will undergo severe trials, but will not see reward on earth.” Nikolai considered himself an eternal loser: “I succeed in nothing in my endeavors. I have no luck”... Moreover, he not only turned out to be unprepared for ruling, but also did not like state affairs, which were torment for him, a heavy burden: “A day of rest for me - no reports, no receptions... I read a lot - again they sent heaps of papers…” (from the diary). He didn’t have his father’s passion or dedication to his work. He said: “I... try not to think about anything and find that this is the only way to rule Russia.” At the same time, dealing with him was extremely difficult. Nikolai was secretive and vindictive. Witte called him a “Byzantine” who knew how to attract a person with his trust and then deceive him. One wit wrote about the king: “He doesn’t lie, but he doesn’t tell the truth either.”

KHODYNKA

And three days later [after the coronation of Nicholas on May 14, 1896 in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin] on the suburban Khodynskoye field, where public festivities were supposed to take place, a terrible tragedy occurred. Thousands of people, already in the evening, on the eve of the day of festivities, began to gather there, hoping in the morning to be among the first to receive at the “buffet” (of which a hundred were prepared) the royal gift - one of 400 thousand gifts wrapped in a colored scarf, consisting of a “food set” ( half a pound of sausage, sausage, sweets, nuts, gingerbread), and most importantly - an outlandish, “eternal” enameled mug with a royal monogram and gilding. The Khodynskoe field was a training ground and was all pitted with ditches, trenches and holes. The night turned out to be moonless, dark, crowds of “guests” arrived and arrived, heading to the “buffets”. People, not seeing the road in front of them, fell into holes and ditches, and from behind they were pressed and pressed by those who were approaching from Moscow. […]

In total, by morning, about half a million Muscovites had gathered on Khodynka, compacted into huge crowds. As V. A. Gilyarovsky recalled,

“steam began to rise above the million-strong crowd, similar to swamp fog... The crush was terrible. Many became ill, some lost consciousness, unable to get out or even fall: deprived of feelings, with their eyes closed, compressed as if in a vice, they swayed along with the mass.”

The crush intensified when the bartenders, fearing the onslaught of the crowd, began handing out gifts without waiting for the announced deadline...

According to official data, 1,389 people died, although in reality there were much more victims. The blood ran cold even among seasoned military men and firefighters: scalped heads, crushed chests, premature babies lying in the dust... The king learned about this disaster in the morning, but did not cancel any of the planned festivities and in the evening he opened a ball with the charming wife of the French ambassador Montebello... And although the tsar later visited hospitals and donated money to the families of the victims, it was too late. The indifference shown by the sovereign to his people in the first hours of the disaster cost him dearly. He received the nickname "Nicholas the Bloody".

NICHOLAS II AND THE ARMY

When he was heir to the throne, the young Sovereign received thorough combat training, not only in the guard, but also in the army infantry. At the request of his sovereign father, he served as a junior officer in the 65th Moscow Infantry Regiment (the first time a member of the Royal House was assigned to the army infantry). The observant and sensitive Tsarevich became familiar with the life of the troops in every detail and, having become Emperor of All Russia, turned all his attention to improving this life. His first orders streamlined production in the chief officer ranks, increased salaries and pensions, and improved soldiers' allowances. He canceled the passage with a ceremonial march and run, knowing from experience how difficult it was for the troops.

Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich retained this love and affection for his troops until his martyrdom. Characteristic of Emperor Nicholas II’s love for the troops is his avoidance of the official term “lower rank.” The Emperor considered him too dry, official and always used the words: “Cossack”, “hussar”, “shooter”, etc. It is impossible to read the lines of the Tobolsk diary of the dark days of the cursed year without deep emotion:

December 6. My name day... At 12 o'clock a prayer service was served. The riflemen of the 4th regiment, who were in the garden, who were on guard, all congratulated me, and I congratulated them on the regimental holiday.”

FROM THE DIARY OF NICHOLAS II FOR 1905

June 15th. Wednesday. Hot quiet day. Alix and I took a very long time at the Farm and were a full hour late for breakfast. Uncle Alexei was waiting for him with the children in the garden. Took a long trip in a kayak. Aunt Olga arrived for tea. Swimmed in the sea. After lunch we went for a drive.

I received stunning news from Odessa that the crew of the battleship Prince Potemkin-Tavrichesky that arrived there had mutinied, killed the officers and taken possession of the ship, threatening unrest in the city. I just can't believe it!

Today the war with Turkey began. Early in the morning, the Turkish squadron approached Sevastopol in the fog and opened fire on the batteries, and left half an hour later. At the same time, “Breslau” bombarded Feodosia, and “Goeben” appeared in front of Novorossiysk.

The scoundrel Germans continue to retreat hastily in western Poland.

MANIFESTO ON THE DISSOLUTION OF THE 1st STATE DUMA JULY 9, 1906

By Our will, people chosen from the population were called to legislative construction […] Firmly trusting in the mercy of God, believing in the bright and great future of Our people, We expected from their labors the good and benefit for the country. […] We have planned major transformations in all sectors of the people’s life, and Our main concern has always been to dispel the people’s darkness with the light of enlightenment and the people’s hardships by easing land labor. A severe test has been sent down to Our expectations. Those elected from the population, instead of working on legislative construction, deviated into an area that did not belong to them and turned to investigating the actions of local authorities appointed by Us, to pointing out to Us the imperfections of the Fundamental Laws, changes to which can only be undertaken by Our Monarch’s will, and to actions that are clearly illegal, such as an appeal on behalf of the Duma to the population. […]

Confused by such disorders, the peasantry, not expecting a legal improvement in their situation, moved in a number of provinces to open robbery, theft of other people's property, disobedience to the law and legitimate authorities. […]

But let our subjects remember that only with complete order and tranquility is a lasting improvement in the people’s life possible. Let it be known that We will not allow any self-will or lawlessness and with all the might of the state we will bring those who disobey the law to submission to our Royal will. We call on all right-thinking Russian people to unite to maintain legitimate power and restore peace in our dear Fatherland.

May peace be restored in the Russian land, and may the Almighty help us to carry out the most important of our royal labors - raising the well-being of the peasantry. an honest way to expand your land holdings. Persons of other classes will, at Our call, make every effort to carry out this great task, the final decision of which in the legislative order will belong to the future composition of the Duma.

We, dissolving the current composition of the State Duma, confirm at the same time Our constant intention to keep in force the very law on the establishment of this institution and, in accordance with this Decree of Ours to the Governing Senate on July 8th, set the time for its new convening on February 20, 1907 of the year.

MANIFESTO ON THE DISSOLUTION OF THE II STATE DUMA JUNE 3, 1907

To our regret, a significant part of the composition of the second State Duma did not live up to our expectations. Many of the people sent from the population began to work not with a pure heart, not with a desire to strengthen Russia and improve its system, but with a clear desire to increase unrest and contribute to the disintegration of the state. The activities of these individuals in the State Duma served as an insurmountable obstacle to fruitful work. A spirit of hostility was introduced into the environment of the Duma itself, which prevented a sufficient number of its members who wanted to work for the benefit of their native land from uniting.

For this reason, the State Duma either did not consider the extensive measures developed by our government at all, or delayed discussion or rejected it, not even stopping at rejecting laws that punished the open praise of crimes and especially punished the sowers of trouble in the troops. Avoiding condemnation of murders and violence. The State Duma did not provide moral assistance to the government in establishing order, and Russia continues to experience the shame of criminal hard times. The slow consideration by the State Duma of the state painting caused difficulties in the timely satisfaction of many urgent needs of the people.

A significant part of the Duma turned the right to interrogate the government into a way of fighting the government and inciting distrust of it among broad sections of the population. Finally, an act unheard of in the annals of history took place. The judiciary uncovered a conspiracy by an entire part of the State Duma against the state and tsarist power. When our government demanded the temporary, until the end of the trial, removal of the fifty-five members of the Duma accused of this crime and the detention of the most incriminated of them, the State Duma did not fulfill the immediate legal demand of the authorities, which did not allow any delay. […]

Created to strengthen the Russian state, the State Duma must be Russian in spirit. Other nationalities that were part of our state should have representatives of their needs in the State Duma, but they should not and will not appear in a number that gives them the opportunity to be arbiters of purely Russian issues. In those outskirts of the state where the population has not achieved sufficient development of citizenship, elections to the State Duma should be temporarily suspended.

Holy Fools and Rasputin

The king, and especially the queen, were susceptible to mysticism. The closest maid of honor to Alexandra Fedorovna and Nicholas II, Anna Alexandrovna Vyrubova (Taneeva), wrote in her memoirs: “The Emperor, like his ancestor Alexander I, was always mystically inclined; The empress was equally mystically inclined... Their Majesties said that they believe that there are people, as in the time of the Apostles... who possess the grace of God and whose prayer the Lord hears.”

Because of this, in the Winter Palace one could often see various holy fools, “blessed” people, fortune tellers, people supposedly capable of influencing people’s destinies. This is Pasha the perspicacious, and Matryona the barefoot, and Mitya Kozelsky, and Anastasia Nikolaevna Leuchtenbergskaya (Stana) - the wife of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich Jr. The doors of the royal palace were wide open for all sorts of rogues and adventurers, such as, for example, the Frenchman Philip (real name Nizier Vashol), who presented the empress with an icon with a bell, which was supposed to ring when people “with bad intentions” approached Alexandra Feodorovna. .

But the crown of royal mysticism was Grigory Efimovich Rasputin, who managed to completely subjugate the queen, and through her, the king. “Now it is not the tsar who rules, but the rogue Rasputin,” Bogdanovich noted in February 1912. “All respect for the tsar has disappeared.” The same idea was expressed on August 3, 1916 by former Minister of Foreign Affairs S.D. Sazonov in a conversation with M. Paleologus: “The Emperor reigns, but the Empress, inspired by Rasputin, rules.”

Rasputin […] quickly recognized all the weaknesses of the royal couple and skillfully took advantage of it. Alexandra Fedorovna wrote to her husband in September 1916: “I fully believe in the wisdom of our Friend, sent to Him by God, to advise what you and our country need.” “Listen to Him,” she instructed Nicholas II, “...God sent Him to you as an assistant and leader.” […]

It got to the point that individual governors-general, chief prosecutors of the Holy Synod and ministers were appointed and removed by the tsar on the recommendation of Rasputin, transmitted through the tsarina. On January 20, 1916, on his advice, V.V. was appointed chairman of the Council of Ministers. Sturmer is “an absolutely unprincipled person and a complete nonentity,” as Shulgin described him.

Radzig E.S. Nicholas II in the memoirs of those close to him. New and recent history. No. 2, 1999

REFORM AND COUNTER-REFORMS

The most promising path of development for the country through consistent democratic reforms turned out to be impossible. Although it was marked, as if by a dotted line, even under Alexander I, later it was either subject to distortion or even interrupted. Under that autocratic form of government, which throughout the 19th century. remained unshakable in Russia, the final word on any issue about the fate of the country belonged to the monarchs. They, by the whim of history, alternated: reformer Alexander I - reactionary Nicholas I, reformer Alexander II - counter-reformer Alexander III (Nicholas II, who ascended the throne in 1894, also had to undergo reforms after his father’s counter-reforms at the beginning of the next century) .

DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIA DURING THE REIGN OF NICHOLAS II

The main executor of all transformations in the first decade of the reign of Nicholas II (1894-1904) was S.Yu. Witte. A talented financier and statesman, S. Witte, having headed the Ministry of Finance in 1892, promised Alexander III, without carrying out political reforms, to make Russia one of the leading industrialized countries in 20 years.

The industrialization policy developed by Witte required significant capital investments from the budget. One of the sources of capital was the introduction of a state monopoly on wine and vodka products in 1894, which became the main revenue item of the budget.

In 1897, a monetary reform was carried out. Measures to increase taxes, increased gold production, and the conclusion of external loans made it possible to introduce gold coins into circulation instead of paper bills, which helped attract foreign capital to Russia and strengthen the country's monetary system, thanks to which state income doubled. The reform of commercial and industrial taxation carried out in 1898 introduced a trade tax.

The real result of Witte's economic policy was the accelerated development of industrial and railway construction. In the period from 1895 to 1899, an average of 3 thousand kilometers of tracks were built in the country per year.

By 1900, Russia took first place in the world in oil production.

By the end of 1903, there were 23 thousand factory enterprises operating in Russia with approximately 2,200 thousand workers. Politics S.Yu. Witte gave impetus to the development of Russian industry, commercial and industrial entrepreneurship, and the economy.

According to the project of P.A. Stolypin, agrarian reform began: peasants were allowed to freely dispose of their land, leave the community and run farmsteads. The attempt to abolish the rural community was of great importance for the development of capitalist relations in the countryside.

Chapter 19. The reign of Nicholas II (1894-1917). Russian history

BEGINNING OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR

On the same day, July 29, at the insistence of the Chief of the General Staff Yanushkevich, Nicholas II signed a decree on general mobilization. In the evening, the head of the mobilization department of the General Staff, General Dobrorolsky, arrived at the building of the St. Petersburg main telegraph and personally brought there the text of the decree on mobilization for communication to all parts of the empire. There were literally a few minutes left before the devices were supposed to start transmitting the telegram. And suddenly Dobrorolsky was given the tsar’s order to suspend the transfer of the decree. It turned out that the tsar received a new telegram from Wilhelm. In his telegram, the Kaiser again assured that he would try to reach an agreement between Russia and Austria, and asked the Tsar not to make this difficult for him with military preparations. After reading the telegram, Nikolai informed Sukhomlinov that he was canceling the decree on general mobilization. The Tsar decided to limit himself to partial mobilization directed only against Austria.

Sazonov, Yanushkevich and Sukhomlinov were extremely concerned that Nikolai had succumbed to the influence of Wilhelm. They were afraid that Germany would get ahead of Russia in the concentration and deployment of the army. They met on the morning of July 30 and decided to try to convince the king. Yanushkevich and Sukhomlinov tried to do this over the phone. However, Nikolai dryly announced to Yanushkevich that he was ending the conversation. The general nevertheless managed to inform the tsar that Sazonov was present in the room, who would also like to say a few words to him. After a short silence, the king agreed to listen to the minister. Sazonov asked for an audience for an urgent report. Nikolai was silent again, and then offered to come to him at 3 o’clock. Sazonov agreed with his interlocutors that if he convinced the Tsar, he would immediately call Yanushkevich from the Peterhof Palace, and he would give an order to the main telegraph to the officer on duty to communicate the decree to all military districts. “After this,” Yanushkevich said, “I will leave home, break the phone, and generally make it so that I can no longer be found for a new cancellation of the general mobilization.”

For almost an entire hour, Sazonov proved to Nikolai that war was inevitable anyway, since Germany was striving for it, and that under these conditions, delaying general mobilization was extremely dangerous. In the end, Nikolai agreed. […] From the lobby, Sazonov called Yanushkevich and reported the tsar’s sanction. “Now you can break your phone,” he added. At 5 pm on July 30, all the machines of the main St. Petersburg telegraph started knocking. They sent out the tsar's decree on general mobilization to all military districts. On July 31, in the morning, it became public.

The beginning of the First World War. History of Diplomacy. Volume 2. Edited by V. P. Potemkin. Moscow-Leningrad, 1945

THE REIGN OF NICHOLAS II IN THE ASSESSMENTS OF HISTORIANS

In emigration, there was a split among researchers in assessing the personality of the last king. The debates often became harsh, and the participants in the discussions took opposing positions, from praise on the conservative right flank to criticism from liberals and denigration on the left, socialist flank.

The monarchists who worked in exile included S. Oldenburg, N. Markov, I. Solonevich. According to I. Solonevich: “Nicholas II, a man of “average abilities,” faithfully and honestly did everything for Russia that He knew how to do, that He could. No one else was able or able to do more”... “Left-wing historians speak of Emperor Nicholas II as mediocrity, right-wing historians as an idol whose talents or mediocrity are not subject to discussion.” […].

An even more right-wing monarchist, N. Markov, noted: “The sovereign himself was slandered and defamed in the eyes of his people, he could not withstand the evil pressure of all those who, it would seem, were obliged to strengthen and defend the monarchy in every possible way” […].

The largest researcher of the reign of the last Russian Tsar is S. Oldenburg, whose work remains of paramount importance in the 21st century. For any researcher of the Nicholas period of Russian history, it is necessary, in the process of studying this era, to get acquainted with the work of S. Oldenburg “The Reign of Emperor Nicholas II”. […].

The left-liberal direction was represented by P. N. Milyukov, who stated in the book “The Second Russian Revolution”: “Concessions to power (Manifesto of October 17, 1905) not only could not satisfy society and the people because they were insufficient and incomplete. They were insincere and deceitful, and the power that gave them did not for a moment look at them as if they had been ceded forever and finally” […].

Socialist A.F. Kerensky wrote in “History of Russia”: “The reign of Nicholas II was fatal for Russia due to his personal qualities. But he was clear about one thing: having entered the war and linking the fate of Russia with the fate of the countries allied with it, he did not make any tempting compromises with Germany until the very end, until his martyrdom […]. The king bore the burden of power. She weighed him down internally... He had no will to power. He kept it according to oath and tradition” […].

Modern Russian historians have different assessments of the reign of the last Russian Tsar. The same split was observed among scholars of the reign of Nicholas II in exile. Some of them were monarchists, others had liberal views, and others considered themselves supporters of socialism. In our time, the historiography of the reign of Nicholas II can be divided into three directions, such as in emigrant literature. But in relation to the post-Soviet period, clarifications are also needed: modern researchers who praise the tsar are not necessarily monarchists, although a certain tendency is certainly present: A. Bokhanov, O. Platonov, V. Multatuli, M. Nazarov.

A. Bokhanov, the largest modern historian in the study of pre-revolutionary Russia, positively assesses the reign of Emperor Nicholas II: “In 1913, peace, order, and prosperity reigned all around. Russia confidently moved forward, no unrest occurred. Industry worked at full capacity, agriculture developed dynamically, and every year brought greater harvests. Prosperity grew, and the purchasing power of the population increased year by year. The rearmament of the army has begun, a few more years - and Russian military power will become the first force in the world” […].

Conservative historian V. Shambarov speaks positively about the last tsar, noting that the tsar was too lenient in dealing with his political enemies, who were also enemies of Russia: “Russia was destroyed not by autocratic “despotism,” but rather by the weakness and toothlessness of power.” The Tsar too often tried to find a compromise, to come to an agreement with the liberals, so that there would be no bloodshed between the government and part of the people deceived by the liberals and socialists. To do this, Nicholas II dismissed loyal, decent, competent ministers who were loyal to the monarchy and instead appointed either unprofessionals or secret enemies of the autocratic monarchy, or swindlers. […].

M. Nazarov in his book “To the Leader of the Third Rome” drew attention to the aspect of the global conspiracy of the financial elite to overthrow the Russian monarchy... […] According to the description of Admiral A. Bubnov, an atmosphere of conspiracy reigned at Headquarters. At the decisive moment, in response to Alekseev’s cleverly formulated request for abdication, only two generals publicly expressed loyalty to the Sovereign and readiness to lead their troops to pacify the rebellion (General Khan Nakhichevansky and General Count F.A. Keller). The rest welcomed the abdication by wearing red bows. Including the future founders of the White Army, Generals Alekseev and Kornilov (the latter then had the task of announcing to the royal family the order of the Provisional Government for its arrest). Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich also violated his oath on March 1, 1917 - even before the Tsar’s abdication and as a means of putting pressure on him! - removed his military unit (the Guards crew) from guarding the royal family, came to the State Duma under a red flag, provided this headquarters of the Masonic revolution with his guards to guard the arrested royal ministers and issued a call for other troops to “join the new government.” “There is cowardice, treason, and deceit all around,” these were the last words in the tsar’s diary on the night of his abdication […].

Representatives of the old socialist ideology, for example, A.M. Anfimov and E.S. Radzig, on the contrary, negatively assess the reign of the last Russian Tsar, calling the years of his reign a chain of crimes against the people.

Between two directions - praise and overly harsh, unfair criticism are the works of Ananich B.V., N.V. Kuznetsov and P. Cherkasov. […]

P. Cherkasov adheres to the middle in his assessment of the reign of Nicholas: “From the pages of all the works mentioned in the review, the tragic personality of the last Russian Tsar appears - a deeply decent and delicate man to the point of shyness, an exemplary Christian, a loving husband and father, faithful to his duty and at the same time an unremarkable statesman an activist, a prisoner of once and for all acquired convictions in the inviolability of the order of things bequeathed to him by his ancestors. He was neither a despot, much less an executioner of his people, as our official historiography claimed, but during his lifetime he was not a saint, as is sometimes now claimed, although by martyrdom he undoubtedly atoned for all the sins and mistakes of his reign. The drama of Nicholas II as a politician lies in his mediocrity, in the discrepancy between the scale of his personality and the challenge of the time” […].

And finally, there are historians of liberal views, such as K. Shatsillo, A. Utkin. According to the first: “Nicholas II, unlike his grandfather Alexander II, not only did not give overdue reforms, but even if they were wrested from him by force by the revolutionary movement, he stubbornly strove to take back what was given “in a moment of hesitation.” All this “driven” the country into a new revolution, making it completely inevitable... A. Utkin went even further, agreeing to the point that the Russian government was one of the culprits of the First World War, wanting a clash with Germany. At the same time, the tsarist administration simply did not calculate the strength of Russia: “Criminal pride destroyed Russia. Under no circumstances should she go to war with the industrial champion of the continent. Russia had the opportunity to avoid a fatal conflict with Germany.”

Nicholas II is a controversial personality, historians speak very negatively about his rule of Russia, most people who know and analyze history are inclined to believe that the last All-Russian Emperor had little interest in politics, did not keep up with the times, slowed down the development of the country, was not a visionary ruler, was able to catch the current in time, did not keep his nose to the wind, and even then, when everything practically went to hell, dissatisfaction was already building not only among the lower classes, but also at the top, they were indignant, even then Nicholas II was unable to draw any correct conclusions. He did not believe that his removal from governing the country was real; in fact, he was doomed to become the last autocrat in Rus'. But Nicholas II was an excellent family man. He should be, for example, a Grand Duke, not an emperor, and not delve into politics. Five children are no joke; raising them requires a lot of attention and effort. Nicholas II loved his wife for many years, missed her in separation, and did not lose his physical and mental attraction to her even after many years of marriage.

I collected many photographs of Nicholas II, his wife Alexandra Feodorovna (nee Princess Victoria Alice Elena Louise Beatrice of Hesse-Darmstadt, daughter of Ludwig IV), their children: daughters Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, son Alexei.

This family loved to be photographed, and the shots turned out very beautiful, spiritual, and bright. Look at the attractive faces of the children of the last Russian Emperor. These girls did not know marriage, never kissed their lovers and could not know the joys and sorrows of love. And they died a martyr's death. Although they were not guilty of anything. Many people died in those days. But this family was the most famous, the highest-ranking, and her death still haunts anyone, a black page in the history of Russia, the brutal murder of the royal family. The fate in store for these beauties was this: girls were born in turbulent times. Many people dream of being born in a palace, with a golden spoon in their mouth: to be princesses, princes, kings, queens, kings and queens. But how often was the life of blue-blooded people difficult? They were caught, killed, poisoned, strangled, and very often their own people, close to the royals, destroyed and occupied the vacant throne, alluring with its limitless possibilities.

Alexander II was blown up by a Narodnaya Volya member, Paul II was killed by the conspirators, Peter III died under mysterious circumstances, Ivan VI was also destroyed, the list of these unfortunates can be continued for a very long time. And those who were not killed did not live long by today’s standards; they would either get sick or undermine their health while running the country. And it was not only in Russia that there was such a high mortality rate for royalty; there are countries where it was even more dangerous for reigning individuals to be there. But all the same, everyone was always so zealous for the throne, and they pushed their children there at any cost. I wanted, although not for long, to live well, beautifully, go down in history, take advantage of all the benefits, live in luxury, be able to order slaves, decide the destinies of people and rule the country.

But Nicholas II never longed to be an emperor, but understood that being the ruler of the Russian Empire was his duty, his destiny, especially since he was a fatalist in everything.

Today we will not talk about politics, we will just look at photographs.

In this photo you see Nicholas II and his wife Alexandra Fedorovna, as the couple dressed for a costume ball.

In this photo, Nicholas II is still very young, his mustache is just emerging.

Nicholas II in childhood.

In this photo, Nicholas II with his long-awaited heir Alexei.

Nicholas II with his mother Maria Fedorovna.

In this photo, Nicholas II with his parents, sisters and brothers.

The future wife of Nicholas II, then Princess Victoria Alice Elena Louise Beatrice of Hesse-Darmstadt.

Titled from birth His Imperial Highness Grand Duke Nikolai Alexandrovich. After the death of his grandfather, Emperor Alexander II, in 1881 he received the title of Heir Tsesarevich.

...neither by his figure nor by his ability to speak, the tsar touched the soldier’s soul and did not make the impression that was necessary to lift the spirit and strongly attract hearts to himself. He did what he could, and one cannot blame him in this case, but he did not produce good results in the sense of inspiration.

Childhood, education and upbringing

Nikolai received his home education as part of a large gymnasium course and in the 1890s - according to a specially written program that combined the course of the state and economic departments of the university law faculty with the course of the Academy of the General Staff.

The upbringing and training of the future emperor took place under the personal guidance of Alexander III on a traditional religious basis. Nicholas II's studies were conducted according to a carefully developed program for 13 years. The first eight years were devoted to the subjects of the extended gymnasium course. Particular attention was paid to the study of political history, Russian literature, English, German and French, which Nikolai Alexandrovich mastered to perfection. The next five years were devoted to the study of military affairs, legal and economic sciences necessary for a statesman. Lectures were given by outstanding Russian academicians of world renown: N. N. Beketov, N. N. Obruchev, Ts. A. Cui, M. I. Dragomirov, N. H. Bunge, K. P. Pobedonostsev and others. Presbyter I. L. Yanyshev taught the Tsarevich canon law in connection with the history of the church, the most important departments of theology and the history of religion.

Emperor Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. 1896

For the first two years, Nikolai served as a junior officer in the ranks of the Preobrazhensky Regiment. For two summer seasons he served in the ranks of a cavalry hussar regiment as a squadron commander, and then a camp training in the ranks of the artillery. On August 6 he was promoted to colonel. At the same time, his father introduces him to the affairs of governing the country, inviting him to participate in meetings of the State Council and the Cabinet of Ministers. At the suggestion of the Minister of Railways S. Yu. Witte, Nikolai in 1892, in order to gain experience in government affairs, was appointed chairman of the committee for the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway. By the age of 23, Nikolai Romanov was a widely educated man.

The emperor's education program included travel to various provinces of Russia, which he made together with his father. To complete his education, his father allocated a cruiser at his disposal for a trip to the Far East. In nine months, he and his retinue visited Austria-Hungary, Greece, Egypt, India, China, Japan, and later returned to the capital of Russia by land through all of Siberia. In Japan, an attempt was made on Nicholas's life (see Otsu Incident). A shirt with blood stains is kept in the Hermitage.

His education was combined with deep religiosity and mysticism. “The Emperor, like his ancestor Alexander I, was always mystically inclined,” recalled Anna Vyrubova.

The ideal ruler for Nicholas II was Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich the Quiet.

Lifestyle, habits

Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich Mountain landscape. 1886 Paper, watercolor Signature on the drawing: “Nicky. 1886. July 22” The drawing is pasted on the passe-partout

Most of the time, Nicholas II lived with his family in the Alexander Palace. In the summer he vacationed in Crimea at the Livadia Palace. For recreation, he also annually made two-week trips around the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea on the yacht “Standart”. I read both light entertainment literature and serious scientific works, often on historical topics. He smoked cigarettes, the tobacco for which was grown in Turkey and sent to him as a gift from the Turkish Sultan. Nicholas II was fond of photography and also loved watching films. All his children also took photographs. Nikolai began keeping a diary at the age of 9. The archive contains 50 voluminous notebooks - the original diary for 1882-1918. Some of them were published.

Nikolai and Alexandra

The first meeting of the Tsarevich with his future wife took place in 1884, and in 1889 Nicholas asked his father for his blessing to marry her, but was refused.

All correspondence between Alexandra Feodorovna and Nicholas II has been preserved. Only one letter from Alexandra Feodorovna was lost; all her letters were numbered by the empress herself.

Contemporaries assessed the empress differently.

The Empress was infinitely kind and infinitely compassionate. It was these properties of her nature that were the motivating reasons for the phenomena that gave rise to intriguing people, people without conscience and heart, people blinded by the thirst for power, to unite among themselves and use these phenomena in the eyes of the dark masses and the idle and narcissistic part of the intelligentsia, greedy for sensations, to discredit The Royal Family for their dark and selfish purposes. The Empress became attached with all her soul to people who really suffered or skillfully acted out their suffering in front of her. She herself suffered too much in life, both as a conscious person - for her homeland oppressed by Germany, and as a mother - for her passionately and endlessly beloved son. Therefore, she could not help but be too blind to other people approaching her, who were also suffering or who seemed to be suffering... ...The Empress, of course, sincerely and strongly loved Russia, just as the Sovereign loved her.