Why Nicholas 2 was a weak king. Nicholas II and other worst rulers in Russian history

At the beginning of the 20th century, Western journalists vied with each other to write about the Russian economic miracle.

The Russian Empire came out on top in the world in terms of economic growth.

Thanks to the wise rule of Emperor Nicholas II, success was achieved in all areas of the country's life: economy, science, education, social and military spheres.

What was done:

90% of the land was transferred to the peasants;
5.5 km of railways were built per day;
the largest export of agricultural products in the world has been established;
the ruble was the 3rd currency in the world and was only convertible into gold;
birth rate increase - 2.5 million per year;
85% of young Russians by 1916 were literate.

In terms of industrial production, Russia ranked 4th in Europe and 5th in the world., second only to the United States, Germany, Great Britain and France in terms of the most important indicators. In terms of growth rates of national income and labor productivity, Russia ranked first in the world.

The plan for the electrification of the country was approved as early as 1909., the beginning of its implementation was planned for 1915, but because of the war it was moved to 1920. After the revolution, the GOELRO plan was appropriated by the Bolsheviks.

2000 km of railways were built annually. The Great Trans-Siberian Railway, which entered the Guinness Book of Records as the longest road in the world and which connected the Far East with the European part of Russia, is the brainchild of Nicholas II.

From 1895 to 1906 the river fleet doubled. It was the largest in the world.

In terms of the production of the main types of agricultural products, Russia took the 1st place. It accounted for 2/5 of all world exports of agricultural products.

Thanks to the progressive Stolypin reform, which was approved and promoted in every possible way by the sovereign, in 1916 already 90% of the land belonged to the peasants. According to the Pouyezd All-Russian Census of 1917, peasants carried out 89.3% of crops and owned 94% of agricultural animals. What, then, proclaimed Lenin's "Decree on the Land"?

During the reign of Nicholas II the ruble was converted into gold and did not depend on the currencies of other states. The tsarist ruble was ahead of the mark, the franc and other foreign currencies, second only to the pound sterling and the dollar. “Russia owes its metallic gold circulation exclusively to Emperor Nicholas II”, - wrote the minister of the tsarist government S. Yu. Witte.

Russia was not a raw material appendage! The emperor categorically forbade the export of round (unprocessed) timber from Russia and the export of crude oil. Only oil products Russia supplied abroad, and Russian motor oil was the best in the world.

The population of Russia during the 23 years of the reign of Nicholas II grew by more than 60 million people! After 1917, the population only decreased (by 65 million after repressions, famines and the Great Patriotic War).

There were colossal achievements in the fields of invention, science, education, medicine, culture, and in the social sphere. Thus, expenditures on education and culture increased by 8 times during the reign of Nicholas II and were more than 2 times ahead of the expenditures of France and 1.5 times of England. Medicine was free, in terms of the number of doctors, Russia was the second in Europe, and the third in the world. In 1908, free primary education was introduced. By 1916, literate people in the Empire - more than 50%, among young people - 85%.

Under the last Emperor, Russia became the pinnacle of Russian civilization, possessing political, economic, military power, the highest culture and advanced science.

Could this have happened under a weak ruler?

Testimonies of historians and politicians - contemporaries of Nicholas II - about the qualities of the Emperor:

“They say about the Russian Emperor that he is accessible to various influences. This is deeply wrong. The Russian Emperor himself carries out his ideas. He protects them with constancy and great strength. He has mature and carefully crafted plans. He is constantly working to bring them to fruition.
Former President of the French Republic Émile Loubet

“His manners are so modest and he shows so little external determination that it is easy to conclude that he does not have a strong will; but the people around him assure that he has a very definite will, which he knows how to put into practice in the most calm way.
German diplomat Count Rex

“The sovereign, over an iron hand, had a velvet glove. His will was not like a thunderclap. It manifested itself not in explosions and violent clashes; it rather resembled the steady run of a stream from a mountain height to the plain of the ocean. He goes around obstacles, deviates to the side, but, in the end, with constant constancy, he approaches his goal.

The Russian people are traditionally distinguished by their faith in the tsar. But there were such monarchs in Russia who almost led Russia to historical death.

Boris Godunov

Godunov’s accession to the throne already raised many doubts (he was a ruler from the “crowd”. The list of victims attributed to the “great poisoner” is impressive: two sovereigns Ivan the Terrible and Fyodor Ivanovich, Duke Hans of Denmark (failed husband of Boris’s daughter Xenia), daughter of Duke Magnus of Denmark (which the Poles could have erected on the Russian throne) and even Tsarina Irina, the sister of Boris Godunov, who herself presented him with the crown.

It was Boris Godunov, and not Peter I, who became the first sovereign oriented towards the European order. He maintained friendly relations with England and was in flattering correspondence with the Queen of England. Under Godunov, the British received unprecedented privileges, including the right to duty-free trade.

In 1601, the Great Famine came to Russia, which lasted until 1603. This became the real fate of Godunov and his entire dynasty. Despite all the attempts of the king to help his people - prohibitions on raising the price of bread, building barns for the starving - people remembered the Antichrist. Rumors spread around Moscow about Boris's crimes. Rumors about the advent of the Antichrist into something massive and militant were prevented by the sudden death of Boris Godunov and the coming to Russia of the "miraculously saved" Tsarevich Dmitry. As a result of the reign of Godunov, Russia found itself on the threshold of the Time of Troubles, which almost stopped the history of the Russian state.

Vasily Shuisky

Vasily Shuisky ruled in the period 1606-1610. At the beginning of the XVII century. in Russia, massive crop failures were observed, as a result of which famine spread throughout the territory. Vasily Shuisky came to the throne in these times, creating a conspiracy and organizing the murder of False Dmitry. Shuisky's ruler was proclaimed by his supporters - a small group of people in Moscow.

“More cunning than smart, utterly lying and intriguing,” historian Vasily Klyuchevsky described the tsar in this way.

Shuisky inherited a legacy that called into question the very concept of a “Russian state”. Famine, internal and external strife, and finally, the epidemic of imposture that engulfed Russia at the dawn of the 17th century - in such conditions, few could maintain their common sense and political will.

Shuisky did everything he could. He tried to codify law, to consolidate the position of serfs and peasants. But his concessions in a difficult situation were akin to weakness. In the end, Shuisky was captured by the Polish troops, by prior agreement of the boyars. His reign was replaced by the Polish prince Vladislav, the country was actually under foreign occupation.

Peter II

Peter II ruled in the period 1727-1730. Became king at the age of 11, died at the age of 14 from smallpox. This is one of the youngest rulers of Russia. He became king, according to the will drawn up by Catherine I. He showed no interest in state affairs and political activities. His government was not distinguished by bright events, moreover, Peter II did not actually rule Russia on his own. Power was in the hands of the Supreme Privy Council (Menshikov, and soon Osterman and Dolgoruky). During this period, they tried to adhere to the political views of Peter the Great, but these attempts were unsuccessful. During the reign of Peter II, the boyar aristocracy strengthened, the army fell into decay (especially the changes affected the fleet), and corruption began to flourish. Also during this period, the capital of Russia changed its location (it was moved from St. Petersburg to Moscow).

Peter III

Peter III is the emperor who was proclaimed after the death of Elizabeth. For 186 days, the monarch has done enough to be called one of the worst rulers of Russia. Historians explain this by the hatred of the "German" Peter III for Russia. The result of the reign of the emperor was:
strengthening of serfdom;
obtaining by the nobility the right not to serve and other privileges (“Manifesto on the Liberty of the Nobility”);
the return to power of persons of the previous reign who were in exile;
the cessation of hostilities with Prussia, the conclusion of an agreement with the Prussian king on unfavorable terms (the return of East Prussia, which at that time was part of Russia for 4 years). Given that the 7-year war with Prussia was practically won, such a step caused bewilderment in army circles, was equated with treason.
The reign of Peter III ended, thanks to the conspiracy of the guards.

Nicholas II

Nicholas II is the last Russian tsar, in whose success his own parents did not even believe. For example, Nikolai's mother considered Nikolai weak not only in spirit, but also in mind, called him a "rag doll." At the very beginning of his reign, the tsar tied the exchange rate of the ruble to gold and introduced the gold ruble. The consequence of this step was the restriction of money within the country, an increase in the number of loans abroad, which were used for the development of the country. As a result, Russia became one of the leaders in terms of external debt, which grew rapidly.

Further, the shameful defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War (in 1904-1905). During the reign of the tsar, one should also recall “Bloody Sunday” - the shooting of civilians by police in St. Petersburg, which served as an impetus for the beginning of the first revolution (1905-1907). .) As a result of the last event, Nikolai received the nickname "Bloody".

In 1914 (the beginning of the war) there was an economic recession and inflation. The number of strikes increased sharply. As a result, Nicholas II abdicated the throne, and in Russia began the most terrible time in its history.

Nicholas II was born in 1868 and went down in history as the last emperor of the Russian Empire. The father of Nicholas II was Alexander III, and his mother was Maria Feodorovna.

Nicholas II had three brothers and two sisters. He was the eldest, so after the death of Alexander III in 1894, it was he who took the throne. Contemporaries of Nicholas II note that he was a fairly simple person to communicate with.

The reign of Nicholas II was marked by a fairly rapid development of the economy of the Russian Empire. However, at the same time, social and political contradictions and revolutionary movements were growing in Russia.

For more than twenty years of reign, Nicholas II did a lot for the Russian Empire.

First of all, it is worth noting that during his reign, the population of the Russian Empire increased by almost 50,000,000 people, that is, by 40%. And the natural population growth increased to 3,000,000 people a year. At the same time, the overall standard of living increased significantly.

Thanks to the active development of agriculture, as well as more thoughtful communication routes, the so-called "hungry years" at the beginning of the twentieth century were quickly eliminated. Crop failure now did not mean that there would be famine, since a poor harvest in some areas was offset by a good harvest in others. Under Nicholas II, the harvest of cereals increased significantly.

Coal production has increased significantly. During the reign of Nicholas II, it increased almost four times.

Also, under the reign of Nicholas II, the metallurgical industry increased very significantly. For example, iron smelting has increased almost four times, and copper mining five times. Thanks to this, a rather rapid growth in the field of mechanical engineering began. Consequently, the number of workers also increased from 2,000,000 to 5,000,000.

The length of railways and telegraph poles has increased significantly. It is also worth noting that under Nicholas II the army of the Russian Empire increased significantly. Nicholas II managed to create the most powerful river fleet in the world.

Under Nicholas II, the level of education of the population increased significantly. The production of books also increased.

Finally, it is worth saying that during the entire reign of Nicholas II, the treasury of the Russian Empire increased significantly. At the beginning of his reign, it was 1,200,000,000 rubles, and at the end - 3,500,000,000 rubles.

All this indicates that Nicholas II was a very talented ruler. According to his contemporaries, if everything had continued like this, then by the 1950s the Russian Empire would have become the most developed country in all of Europe.

Let's take a closer look at his rule:

When they talk about Nicholas II, two polar points of view are immediately identified: Orthodox-patriotic and liberal-democratic. For the first, Nicholas II and his family are the ideal of morality, the image of martyrdom; his reign is the highest point of Russia's economic development in its entire history. For others, Nicholas II is a weak personality, a weak-willed person who failed to save the country from revolutionary madness, who was completely under the influence of his wife and Rasputin; Russia during his reign is seen as economically backward.

The attitude towards the personality of the last Russian emperor is so ambiguous that there simply cannot be a consensus on the results of his reign.

Let's look at both points of view and draw our own conclusions.

Orthodox-patriotic point of view

In the 1950s, a report by the Russian writer Brazol Boris Lvovich (1885-1963) appeared in the Russian diaspora. During the First World War, he worked in Russian military intelligence.

Brazol's report is titled "The reign of Emperor Nicholas II in figures and facts. Answer to slanderers, dismemberers and Russophobes.

At the beginning of this report, Edmond Teri, a well-known economist of the time, quotes: “If the affairs of the European nations continue from 1912 to 1950 as they did from 1900 to 1912, Russia by the middle of this century will dominate Europe both politically and politically. both economically and financially. (The Economist Europeen, 1913).

Here are some data from this report.

On the eve of the First World War, the population of the Russian Empire was 182 million people, and during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II it increased by 60 million.

Imperial Russia built its budgetary and financial policy not only on deficit-free budgets, but also on the principle of a significant accumulation of gold reserves.

In the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, by law of 1896, a gold currency was introduced in Russia. The stability of monetary circulation was such that even during the Russo-Japanese War, which was accompanied by widespread revolutionary unrest within the country, the exchange of credit notes for gold was not suspended.

Before the First World War, taxes in Russia were the lowest in the whole world. The burden of direct taxes in Russia was almost 4 times less than in France, more than 4 times less than in Germany and 8.5 times less than in England. The burden of indirect taxes in Russia was on average half that in Austria, France, Germany and England.

Between 1890 and 1913 Russian industry quadrupled its productivity. Moreover, it should be noted that the growth in the number of new enterprises was achieved not due to the emergence of one-day firms, as in modern Russia, but due to actually working factories and factories that produced products and created jobs.

In 1914, the State Savings Bank had deposits worth 2,236,000,000 rubles, i.e. 1.9 times more than in 1908.

These indicators are extremely important for understanding that the population of Russia was by no means poor and saved a significant part of its income.

On the eve of the revolution, Russian agriculture was in full bloom. In 1913, in Russia, the harvest of the main cereals was 1/3 higher than that of Argentina, Canada, and the United States of America combined. In particular, the harvest of rye in 1894 yielded 2 billion poods, and in 1913 - 4 billion poods.

During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, Russia was the main breadwinner of Western Europe. At the same time, the phenomenal growth in the export of agricultural products from Russia to England (grain and flour) attracts special attention. In 1908, 858.3 million pounds were exported, and in 1910, 2.8 million pounds, i.e. 3.3 times.

Russia supplied 50% of world egg imports. In 1908, 2.6 billion pieces worth 54.9 million rubles were exported from Russia, and in 1909 - 2.8 million pieces. worth 62.2 million rubles. The export of rye in 1894 amounted to 2 billion poods, in 1913: 4 billion poods. Sugar consumption in the same period of time increased from 4 to 9 kg per year per person (then sugar was a very expensive product).

On the eve of the First World War, Russia produced 80% of the world's flax production.

In 1916, i.e., at the very height of the war, more than 2,000 versts of railways were built, which connected the Arctic Ocean (the port of Romanovsk) with the center of Russia. The Great Siberian Way (8.536 km) was the longest in the world.

It should be added that the Russian railways, in comparison with others, were the cheapest and most comfortable in the world for passengers.

During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, public education reached an extraordinary development. Primary education was free by law, and from 1908 it became compulsory. Since this year, about 10,000 schools have been opened annually. In 1913 their number exceeded 130,000. In terms of the number of women studying in higher educational institutions, Russia at the beginning of the 20th century ranked first in Europe, if not in the whole world.

During the reign of Sovereign Nicholas II, the government of Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin carried out one of the most significant and most brilliant reforms in Russia - the agrarian reform. This reform is connected with the transition of the form of ownership of land and land production from communal to private land. On November 9, 1906, the so-called "Stolypin Law" was issued, which allowed the peasant to leave the Community and become the individual and hereditary owner of the land he cultivated. This law was a huge success. Immediately, 2.5 million petitions were filed for access to cuts from family peasants. Thus, on the eve of the revolution, Russia was already ready to turn into a country of owners.

For the period 1886-1913. Russia's exports amounted to 23.5 billion rubles, imports - 17.7 billion rubles.

Foreign investments in the period from 1887 to 1913 increased from 177 million rubles. up to 1.9 billion rubles, i.e. increased by 10.7 times. Moreover, these investments were directed to capital-intensive production and created new jobs. However, what is very important, Russian industry was not dependent on foreigners. Enterprises with foreign investment accounted for only 14% of the total capital of Russian enterprises.

The abdication of Nicholas II from the throne was the greatest tragedy in the thousand-year history of Russia.

By the decision of the Bishops' Council of March 31 - April 4, 1992, the Synodal Commission for the canonization of saints was instructed "when studying the exploits of the new martyrs of Russia, to begin researching materials related to the martyrdom of the Royal Family."

Extracts from "GROUNDS FOR THE CANONIZATION OF THE ROYAL FAMILY

FROM THE REPORT OF METROPOLITAN KRUTITSKY AND KOLOMENSKOY YUVENALY,

CHAIRMAN OF THE SYNODAL COMMISSION FOR THE CANONIZATION OF SAINTS.

“As a politician and statesman, the Sovereign acted on the basis of his religious and moral principles. One of the most common arguments against the canonization of Emperor Nicholas II is the events of January 9, 1905 in St. Petersburg. In the historical information of the Commission on this issue, we indicate: having become acquainted on the evening of January 8 with the content of the Gapon petition, which had the character of a revolutionary ultimatum, which did not allow to enter into constructive negotiations with representatives of the workers, the Sovereign ignored this document, illegal in form and undermining the prestige of the already fluctuating conditions government wars. Throughout January 9, 1905, the Sovereign did not take a single decision that determined the actions of the authorities in St. Petersburg to suppress mass demonstrations of workers. The order to the troops to open fire was given not by the Emperor, but by the Commander of the St. Petersburg Military District. Historical data do not allow us to detect in the actions of the Sovereign in the January days of 1905 a conscious evil will directed against the people and embodied in specific sinful decisions and actions.

With the outbreak of the First World War, the Sovereign regularly travels to Headquarters, visits military units of the army in the field, dressing stations, military hospitals, rear factories, in a word, everything that played a role in the conduct of this war.

From the very beginning of the war, the Empress devoted herself to the wounded. Having completed the courses of sisters of mercy, together with her eldest daughters, the Grand Duchesses Olga and Tatiana, she nursed the wounded in the Tsarskoye Selo infirmary for several hours a day.

The emperor considered his tenure as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief as the fulfillment of a moral and state duty to God and the people, however, always presenting the leading military specialists with a broad initiative in resolving the entire set of military-strategic and operational-tactical issues.

The Commission expresses the opinion that the very fact of the abdication of the Throne of Emperor Nicholas II, which is directly related to his personal qualities, is on the whole an expression of the then historical situation in Russia.

He made this decision only in the hope that those who wanted him removed would still be able to continue the war with honor and not ruin the cause of saving Russia. He was then afraid that his refusal to sign the renunciation would lead to civil war in the sight of the enemy. The tsar did not want even a drop of Russian blood to be shed because of him.

The spiritual motives for which the last Russian Sovereign, who did not want to shed the blood of his subjects, decided to abdicate the Throne in the name of inner peace in Russia, gives his act a truly moral character. It is no coincidence that during the discussion in July 1918 at the Council of the Local Council of the issue of the funeral commemoration of the murdered Sovereign, His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon decided on the widespread service of memorial services with the commemoration of Nicholas II as Emperor.

Behind the many sufferings endured by the Royal Family over the last 17 months of their lives, which ended with execution in the basement of the Yekaterinburg Ipatiev House on the night of July 17, 1918, we see people who sincerely sought to embody the commandments of the Gospel in their lives. In the suffering endured by the Royal Family in captivity with meekness, patience and humility, in their martyrdom, the light of Christ's faith conquering evil was revealed, just as it shone in the life and death of millions of Orthodox Christians who suffered persecution for Christ in the 20th century.

It is in understanding this feat of the Royal Family that the Commission, in complete unanimity and with the approval of the Holy Synod, finds it possible to glorify in the Cathedral of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia in the face of the Passion-Bearers Emperor Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra, Tsarevich Alexy, Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatyana, Maria and Anastasia.

Liberal democratic point of view

When Nicholas II came to power, he had no program, except for the firm intention not to cede his autocratic power, which his father had passed on to him. He always made decisions alone: “How can I do this if it is against my conscience?” - it was the basis on which he made his political decisions or rejected the options offered to him. He continued to pursue the controversial policies of his father: on the one hand, he tried to achieve social and political stabilization from above by preserving the old estate-state structures, on the other hand, the industrialization policy pursued by the Minister of Finance led to enormous social dynamics. The Russian nobility launched a massive offensive against the economic policy of industrialization pursued by the state. Having removed Witte, the tsar did not know where to go. Despite some reformist steps (for example, the abolition of corporal punishment of peasants), the tsar, under the influence of the new Minister of the Interior Plehve, decided in favor of the policy of preserving the social structure of the peasantry in every possible way (preserving the community), although it was easier for the kulak elements, that is, the richer peasants, to get out of peasant community. The tsar and the ministers did not consider reforms necessary in other areas either: only a few minor concessions were made on the labor issue; instead of guaranteeing the right to strike, the government continued its repression. With a policy of stagnation and repression, which at the same time continued the economic policy he had begun in a cautious manner, the tsar could not satisfy anyone.

At a meeting of zemstvo representatives on November 20, 1904, the majority demanded a constitutional regime. The forces of the progressive local nobility, rural intelligentsia, urban self-government and wide circles of the urban intelligentsia, united in opposition, began to demand the introduction of a parliament in the state. They were joined by the St. Petersburg workers, who were allowed to form an independent association, headed by the priest Gapon, they wanted to submit a petition to the tsar. The lack of general leadership under the already effectively dismissed Minister of the Interior and the Tsar, who, like most ministers, did not understand the seriousness of the situation, led to the disaster of Bloody Sunday on January 9, 1905. Army officers who were supposed to control the crowd, in a panic ordered to shoot at peaceful people. 100 people were killed and more than 1,000 are believed to have been injured. The workers and intelligentsia reacted with strikes and protest demonstrations. Although the workers for the most part made purely economic demands and the revolutionary parties could not play an important role either in the movement led by Gapon or in the strikes that followed Bloody Sunday, a revolution broke out in Russia.

When the revolutionary and opposition movement reached its climax in October 1905 - a general strike that practically paralyzed the country, the tsar was forced to turn again to his former minister of the interior, who, thanks to a very favorable peace treaty for Russia, he concluded with the Japanese in Portsmouth ( United States), gained universal respect. Witte explained to the Tsar that he must either appoint a dictator who would fight the revolution fiercely, or must guarantee bourgeois freedoms and an elected legislature. Nicholas did not want to drown the revolution in blood. Thus, the fundamental problem of constitutional monarchies - the creation of a balance of power - has become aggravated as a result of the actions of the prime minister. The October Manifesto (10/17/1905) promised bourgeois freedoms, an elected assembly with legislative powers, an expansion of the electoral right and, indirectly, equality of religions and nationalities, but did not bring the country the appeasement that the tsar expected. Rather, it caused serious riots that broke out as a result of clashes between loyal to the tsar and revolutionary forces, and led to pogroms in many regions of the country, directed not only against the Jewish population, but also against members of the intelligentsia. The development of events since 1905 has become irreversible.

However, in other areas there were positive changes that were not blocked at the political macro level. The pace of economic growth has again almost reached the level of the 1990s. In the countryside, Stolypin's agrarian reforms, which were aimed at creating private property, began to develop independently, despite resistance from the peasants. The state, through a whole package of measures, sought large-scale modernization in agriculture. Science, literature and art have reached a new flowering.

But the scandalous figure of Rasputin decisively contributed to the loss of the prestige of the monarch. The First World War ruthlessly exposed the shortcomings of the system of late tsarism. These were primarily political weaknesses. In the military field, by the summer of 1915, they even managed to seize the situation at the front and arrange supplies. In 1916, thanks to the offensive of Brusilov, the Russian army even owned most of the territorial gains of the allies before the collapse of Germany. Nevertheless, in February 1917 tsarism was approaching its doom. The tsar himself was fully to blame for this development of events. Since he increasingly wanted to be his own prime minister, but did not fit this role, during the war no one could coordinate the actions of the various institutions of the state, primarily civilian with the military.

The provisional government, which replaced the monarchy, immediately placed Nicholas and his family under house arrest, but wanted to allow him to leave for England. However, the British government was in no hurry to respond, and the Provisional Government was no longer strong enough to resist the will of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. In August 1917 the family was moved to Tobolsk. In April 1918, the local Bolsheviks secured their transfer to Yekaterinburg. The king endured this time of humiliation with great calmness and hope in God, which, in the face of death, gave him undeniable dignity, but which, even at the best of times, sometimes prevented him from acting rationally and decisively. On the night of July 16-17, 1918, the imperial family was shot. The liberal historian Yuri Gautier spoke with cold precision upon learning of the assassination of the tsar: "This is the denouement of another of the innumerable secondary knots of our troubled times, and the monarchical principle can only benefit from it."

The paradoxes of the personality and reign of Nicholas II can be explained by the objectively existing contradictions of Russian reality at the beginning of the 20th century, when the world was entering a new phase of its development, and the tsar did not have the will and determination to master the situation. Trying to defend the "autocratic principle", he maneuvered: either he made small concessions, or he refused them. As a result, the regime rotted, pushing the country to the abyss. Rejecting and hindering the reforms, the last king contributed to the beginning of the social revolution. This should be recognized both with absolute sympathy for the fate of the king, and with his categorical rejection. At the critical moment of the February coup, the generals changed their oath and forced the tsar to abdicate.

Nicholas II himself knocked the ground out from under his feet. He stubbornly defended his positions, did not make serious compromises, and thus created the conditions for a revolutionary explosion. He did not support the liberals, who sought to prevent the revolution in the hope of concessions from the tsar. And the revolution happened. 1917 became a fatal milestone in the history of Russia.

From myself, I can say that I am more an adherent of the Orthodox-patriotic point of view.

After Natalia Poklonskaya, deputy and former prosecutor of Crimea, attracted the attention of the public in early November with a blog post: “There is no statesman in history who has been so slandered as the last Russian Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich. For many decades, the people heard only mockery and hatred towards their murdered Tsar. Party ideologists, publicists, writers, artists, screenwriters, directors competed with each other in an effort to discredit the Holy Name of the Sovereign.

Since these words immediately caused a real campaign of denigration of both Poklonskaya and the last Russian emperor, by various left-wing political figures, I want to devote a few lines to trying to tell the reader why, speaking of Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich, we are talking about the best ruler of Russia for the last hundred years. From the story of his achievements, the understanding of why the Bolsheviks and their modern ideological heirs still hate him and try to associate his name with the image of a “weak” and “unsuccessful” ruler naturally follows.

First of all, it is necessary to reject the accusations, established both in the left and in the right environment, that the tsar, they say, "is himself the culprit of the revolution." As I have already had the opportunity to write, the revolution in Russia was the result of a long work of external forces to overthrow one of the most powerful world powers, which turned out to be a competitor and a threat to too many countries interested in weakening the empire. You can cite the stories of Soviet historiography as much as you like about the crisis, the impact of the war, and other factors, in any case, it is obvious that the revolution was not the result of natural prerequisites, but the result of a conspiracy supported from abroad.

Let's move on to the question of whether Nicholas II was a good ruler. To do this, we define, if possible, objective criteria for assessing the quality of a ruler. If we talk about what can be called the unique competencies of the monarch, it would be correct to divide them into two groups. Those that are characteristic of the monarch as an autocratic ruler and those that distinguish the monarch in the constitutional system of power. And these groups are very different, which is very important for us, since Nicholas II was the only ruler of Russia who managed to find himself both in the role of an autocrat and in the role of a constitutional monarch.

The monarch-autocrat is, first of all, the head of all branches of government of the state, which are not separated in it, but united. An autocratic ruler is a leader who is the shepherd of the people, or, as Nikolai Alexandrovich himself quite rightly wrote: "the master of the Russian land." Therefore, for him, such criteria come to the fore as the will necessary to pursue his course and prevent falling under the influence of certain clans, the level of education that ensures the high competence of the ruler, the ability to select those people who will directly work on state tasks, implement plans transformations and themselves propose such plans, as well as the ability of the monarch as a diplomat.

In terms of the quality of education, Nicholas II of all the rulers who followed him received the best education and was more than all of them prepared for his place. The future emperor received an excellent secondary and higher education - both in an expanded volume - under the guidance of outstanding teachers who were the best scientists of their time (Dragomirov, Cui, Obruchev, Bunge - this is only a small part of the excellent experts in their field, involved in the education of the future emperor). He brilliantly graduated from the higher course of general education, legal and military sciences and, among other things, was fluent in four languages: Russian, French, English and German. Just as well, he went through the comprehensive military training available only to the heir to the throne, theoretical and drill, in all types of weapons - infantry, cavalry and artillery, as well as in the navy. Lenin with his correspondence legal education, and even more so the Soviet leaders following him, are simply ignoramuses, in comparison with the emperor.

If we consider the strong-willed qualities of the emperor, then, of course, I address all those interested in this topic to the well-known work "Emperor Nicholas II, as a man of strong will." Let me just remind you that the myth of the weak-willed tsar was specially created by his enemies and murderers in order to justify the need for a revolution and the atrocities they committed. In reality, Nikolai Alexandrovich was a strong-willed ruler who could force anyone to carry out the policy he needed and break the resistance of the most powerful opponents. It was through the efforts of Nicholas II that peace with Japan in 1905 was relatively advantageous, although a considerable part of the elite was ready for big concessions. It was the emperor who bore the brunt of governing the country during the years of the 1905-1907 riots and was able to calm the society, and then by all means contribute to the phenomenal rise in the country. It was the monarch who took over the leadership of the army in the most difficult time of 1915 and was able to arrange things so that the German offensive was stopped, and then the Russians themselves began to attack the opponents.

Nicholas II, a diplomat, was certainly inferior to such a virtuoso as his ancestor Alexander I. But this does not mean that he can be rated low. The merits of the emperor in the sphere of Russian diplomacy are very great. He became one of the three heads of the most powerful military bloc that existed at that time in the world. Relations with most countries of the world under Nicholas II were very good and Russia, not only was not a "rogue country", but was one of the recognized great powers with the highest authority. The personal diplomacy of the emperor allowed him to act in relation to Germany in parallel with the work towards the Russian-French-British alliance. It is impossible to call it otherwise than virtuoso diplomacy!

Let's take a look at the results of the emperor's reforms, evaluating both his work with personnel and his strong-willed ability to carry out reforms. In this case, the example of Nicholas is unique in that he was the only ruler of Russia, all of whose reforms were not only carried out, but were also successful. While Lenin only destroyed the legacy that he inherited from the empire, and his followers tried to compensate for these destructions with great bloodshed, Nikolai selected outstanding administrators and reformers into his circle.

I will list only the most important reforms: the tax reform (started by Alexander III) was successfully carried out, the growth of budget revenues amounted to more than 50% as a result, the currency reform was carried out so successfully that the Russian gold imperial became one of the world currencies, and was used even by the Bolsheviks 10 years later after the revolution, the financial reform allowed the country to have such a stable budget that even the Russo-Japanese War, and then the First World War, affected Russia's finances much less than other participating countries.

The state of Russia's finances during the reign of Nicholas II can be called ideal, and the level of the gold reserve of that time was reached only under Stalin and Putin. The Russian Empire, which the Bolsheviks diligently created the image of a “country enslaved by debts,” had a debt less than that of France and comparable to the debt of England or Austria-Hungary. Public debt payments per citizen in Russia were among the lowest in the world.

Reforms in the industry led to unprecedented economic growth, which eventually brought Russia to 3rd-4th place (different researchers estimate our result slightly differently) in the world in terms of GDP. Entire new industries emerged in the country - automotive, aircraft, chemical industry, electric power industry. The empire under Nicholas II was capable of producing the most complex technical objects at that time, such as battleships and heavy aircraft. On the scale of our days, this is equivalent to the availability of spacewalk technologies. By the way, it must be borne in mind that the Soviet Union, despite all the desire, was never able to build a single battleship.

Reforms in the road structure led to the fact that the length of the empire's railway lines was the second in the world, after the United States. The pace of road construction was one of the highest in the world, and no other country built roads comparable to the Trans-Siberian Railway, which passed through the cold expanses of Siberia. Large bridges across the rivers were actively built, serving us to this day. Even the bridge to the Crimea, which began to be built only now, was planned for construction under Nikolai Alexandrovich.

In the field of education, the results were outstanding, despite the desire of the Bolsheviks to portray Russia as a "dark kingdom". The level of the empire's gymnasium education is unattainable to this day, being closer to modern university education than in high school. University education was considered one of the best in the world, and Russian scientists and engineers were valued as specialists even after the revolution. In 1908, a program of universal education was approved in Russia, which was to be completed between 1919 and 1924. There were 140 thousand schools in the Russian Empire. In the Russian Federation today we have 55,000 schools with approximately the same population. Education was absolutely accessible to all classes, and a talented peasant could count on free education both at the gymnasium and at the university.

The peasant and land reforms led to the fact that debts on redemption payments were finally closed, and the peasants got the opportunity to leave the community, or move to the East of the empire, where the state allocated land to them free of charge and helped them settle in a new place. As a result, Russia was an agricultural superpower, the No. 1 grain and oil exporter in the world. Factory law reforms limited the working day and introduced the most modern social security measures for the time. The Russian worker before the World War was one of the least exploited workers in the world. The standard of living of the population of the country was constantly growing. The pace of this growth is incomparable even with the most favorable years of the era of the 2010s in terms of oil prices.

The military reform was carried out, according to our opponents, very quickly and very effectively. The combat effectiveness of the Russian army before the World War was rated exceptionally highly, the popularity of the army in society was high. The army received the most modern equipment. The fleet building program was successfully implemented, which was supposed to bring the empire into the number of four great maritime powers of that time. Soviet historians talked a lot about the "shell famine" during the war, "forgetting" that it took place not only in Russia, but also in all countries participating in the war. The Russian army successfully coped with the German army, which was considered the best in the world, did not retreat, having lost most of the country's European territory, and steadfastly held the front.

Nicholas II successfully carried out political reform. Russia became a constitutional monarchy, a really working multi-party system was established. Freedom of speech was not an empty declaration, but the everyday life of any citizen of the empire, who could easily open a printing house, publishing house or publish a newspaper, including with public money, even without significant start-up capital. The political palette of that time is so rich that it seems unattainable even today.

Now let's move on to the criteria for evaluating a constitutional monarch. Here, one more skill is added to the above qualities - the ability of the ruler to establish communication within the elites. To bind the national elites together, to be able to direct the solution of national goals not by order, but by indirect methods, to avert the elite from striving for conspiracies, to smooth out contradictions. Unfortunately, in this area, the skills of Nikolai Alexandrovich turned out to be insufficient. To a large extent, the blame for this lies with his father, Alexander III, who did not like society and limited his circle of contacts to business matters. At the same time, the father and grandfather of Alexander III, being autocratic rulers, were at the same time the most effective communicators who literally personally knew most of the top of Russia, constantly communicated with everyone and skillfully maintained their course among high society. Unfortunately, it is from the era of Alexander III that the time begins when part of the Russian elite begins to implicitly play against their monarch.

Of course, the monarch-autocrat can rule and isolate himself from the top of society, while being very successful. But the constitutional ruler is a political figure of a different kind, here his communication skills among the elite become extremely important. Of course, gradually this problem would be solved, and the emperor changed over time, he confidently relied on the Russian people, the equalization of the estates in rights, the democratization of society, giving it a more nationalistic character, according to the precepts of his father. Unfortunately, just at this time, Russia found itself in a situation where the elite betrayed their monarch and prepared a conspiracy against him. This is where the Emperor failed.

A successful ruler, a reformer, a military man, who else among the rulers of Russia in the 20th, and even in the 21st centuries, can boast of such brilliant results? He certainly was not a mediocre and weak ruler. Therefore, Nicholas II must still be recognized as one of the outstanding rulers of the Russian state.

May 18 marks the 150th anniversary of the birth of the last Russian Tsar, Nicholas II. Although his life and death have long been part of our history, the attitude towards him is far from museum. He is a saint - and they make him guilty of everything. And one of the main reproaches against him is weakness as a person and ruler. Is this reproach fair?

Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov lived only half a century. Two months after the anniversary, he, who had already abdicated, was killed along with his entire family and household. The martyrdom of the last tsar led to his canonization after the collapse of Soviet power. Now Nicholas is a passion-bearer, a royal martyr. They pray to him in Orthodox churches - which does not prevent a part of our society from still hating him, repeating everything that the tsarebortsy told about "Nicholas the Bloody" in the Soviet years.

However, for most, he is not a villain or a saint, but simply a "weak ruler."

This stereotype has ingrained itself not only in the minds of both liberals and communists, but has also become a kind of mass myth. Something like "Peter the Great is a great reformer," and "Catherine annexed the Crimea." The weakness of Nicholas is seen in the fact that he allowed the revolution, made it possible to overthrow himself - which opened the way to chaos and confusion, the collapse of the country and the death of millions.

This justification for weakness has replaced the one for which the tsar was reproached in the Soviet years. There he was weak-willed, but at the same time an inborn enemy of the people, but here he became weak-willed as a guarantor of the integrity of the state. It must be said that the second reproach has at least formal grounds - after all, if the ruler is overthrown, then he himself is to blame for this? Nikolai is put on a par with Gorbachev - now, both allowed the collapse of a great power. Yes, Yeltsin overthrew one, and the Provisional Government overthrew the other - but did the supreme rulers themselves get confused?

Gorbachev is 87 and alive and never had any chance of returning to power. He is despised by the people, and he himself is completely to blame for the fact that he lost power. The stupid reformation of the system, coupled with weak personal qualities, led to the collapse of not only his reign, but also to the death of our great country. Not final death - "only" to the collapse of the state, in the form of which Russia then consisted. Yes, Russia has revived, but the losses are huge, and it will take decades to correct the consequences.

And Nicholas II was killed - so that he could not return to power. Not because he wanted it - but because while he was alive, that Russia was also alive, which they wanted to kill and turn into a base for a world revolution, a world republic of Soviets. The blood of the king, in fact, was supposed to sprinkle the foundation of the building of the "new kingdom" - the all-planetary unity of workers, in which there would be no races, no civilizations, no states, no estates. The assassination of the emperor opened the way to a new era, but became simply a symbol of a terrible civil war in which millions of our people died.

The globalist communist project did not materialize. In the West, from where the ideas of the "world proletarian revolution" were imported to Russia, the uprisings were crushed or took the form of fascist, that is, nationalist movements. And in Russia, the nationalist Bolsheviks who eventually took power were content to build a brighter future with just one country.

In the same way, the globalist project did not take place after the overthrow of Gorbachev, although the liberals who took power in Russia did everything in order not to interfere with America building a new wonderful world. But it didn't work out. True, at first the apologists for a united humanity lost power in our country, and only then it became clear to everyone that the Atlantic project was failing on a universal scale.

There is a fundamental difference between the reasons for the removal of Nicholas II and the dismissal of Gorbachev. It is that Nikolai stood in the way of the globalizers, and Gorbachev unwittingly served them. The tsar was removed in order to prevent Russia from strengthening - and the country was pulled out from under the general secretary in order to speed up and deepen its collapse.

Nikolai ruled for 23 years, facing the most severe resistance from part of the aristocracy, the liberal-oriented intelligentsia, the revolutionary part of the national minorities (and this is not to mention external forces). He made concessions to their demands - although the main one was not even to “share power”, but to give it to them, to turn into a nominal, formal figure. Reign but not rule.

But Nikolai really felt like "the master of the Russian Land." Not in the sense of owning the wealth of the country, as the then oligarchs and liberals could only imagine, but to those who are responsible before God for the Russian people. The autocrat was not the chief of the elite, not the leader of the ruling class, but the leader of the Russian people, their power and their defender.

It was the impossibility for Nicholas to abandon autocracy that infuriated his opponents. Well, how can one rush about with this outdated form of government, it is high time, following the example of progressive Europeans, to establish a representative parliament and a responsible government. No indications that the peoples and countries are all different, and the history of their formation, as well as the formation of relations between the monarch and the elite, are dissimilar - did not meet with understanding among the dissatisfied. We want as in France, no, as in England - and also all rights and freedoms immediately!

Nicholas was one of the most liberal and tolerant rulers of that time, when viewed on a global scale. And Russia was one of the most free countries to live in. Simply, at the same time, it was also one of the most complex in its structure - and what in Great Britain and France took the form of frank racial superiority of their nation over others and colonial exploitation of the population and resources of the conquered countries, in Russia looked exactly the opposite. A large family of different nations under the shadow of the Russian Orthodox Tsar - in fact, without any exploitation and infringement of the rights of minorities. All political restrictions (as, for example, for the Poles) were caused by reasonable doubts about the loyalty of such subjects.

Nevertheless, even during his lifetime, the West began to sculpt the image of a persecutor and pogromist from Nicholas II, and portray our country as a "prison of peoples." A lie that is still true for some.

Just like the current key accusation against Nikolai - why didn’t he fight for power, why did he sign the abdication? It is more than foolish. The emperor not only did not imagine that his departure would lead to the collapse of the army and the country - on the contrary, he decided to sacrifice himself for the sake of his beloved Russia. Could he raise troops? Lead them to Petrograd, where the Duma and part of the garrison have rebelled? Of course, he could - but he did not do this, based on concern for victory in the war.

He did not want to arrange even a semblance of internal unrest, so as not to distract the country from moving towards victory, for the sake of which he had done everything in the previous two and a half years. The last one and a half of them - at the post of supreme commander. The king would have led the country to victory - if not for the stab in the back that he received in February 1917.

The "supreme leader of the Russian army" was betrayed by the highest elite. That part of it, which at first did everything in its power to discredit Nicholas and his family, then plotted, entered into contacts with the allies, and committed the symbolic murder of Rasputin. And in February, she drove the emperor into a corner - after the start of unrest, in fact, blocking him in a train that was deliberately stopped between the front and the capital. There they began to persuade him to renounce - and yes, he did not shed blood and renounced. Betrayal and deceit, including from close generals - this is what Nicholas II faced.

Weakness? Or the desire to avoid bloodshed and confusion at all costs? But those who overthrew the tsar turned out to be not only not victorious - they turned out to be incapable of governing the country at all. It was their "efforts" that the great empire was brought to a state of complete uncontrollability within a few months. Without a king at the head, the country began to crawl at the seams, plunged into the abyss.

Falling into which, she caught on the Bolshevik hook - and hung on it, bleeding. The heirs of Nikolai, such as Stalin, pulled the country up, returned its unity and strength - so that later, at a new round in our history, the truly weak Gorbachev would not calculate the dosage and, instead of treating, would kill the system and the country of the USSR.

In the 21st century, in Russia called the Russian Federation, Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov can be revered as a passion-bearer, as a man who renounced power for the sake of the victory of his beloved Motherland. It can be remembered as the last monarch who ruled a great empire for 23 years, as an example of a loving father and husband. But it's time to stop repeating nonsense about a "weak ruler" - such strong-willed people as Nicholas II, even in Russian history, are countless.