Nicholas 2 the last will of the emperor watch online. "Nicholas II

Exactly a century ago, on the night of March 2-3, old style, in a train carriage at the Pskov railway station, Emperor Nicholas II, in the presence of the Minister of the Court and two deputies of the State Duma, signed a document in which he abdicated the throne. So in an instant the monarchy fell in Russia and the three-hundred-year-old Romanov dynasty ended. However, as it turns out, this story is full of “blank spots” even a hundred years later. Scientists argue: did the emperor really abdicate the throne himself, of his own free will, or was he forced? For a long time, the main reason for doubt was the act of renunciation - a simple piece of paper, carelessly drawn up and signed in pencil. In addition, in 1917 this paper disappeared and was found only in 1929.

The film presents the result of numerous examinations, during which the authenticity of the act was proven, and also provides unique evidence from the person who accepted the abdication of Nicholas II - State Duma deputy Vasily Shulgin. In 1964, his story was filmed by documentary filmmakers, and the film has survived to this day. According to Shulgin, the emperor himself announced to them upon arrival that he was thinking of abdicating in favor of Alexei, but then decided to abdicate for his son in favor of his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich.

It is difficult to imagine what Nikolai was thinking when signing the document. Did you dream about it? That now the time will come for him to find long-awaited peace and family happiness in his beloved Livadia? Did he believe that he was doing this for the good of the country? Did he believe that this gesture would stop the collapse of the empire and allow it to survive, albeit in a modified form, but still as a strong state?

We will never know. The events of the last days of the Russian Empire in the film are recreated on the basis of authentic documents of that era. And from the emperor’s diaries, in particular, it follows that he dreamed of peace, and the autocrat could not even think that he was signing a death warrant for himself and his family...

However, less than a year and a half after the February events, on the night of July 16-17, 1918, the Romanov family and four of their associates were shot in the basement of Ipatiev’s house in Yekaterinburg. This is how this story ended, to which we obsessively return a century later...

Taking part in the film: Sergei Mironenko - scientific director of GARF, Sergei Firsov - historian, biographer of Nicholas II, Fyodor Gaida - historian, Mikhail Shaposhnikov - director of the Silver Age Museum, Kirill Solovyov - historian, Olga Barkovets - curator of the exhibition "Alexander Palace in Tsarskoe Selo" and the Romanovs,” Larisa Bardovskaya – chief curator of the State Museum-Reserve “Tsarskoye Selo”, Georgy Mitrofanov – archpriest, Mikhail Degtyarev – deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, Mikhail Zygar – writer, author of the project “Project1917”.

Exactly 100 years ago, on the night of March 2-3, old style, in a train carriage at the Pskov railway station, Emperor Nicholas II, in the presence of the Minister of the Court and two deputies of the State Duma, signed a document in which he abdicated the throne. So in an instant the monarchy fell in Russia and the three-hundred-year-old Romanov dynasty ended.

Even now, 100 years later, there are many blank spots in the case of the abdication of Nicholas II. Scientists are still arguing: did the emperor really abdicate the throne of his own free will, or was he forced? For a long time, the main reason for doubt was the act of renunciation - a simple A4 piece of paper, carelessly drawn up and signed in pencil. In addition, in 1917 this paper disappeared and was found only in 1929.

What did the emperor think and feel when he signed the abdication of the throne for himself and his son? The events of the last days of the Russian Empire in the film are recreated on the basis of authentic documents of that era - letters, telegrams, as well as the diaries of Emperor Nicholas II. From the diaries it follows that Nicholas II was sure that after the abdication their family would be left alone. He could not foresee that he was signing a death warrant for himself, his wife, daughters and beloved son. Less than a year and a half after the February events, on the night of July 16-17, 1918, the royal family and four of their associates were shot in the basement of Ipatiev’s house in Yekaterinburg.

Taking part in the film:

Sergey Mironenko - scientific director of GARF

Sergei Firsov - historian, biographer of Nicholas II

Fyodor Gaida - historian

Mikhail Shaposhnikov - director of the Silver Age Museum

Kirill Soloviev - historian

Olga Barkovets - curator of the exhibition “The Alexander Palace in Tsarskoe Selo and the Romanovs”

Larisa Bardovskaya - chief curator of the Tsarskoye Selo State Museum-Reserve

Georgy Mitrofanov - archpriest

Mikhail Degtyarev - Deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation

Leading: Valdis Pelsh

Directors: Lyudmila Snigireva, Tatyana Dmitrakova

Producers: Lyudmila Snigireva, Oleg Volnov

Production:"Media Constructor"

Rally in Petrograd, 1917

17 years have already passed since the canonization of the last emperor and his family, but you are still faced with an amazing paradox - many, even quite Orthodox, people dispute the fairness of canonizing Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich.

No one raises any protests or doubts about the legitimacy of the canonization of the son and daughters of the last Russian emperor. I have not heard any objections to the canonization of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. Even at the Council of Bishops in 2000, when it came to the canonization of the Royal Martyrs, a special opinion was expressed only regarding the sovereign himself. One of the bishops said that the emperor did not deserve to be glorified, because “he is a state traitor... he, one might say, sanctioned the collapse of the country.”

And it is clear that in such a situation the spears are not broken at all over the martyrdom or Christian life of Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich. Neither one nor the other raises doubts even among the most rabid monarchy denier. His feat as a passion-bearer is beyond doubt.

The point is different - a latent, subconscious resentment: “Why did the sovereign allow a revolution to happen? Why didn’t you save Russia?” Or, as A. I. Solzhenitsyn so neatly put it in his article “Reflections on the February Revolution”: “Weak tsar, he betrayed us. All of us - for everything that follows."

The myth of the weak king, who supposedly voluntarily surrendered his kingdom, obscures his martyrdom and obscures the demonic cruelty of his tormentors. But what could the sovereign do in the current circumstances, when Russian society, like a herd of Gadarene pigs, was rushing into the abyss for decades?

Studying the history of Nicholas's reign, one is struck not by the weakness of the sovereign, not by his mistakes, but by how much he managed to do in an atmosphere of whipped-up hatred, malice and slander.

We must not forget that the sovereign received autocratic power over Russia completely unexpectedly, after the sudden, unforeseen and unanticipated death of Alexander III. Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich recalled the state of the heir to the throne immediately after his father’s death: “He could not gather his thoughts. He was aware that he had become the Emperor, and this terrible burden of power crushed him. “Sandro, what am I going to do! - he exclaimed pathetically. — What will happen to Russia now? I am not yet prepared to be a King! I can't rule the Empire. I don’t even know how to talk to ministers.”

However, after a brief period of confusion, the new emperor firmly took the helm of government and held it for twenty-two years, until he fell victim to a conspiracy at the top. Until “treason, cowardice, and deception” swirled around him in a dense cloud, as he himself noted in his diary on March 2, 1917.

The black mythology directed against the last sovereign was actively dispelled by both emigrant historians and modern Russian ones. And yet, in the minds of many, including those who are completely churchgoers, of our fellow citizens, evil tales, gossip and anecdotes, which were presented as truth in Soviet history textbooks, stubbornly linger.

The myth of the guilt of Nicholas II in the Khodynka tragedy

It is tacitly customary to start any list of accusations with Khodynka - a terrible stampede that occurred during the coronation celebrations in Moscow on May 18, 1896. You might think that the sovereign ordered this stampede to be organized! And if anyone is to be blamed for what happened, then it would be the emperor’s uncle, Moscow Governor-General Sergei Alexandrovich, who did not foresee the very possibility of such an influx of public. It should be noted that they did not hide what happened, all newspapers wrote about Khodynka, all of Russia knew about her. The next day, the Russian emperor and empress visited all the wounded in hospitals and held a memorial service for the dead. Nicholas II ordered the payment of pensions to the victims. And they received it until 1917, until politicians, who had been speculating on the Khodynka tragedy for years, made it so that any pensions in Russia ceased to be paid at all.

And the slander that has been repeated for years sounds absolutely vile, that the tsar, despite the Khodynka tragedy, went to the ball and had fun there. The sovereign was indeed forced to go to an official reception at the French embassy, which he could not help but attend for diplomatic reasons (an insult to the allies!), paid his respects to the ambassador and left, having spent only 15 (!) minutes there.

And from this they created a myth about a heartless despot, having fun while his subjects die. This is where the absurd nickname “Bloody”, created by radicals and picked up by the educated public, came from.

The myth of the monarch's guilt in starting the Russo-Japanese War

The Emperor bids farewell to the soldiers of the Russo-Japanese War. 1904

They say that the sovereign pushed Russia into the Russo-Japanese War because the autocracy needed a “small victorious war.”

Unlike the “educated” Russian society, which was confident in the inevitable victory and contemptuously called the Japanese “macaques,” the emperor knew very well all the difficulties of the situation in the Far East and tried with all his might to prevent war. And we must not forget that it was Japan that attacked Russia in 1904. Treacherously, without declaring war, the Japanese attacked our ships in Port Arthur.

For the defeats of the Russian army and navy in the Far East, one can blame Kuropatkin, Rozhdestvensky, Stessel, Linevich, Nebogatov, and any of the generals and admirals, but not the sovereign, who was located thousands of miles from the theater of military operations and nevertheless did everything for victory.

For example, the fact that by the end of the war there were 20, and not 4, military trains per day along the unfinished Trans-Siberian Railway (as at the beginning) is the merit of Nicholas II himself.

And our revolutionary society “fought” on the Japanese side, which needed not victory, but defeat, which its representatives themselves honestly admitted. For example, representatives of the Socialist Revolutionary Party clearly wrote in their appeal to Russian officers: “Every victory of yours threatens Russia with the disaster of strengthening order, every defeat brings the hour of deliverance closer. Is it any surprise if the Russians rejoice at the success of your enemy?” Revolutionaries and liberals diligently stirred up trouble in the rear of the warring country, doing this, among other things, with Japanese money. This is now well known.

The Myth of Bloody Sunday

For decades, the standard accusation against the Tsar remained “Bloody Sunday” - the shooting of a supposedly peaceful demonstration on January 9, 1905. Why, they say, didn’t he leave the Winter Palace and fraternize with the people loyal to him?

Let's start with the simplest fact - the sovereign was not in Winter, he was at his country residence, in Tsarskoe Selo. He did not intend to come to the city, since both the mayor I. A. Fullon and the police authorities assured the emperor that they “had everything under control.” By the way, they didn’t deceive Nicholas II too much. In a normal situation, troops deployed to the streets would be enough to prevent unrest.

No one foresaw the scale of the January 9 demonstration, as well as the activities of the provocateurs. When Socialist Revolutionary militants began shooting at soldiers from the crowd of supposedly “peaceful demonstrators,” it was not difficult to foresee retaliatory actions. From the very beginning, the organizers of the demonstration planned a clash with the authorities, and not a peaceful march. They did not need political reforms, they needed “great upheavals.”

But what does the sovereign himself have to do with it? During the entire revolution of 1905-1907, he sought to find contact with Russian society, and made specific and sometimes even overly bold reforms (like the provisions under which the first State Dumas were elected). And what did he receive in response? Spitting and hatred, calls “Down with autocracy!” and encouraging bloody riots.

However, the revolution was not “crushed.” The rebellious society was pacified by the sovereign, who skillfully combined the use of force and new, more thoughtful reforms (the electoral law of June 3, 1907, according to which Russia finally received a normally functioning parliament).

The myth of how the Tsar “surrendered” Stolypin

They reproach the sovereign for allegedly insufficient support for “Stolypin’s reforms.” But who made Pyotr Arkadyevich prime minister, if not Nicholas II himself? Contrary, by the way, to the opinion of the court and immediate circle. And if there were moments of misunderstanding between the sovereign and the head of the cabinet, then they are inevitable in any intense and complex work. Stolypin's supposedly planned resignation did not mean a rejection of his reforms.

The myth of Rasputin's omnipotence

Tales about the last sovereign are not complete without constant stories about the “dirty man” Rasputin, who enslaved the “weak-willed tsar.” Now, after many objective investigations of the “Rasputin legend”, among which “The Truth about Grigory Rasputin” by A. N. Bokhanov stands out as fundamental, it is clear that the influence of the Siberian elder on the emperor was negligible. And the fact that the sovereign “did not remove Rasputin from the throne”? Where could he remove it from? From the bedside of his sick son, whom Rasputin saved when all the doctors had already given up on Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich? Let everyone think for themselves: is he ready to sacrifice the life of a child for the sake of stopping public gossip and hysterical newspaper chatter?

The myth of the sovereign’s guilt in the “misconduct” of the First World War

Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II. Photo by R. Golike and A. Vilborg. 1913

Emperor Nicholas II is also reproached for not preparing Russia for the First World War. The public figure I. L. Solonevich wrote most clearly about the efforts of the sovereign to prepare the Russian army for a possible war and about the sabotage of his efforts on the part of the “educated society”: “The “Duma of People’s Wrath,” as well as its subsequent reincarnation, rejects military loans: We are democrats and we don’t want militarism. Nicholas II arms the army by violating the spirit of the Basic Laws: in accordance with Article 86. This article provides for the right of the government, in exceptional cases and during parliamentary recess, to pass temporary laws without parliament - so that they are retroactively introduced at the very first parliamentary session. The Duma was dissolving (holidays), loans for machine guns went through even without the Duma. And when the session began, nothing could be done.”

And again, unlike ministers or military leaders (like Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich), the sovereign did not want war, he tried to delay it with all his might, knowing about the insufficient preparedness of the Russian army. For example, he directly spoke about this to the Russian ambassador to Bulgaria Neklyudov: “Now, Neklyudov, listen to me carefully. Do not forget for one minute the fact that we cannot fight. I don't want war. I have made it my immutable rule to do everything to preserve for my people all the advantages of a peaceful life. At this moment in history, it is necessary to avoid anything that could lead to war. There is no doubt that we cannot get involved in a war - at least for the next five or six years - until 1917. Although, if the vital interests and honor of Russia are at stake, we will be able, if absolutely necessary, to accept the challenge, but not before 1915. But remember - not one minute earlier, whatever the circumstances or reasons and in whatever position we find ourselves.”

Of course, many things in the First World War did not go as the participants planned. But why should these troubles and surprises be blamed on the sovereign, who at the beginning was not even the commander-in-chief? Could he have personally prevented the “Samson catastrophe”? Or the breakthrough of the German cruisers Goeben and Breslau into the Black Sea, after which plans to coordinate the actions of the Allies in the Entente went up in smoke?

When the will of the emperor could correct the situation, the sovereign did not hesitate, despite the objections of ministers and advisers. In 1915, the threat of such complete defeat loomed over the Russian army that its Commander-in-Chief, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, literally sobbed in despair. It was then that Nicholas II took the most decisive step - he not only stood at the head of the Russian army, but also stopped the retreat, which threatened to turn into a stampede.

The Emperor did not consider himself a great commander; he knew how to listen to the opinions of military advisers and choose successful solutions for the Russian troops. According to his instructions, the work of the rear was established; according to his instructions, new and even cutting-edge equipment was adopted (like Sikorsky bombers or Fedorov assault rifles). And if in 1914 the Russian military industry produced 104,900 shells, then in 1916 - 30,974,678! So much military equipment was prepared that it was enough for five years of the Civil War, and for arming the Red Army in the first half of the twenties.

In 1917, Russia, under the military leadership of its emperor, was ready for victory. Many people wrote about this, even W. Churchill, who was always skeptical and cautious about Russia: “Fate has never been as cruel to any country as to Russia. Her ship sank while the harbor was in sight. She had already weathered the storm when everything collapsed. All the sacrifices have already been made, all the work has been completed. Despair and betrayal took over the government when the task was already completed. The long retreats are over; shell hunger is defeated; weapons flowed in a wide stream; a stronger, more numerous, better equipped army guarded a huge front; the rear assembly points were crowded with people... In the management of states, when great events happen, the leader of the nation, whoever he is, is condemned for failures and glorified for successes. The point is not who did the work, who drew up the plan of struggle; blame or praise for the outcome falls on the one who has the authority of supreme responsibility. Why deny Nicholas II this ordeal?.. His efforts are downplayed; His actions are condemned; His memory is being defamed... Stop and say: who else turned out to be suitable? There was no shortage of talented and courageous people, ambitious and proud in spirit, courageous and powerful people. But no one was able to answer those few simple questions on which the life and glory of Russia depended. Holding victory already in her hands, she fell to the ground alive, like Herod of old, devoured by worms.”

At the beginning of 1917, the sovereign really failed to cope with the joint conspiracy of the top military and the leaders of opposition political forces.

And who could? It was beyond human strength.

The myth of voluntary renunciation

And yet, the main thing that even many monarchists accuse Nicholas II of is precisely renunciation, “moral desertion,” “flight from office.” The fact that he, according to the poet A. A. Blok, “renounced, as if he had surrendered the squadron.”

Now, again, after the scrupulous work of modern researchers, it becomes clear that there was no voluntary abdication of the throne. Instead, a real coup took place. Or, as the historian and publicist M.V. Nazarov aptly noted, it was not “renunciation,” but “renunciation” that took place.

Even in the darkest Soviet times, they did not deny that the events of February 23 - March 2, 1917 at the Tsarist Headquarters and in the headquarters of the commander of the Northern Front were a coup at the top, “fortunately”, coinciding with the beginning of the “February bourgeois revolution”, launched (of course Well!) by the forces of the St. Petersburg proletariat.

With the riots in St. Petersburg fueled by the Bolshevik underground, everything is now clear. The conspirators only took advantage of this circumstance, exorbitantly exaggerating its significance, in order to lure the sovereign out of Headquarters, depriving him of contact with any loyal units and the government. And when the royal train, with great difficulty, reached Pskov, where the headquarters of General N.V. Ruzsky, commander of the Northern Front and one of the active conspirators, was located, the emperor was completely blocked and deprived of communication with the outside world.

In fact, General Ruzsky arrested the royal train and the emperor himself. And cruel psychological pressure began on the sovereign. Nicholas II was begged to give up power, which he never aspired to. Moreover, this was done not only by Duma deputies Guchkov and Shulgin, but also by the commanders of all (!) fronts and almost all fleets (with the exception of Admiral A.V. Kolchak). The Emperor was told that his decisive step would be able to prevent unrest and bloodshed, that this would immediately put an end to the St. Petersburg unrest...

Now we know very well that the sovereign was basely deceived. What could he have thought then? At the forgotten Dno station or on the sidings in Pskov, cut off from the rest of Russia? Didn’t you consider that it was better for a Christian to humbly cede royal power rather than shed the blood of his subjects?

But even under pressure from the conspirators, the emperor did not dare to go against the law and conscience. The manifesto he compiled clearly did not suit the envoys of the State Duma. The document, which was eventually published as a text of renunciation, raises doubts among a number of historians. Its original has not been preserved; only a copy is available in the Russian State Archives. There are reasonable assumptions that the sovereign's signature was copied from the order on the assumption of supreme command by Nicholas II in 1915. The signature of the Minister of the Court, Count V.B. Fredericks, who allegedly certified the abdication, was also forged. Which, by the way, the count himself clearly spoke about later, on June 2, 1917, during interrogation: “But for me to write such a thing, I can swear that I would not do it.”

And already in St. Petersburg, the deceived and confused Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich did something that, in principle, he had no right to do - he transferred power to the Provisional Government. As A.I. Solzhenitsyn noted: “The end of the monarchy was the abdication of Mikhail. He is worse than abdicating: he blocked the path to all other possible heirs to the throne, he transferred power to an amorphous oligarchy. His abdication turned the change of monarch into a revolution.”

Usually, after statements about the illegal overthrow of the sovereign from the throne, both in scientific discussions and on the Internet, cries immediately begin: “Why didn’t Tsar Nicholas protest later? Why didn’t he expose the conspirators? Why didn’t you raise loyal troops and lead them against the rebels?”

That is, why didn’t he start a civil war?

Yes, because the sovereign did not want her. Because he hoped that by leaving he would calm down the new unrest, believing that the whole point was the possible hostility of society towards him personally. After all, he, too, could not help but succumb to the hypnosis of the anti-state, anti-monarchist hatred to which Russia had been subjected for years. As A. I. Solzhenitsyn correctly wrote about the “liberal-radical Field” that engulfed the empire: “For many years (decades) this Field flowed unhindered, its lines of force thickened - and penetrated and subjugated all the brains in the country, at least in some way touched enlightenment, at least the beginnings of it. It almost completely controlled the intelligentsia. More rare, but permeated by its power lines were state and official circles, the military, and even the priesthood, the episcopate (the entire Church as a whole is already... powerless against this Field) - and even those who fought most against the Field: the most right-wing circles and the throne itself."

And did these troops loyal to the emperor exist in reality? After all, even Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich on March 1, 1917 (that is, before the formal abdication of the sovereign) transferred the Guards crew subordinate to him to the jurisdiction of the Duma conspirators and appealed to other military units to “join the new government”!

The attempt of Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich to prevent bloodshed by renouncing power, through voluntary self-sacrifice, ran into the evil will of tens of thousands of those who wanted not the pacification and victory of Russia, but blood, madness and the creation of “heaven on earth” for a “new man”, free from faith and conscience.

And even the defeated Christian sovereign was like a sharp knife in the throat of such “guardians of humanity.” He was intolerable, impossible.

They couldn't help but kill him.

The myth that the execution of the royal family was the arbitrariness of the Ural Regional Council

Emperor Nicholas II and Tsarevich Alexei are in exile. Tobolsk, 1917-1918

The more or less vegetarian, toothless early Provisional Government limited itself to the arrest of the emperor and his family, the socialist clique of Kerensky achieved the exile of the sovereign, his wife and children to Tobolsk. And for whole months, right up to the Bolshevik revolution, one can see how the dignified, purely Christian behavior of the emperor in exile contrasts with the evil vanity of the politicians of the “new Russia”, who sought “to begin with” to bring the sovereign into “political oblivion.”

And then an openly atheistic Bolshevik gang came to power, which decided to transform this non-existence from “political” into “physical”. After all, back in April 1917, Lenin declared: “We consider Wilhelm II to be the same crowned robber, worthy of execution, as Nicholas II.”

Only one thing is unclear - why did they hesitate? Why didn’t they try to destroy Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich immediately after the October Revolution?

Probably because they were afraid of popular indignation, afraid of public reaction with their still fragile power. Apparently, the unpredictable behavior of “abroad” was also frightening. In any case, the British Ambassador D. Buchanan warned the Provisional Government: “Any insult inflicted on the Emperor and His Family will destroy the sympathy aroused by March and the course of the revolution, and will humiliate the new government in the eyes of the world.” True, in the end it turned out that these were just “words, words, nothing but words.”

And yet there remains a feeling that, in addition to rational motives, there was some inexplicable, almost mystical fear of what the fanatics were planning to do.

After all, for some reason, years after the Yekaterinburg murder, rumors spread that only one sovereign was shot. Then they declared (even at a completely official level) that the Tsar’s killers were severely condemned for abuse of power. And later, for almost the entire Soviet period, the version about the “arbitrariness of the Yekaterinburg Council”, allegedly frightened by the white units approaching the city, was officially accepted. They say that so that the sovereign would not be released and become the “banner of the counter-revolution,” he had to be destroyed. The fog of fornication hid the secret, and the essence of the secret was a planned and clearly conceived savage murder.

Its exact details and background have not yet been clarified, the testimony of eyewitnesses is surprisingly confused, and even the discovered remains of the Royal Martyrs still raise doubts about their authenticity.

Now only a few unambiguous facts are clear.

On April 30, 1918, Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich, his wife Empress Alexandra Feodorovna and their daughter Maria were escorted from Tobolsk, where they had been in exile since August 1917, to Yekaterinburg. They were placed in custody in the former house of engineer N.N. Ipatiev, located on the corner of Voznesensky Prospekt. The remaining children of the Emperor and Empress - daughters Olga, Tatiana, Anastasia and son Alexei - were reunited with their parents only on May 23.

Was this an initiative of the Yekaterinburg Council, not coordinated with the Central Committee? Hardly. Judging by indirect evidence, at the beginning of July 1918, the top leadership of the Bolshevik party (primarily Lenin and Sverdlov) decided to “liquidate the royal family.”

Trotsky, for example, wrote about this in his memoirs:

“My next visit to Moscow came after the fall of Yekaterinburg. In a conversation with Sverdlov, I asked in passing:

- Yes, where is the king?

“It’s over,” he replied, “shot.”

-Where is the family?

- And his family is with him.

- All? - I asked, apparently with a tinge of surprise.

“That’s it,” answered Sverdlov, “but what?”

He was waiting for my reaction. I didn't answer.

Who decided? - I asked.

- We decided here. Ilyich believed that we should not leave them a living banner, especially in the current difficult conditions.”

(L.D. Trotsky. Diaries and letters. M.: “Hermitage”, 1994. P.120. (Record dated April 9, 1935); Leon Trotsky. Diaries and letters. Edited by Yuri Felshtinsky. USA, 1986 , p.101.)

At midnight on July 17, 1918, the emperor, his wife, children and servants were awakened, taken to the basement and brutally killed. It is in the fact that they killed brutally and cruelly that all the eyewitness accounts, so different in other respects, amazingly coincide.

The bodies were secretly taken outside of Yekaterinburg and somehow tried to be destroyed. Everything that remained after the desecration of the bodies was buried just as secretly.

The Yekaterinburg victims had a presentiment of their fate, and it was not for nothing that Grand Duchess Tatyana Nikolaevna, during her imprisonment in Yekaterinburg, wrote out the lines in one of her books: “Those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ went to death as if on a holiday, facing inevitable death, they retained the same wonderful peace of mind , which did not leave them for a minute. They walked calmly towards death because they hoped to enter into a different, spiritual life, which opens up for a person beyond the grave.”

P.S. Sometimes they notice that “Tsar Nicholas II atoned for all his sins before Russia with his death.” In my opinion, this statement reveals some kind of blasphemous, immoral quirk of public consciousness. All the victims of the Yekaterinburg Golgotha were “guilty” only of persistent confession of the faith of Christ until their death and died a martyr’s death.

And the first of them is the passion-bearer sovereign Nikolai Alexandrovich.

Gleb Eliseev