Between war and shame. What pushed Nicholas II to refuse the throne?
100 years ago, on March 15 (March 2, old style), 1917, on the paper formed the words: “we have Recognized for the benefit to abdicate the Throne of the Russian State and lay down the Supreme Power.”
Event that occurred in March of 1917, became fatal for Russia. The abdication of the king, and not a shot of the “Aurora” in October irrevocably divided the country’s history into “before” and “after”. Chronicle of those March days scheduled by the hour. But the record of events does not answer the main questions: who and what prompted the Emperor to take this step? Did Nicholas the right to refuse the throne? Who betrayed whom: the subjects of the king, or Vice versa? We will try to find the answers.
“I changed everything! Alone, without a close adviser, I signed the act of abdication… If it’s necessary for the good of the Motherland, I’ll do anything… ” — this gave reflections of his Confessor Nicholas, mitred Archpriest Afanasy Beliaev.
Who betrayed?
Here’s a snippet from the letter of Paul Miliukov, leader of the cadet party: “of Course, we must recognize that the responsibility for the happened lies with us, that is, the progressive bloc of the Duma. We proceeded from the assumption that the coup one way or another, Nicholas II will be removed from the throne.” In a public speech on the eve of the March 2, Milyukov was even tougher:
The old despot, who has brought Russia to complete ruin, voluntarily renounce the throne or be deposed. The power will go to the Regent Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich. The heir will be Alexeyeva Milwaulee the cadets
It is a strategy. But and tactics from a member of the State Council, Chairman of the Central military-industrial Committee Guchkov Alexander: “it was Planned to capture the road between the Bid and the Tsarskoye Selo Imperial train, to force a recantation, and then, simultaneously, through the military units to arrest the existing government and then declare a revolution, and the persons who will head the government.”
And even Vasily Shulgin, while the Deputy of the State Duma, and later a prominent monarchist and ideologist of the White movement, said: “the Need for renunciation was unanimously adopted by all… When I went to the Emperor, I was tormented by the thought — is it really impossible to avert? No, you cannot. So it is necessary. There is no way out.” Shulgin went to the Emperor on the case — a quarter of an hour he will receive from his act of abdication. Once that happens, the tone will change:
I felt that the life of the Emperor in safety. Half the spikes plunged into the heart of his subjects, and was spared that shred pumahuali Shulgin
However, the next day a decision will be made about the arrest of the Emperor himself, or, rather, a “Colonel N. A. Romanov”.
The same deceit was apparent in telegrams from the commanders of fronts. Leaders of the state Duma has notified them of the impending event in advance. The tone of the generals at the same time harsh and servile. “In the name of saving the Motherland and the dynasty make a decision in agreement with the statement of the Chairman of the State Duma, as the only one able to stop the revolution and to save Russia from the horrors of anarchy”.
In the name of homeland
Of two evils — the renunciation or the Civil war — Nicholas chose what seemed to him the lesser.
A lawyer and Chamberlain of the Imperial court Ivan tkhorzhevskaya members said: “Not the king relied on public institutions. On the contrary, they were kept. When the Emperor abdicated, instantly was like off the electric current, and the whole of Russia was plunged into total darkness. Remained coercion, force, passing from hand to hand.” By and large, it was Nicholas his refusal of the throne launched a process of Civil war. The society was divided into those who supported the abdication, and those who were outraged by them. And it was not familiar to us white and red. Hell took place in the most unexpected places.
Here is the reaction of the Church, which, in fact, supposed to be “the pillar and backbone of autocracy.” Pereslavl Bishop Innokenty (Figurovsky): “Rejoice and exult — overthrown God from the throne the weak-willed Emperor. And by the will of God, not the will of the people as unbelievers think put in charge of the Fatherland the best people.” Bishop Alexander Michael (Kosmodemyanskaya) put tougher: “Christ has Risen and fallen fiendish chain. PAL autocratic system, despotic regime, and collapsed to the shackles!”.
Here is the reaction of General Alexei Ignatiev: “the King has broken his oath in my presence, under the ancient vaults of the Dormition Cathedral during the coronation. Russian Tsar to abdicate.” As a result, it pushed him, like many other senior officers, go to the side of the Reds.
Here is a relative of Nicholas, the Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich, gives an interview to the newspaper “stock Exchange news”: “the Grand Duke is happy to be a free citizen, and that his Palace waving a red flag. Ahead I see only shining star of the people’s happiness!”.
Everything is permitted?
And what about the people who have to Shine those stars? How he reacted to the abdication of the king and “the treason of the elites”?
“The idea that the events of February — March 1917 — the handiwork of only the elite, not quite right, — said Vasily Tsvetkov, the doctor of historical Sciences, Professor of Moscow state pedagogical University. — Abdication of Nicholas II was, of course, genuine and legally justified. And not all generals were in “conspiracy”. Many now believe that Russia was then “God-bearing people”, which confused and messed up “evil conspirators” of the inner circle of the king. But revolution — motion of a mass protest. At the same time, it is important to note one thing: on the eve of the abdication of the Emperor conversed with General Nikolai Ruzsky. In particular, the fact that his refusal of the throne, the people and the troops do not understand. This refers to the South of Russia — the brand, the new Russia, the Cossacks of don, Kuban… And he was right — it was there that the White movement has received the most public support.
Monarchist sentiment was strong among staff officers, of the peasantry, the Cossacks, nobles, clergy… And there is shock caused not so much the abdication of Nicholas how much the actual fall of the monarchy due to the failure of the throne of Mikhail Romanov. It is no coincidence that during the Civil war, some of the peasant uprising has advanced paradoxical, it would seem that the slogan “Tsar and the Soviets”.
Many older people do not see life without a king, so Civil war is partly a conflict between fathers and children.
Let’s not forget that part of society was already configured to revolt. And that’s where the renunciation has caused a violent reaction: “the King betrayed us, violated the oath, and hence we are now everything is permitted!”.
Chronicle
March 14 (new style). In Petrograd, the Chairman of the Provisional Committee of the State Duma M. Rodzyanko proposes the establishment of a constitutional monarchy. In Pskov, where he arrived on the Royal train, send the appropriate telegram. By evening, the commander of the Northern front, General N. Ruzsky persuaded Nicholas II to allow the formation of a government accountable to the Duma, not the monarch.
March 15. The power in Petrograd finally goes to the Petrograd Soviet. The idea of new councilors — the abdication of Nicholas II from power in favor of his son Alexei under the Regency of his younger brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. By mid-day the king managed to persuade. However, the night Nicholas II decides to abdicate and his son, since to him after the accession to the throne will have to live in the family of the Regent, and the boy is terminally ill.
March 16 in the capital of century kN. Mikhail holds a Council with the most authoritative deputies of the Duma. On the advice of the majority he decides the government is not to take it, because the people opposed to the monarchy. Signed the renunciation with the condition that after six months in the country will be convened the Constituent Assembly to determine the future form of government.