A few days ago, Crimean prosecutor Natalya Poklonskaya, known for her reverent attitude towards the Romanov dynasty, said that abdication Russian Emperor Nicholas II has no legal force. Moreover, she compared the abdication with attempts to rewrite the history of the Great Patriotic War.
According to her, “a copy of the paper, which was presented in history textbooks as an alleged renunciation of power, has no legal meaning. This is a copy of a piece of paper, signed in pencil, without following all the necessary legal and procedural procedures and forms, so this paper has no legal force.” Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on Constitutional Legislation Konstantin Dobrynin, having entered into an absentee discussion with Poklonskaya, stated the opposite: “The original of the abdication of Nicholas II is stored in the State Archive in Moscow. The autocrat had at that time all the power, including the possibility of his own renunciation in exactly the form in which God’s anointed one considered possible, and in the pen that he considered appropriate. Even a nail on a sheet of iron. And it will have absolute legal force.”
As usually happens before the next anniversary of the shooting royal family, questions of the legitimacy of abdication and succession to the throne again became relevant. At the same time, the disputing parties, as a rule, either do not have a specialized historical education, or have never worked with archival documents, or evaluate pre-revolutionary Russian jurisprudence with modern point vision. Or - as in the case of Poklonskaya - all at the same time. However, the first modern version of Nikolai’s allegedly forged abdication (as well as forged diaries, correspondence, etc.) was introduced back in 2008 by blogger Andrei Razumov, who made sensational “discoveries” based on photographs from the Internet. Later, Razumov’s version was repeated almost word for word by the publicist Pyotr Multatuli and the odious writer Nikolai Starikov. Surprisingly, this fiction, not supported by any archival documents, turned out to be not only extremely tenacious, but also popular, as we see, even among senior officials and is repeated, overgrown with non-existent details, to this day.
Does the “copy of the piece of paper” stored in the State Archives Russian Federation, legal force? What legal and procedural procedures were required to accompany the abdication? The answer to these questions lies in Russian pre-revolutionary legislation. The Code of Basic State Laws of the Russian Empire, which came into force in 1906, included, among other things, the Act of Succession to the Throne of 1797. Article 37 of the Basic Laws stated: “Under the operation of the rules depicted above regarding the order of succession to the Throne, the person who has the right to it is given the freedom to renounce this right in such circumstances when there will be no difficulty in further succession to the Throne.” This rule appeared in 1825, after the announcement of the manifesto on the abdication of Tsarevich Konstantin Pavlovich and the announcement of his younger brother Nicholas I as emperor.
It would seem that this article completely unambiguously answers the question of whether, in principle, Nicholas II could abdicate the throne. However, in recent years, there has been a fairly popular opinion that Article 37 applied only to those who had the right to the Russian throne, but not to the head of state directly. In the textbook “Russian state law» by the famous Russian lawyer, Professor Nikolai Korkunov, this paradox is also considered. “Accession to the throne is a right, not an obligation. Anyone who has the right to the throne can renounce it. ...Can someone who has already ascended the throne renounce it? Since the reigning sovereign undoubtedly has the right to the throne, and the law grants everyone who has the right the right to abdicate, then one must answer this in the affirmative” (quoted from “Russian State Law”, St. Petersburg, 1909, volume 1, p. 243 ). As we see, even authoritative pre-revolutionary jurists were sure: the emperor has the right to abdicate.
Could Nikolai sign such an important document with an ordinary pencil? According to Article 4 of the Basic Laws, “The Supreme Autocratic power belongs to the All-Russian Emperor. God Himself commands to obey His authority, not only for fear, but also for conscience.” Article 24 read: “The decrees and commands of the Sovereign Emperor, in the order of supreme administration or issued directly by Him, are sealed by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers or the relevant Minister or the Chief Administrator of a separate part and promulgated by the Governing Senate.” In other words, any form of the emperor’s signature, certified by authorized persons, was valid. That is, the words of Senator Dobrynin about painting “with a nail on a sheet of iron” are quite fair, but with a clarification: the signature must be countersigned.
Due to the absence of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Prince Nikolai Golitsyn (he was in Petrograd at that moment), the imperial autograph was certified by the Minister of the Imperial Court, Count Vladimir Borisovich Fredericks. There is a version, known from the memoirs of Countess Maria Kleinmichel, that the abdication was signed under the minister of the court, but under threats to Nicholas’ life. “He (Frederick) said that the sovereign hesitated and resisted, and that the signature on the abdication was torn from him by force due to the rude treatment of General Ruzsky, who grabbed him by the hand and, holding his hand on the abdication manifesto, rudely repeated to him: “Sign , sign it. Don't you see that there is nothing else left for you to do? If you don’t sign, I’m not responsible for your life.” “I tried to intervene,” Fredericks said, “but Ruzsky impudently remarked to me: “I’m not talking to you. There is no place for you here anymore. The Tsar should have surrounded himself long ago with Russian people, and not with Baltic barons.”
It is worth noting that this story of the elderly Fredericks belongs rather to the realm of myths, to the fantasies of an old man who was deeply ill at that time. To understand this, it is worth familiarizing yourself with the protocol of the count’s interrogation, carried out by the emergency investigative commission of the Provisional Government on June 2, 1917, from which it clearly follows: Fredericks remembers extremely poorly what happened only a few months ago.
« Chairman: On the evening of February 27, in the presence of the sovereign, Alekseev, you and Voeikov, there was a small meeting at which the former emperor wanted to get the opinion of the people closest to him about the events?
Fredericks: I don’t know, or maybe I’m getting everything mixed up in my old age. I don't remember what happened in my apartment.
Chairman: Not in your apartment, but at headquarters, maybe in a carriage?
Fredericks: I do not remember. I say frankly - I don’t remember.
…Fredericks:...The Emperor was arrested after me.
Chairman: He was arrested, but he denied. After all, do you know where his renunciation took place?
Fredericks: I do not remember".
However, the GARF has preserved a protocol dated March 2 of the negotiations between Nicholas II in the lounge car of the imperial train with the delegates of the Provisional Committee of the State Duma, Guchkov and Shulgin, about abdication. A word from the participants of the events.
Nikolai: “I thought throughout the morning, and in the name of the good, peace and salvation of Russia I was ready to abdicate the throne in favor of my son, but now, having once again thought about the situation, I came to the conclusion that in view of his illness I should abdicate at the same time both for myself and for him, since I cannot be separated from him.”
Guchkov: “Your Majesty, your human feeling as a father has begun to speak, and politics has no place here, so we cannot object to your proposal.”
As we can see, the decision was made by the emperor quite voluntarily and without much hesitation. Guchkov himself later, in August 1917, during interrogation by the Extraordinary Investigative Commission, said: “I asked him to think it over, but the sovereign said: “I have already thought about this issue and decided to renounce.” I was even amazed that I didn’t meet any resistance; apparently, he didn’t have any internal resistance.”
The shock of the participants in the events that the emperor calmly agreed to renounce power completely overshadowed the legal side of the issue. In June of the same year, General Ruzsky, who met with Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich, told the latter: “To my question, according to basic laws, whether the sovereign can abdicate for his son, they both (Shulgin and Guchkov) did not know the answer. I remarked to them: how are they driving along such an important road? state issue and did not take with them a volume of basic laws, or even a lawyer. Shulgin replied that they did not at all expect such a decision from the sovereign. Guchkov decided that the sovereign’s formula was acceptable, that now it makes no difference whether the sovereign had the right or not.”
If you spend some time studying the Basic Laws of the Russian Empire, it becomes obvious that the abdication of any of the members ruling dynasty did not put an end to either the dynasty or the monarchy as such - the inheritance scheme was thought out extremely carefully. Actually the only one possible option from the point of view of pre-revolutionary law, the emperor convened the Constituent Assembly to resolve issues government system and the subsequent abdication of the throne with the creation of guardianship under the young Tsarevich Alexei until his dynastic majority. In other words, de jure the question of the form of government in Russia could not have been resolved before 1920, but reality often diverges from the papers.
The usual Russian mess, however, was (and is) widely mistaken for malicious intent. Later, already in 1918, the former commissar of communications of the Provisional Government, Alexander Bublikov, who arrested Nicholas in Mogilev, wrote: “One of the main character traits of the Romanov family is their cunning. The entire act of renunciation is permeated by this deceit. Firstly, it was not compiled according to form: not in the form of a manifesto, but in the form of a dispatch to the chief of staff at headquarters. On occasion, this is a cassation reason. Secondly, in direct violation of fundamental laws, it contains not only the emperor’s abdication for himself, but also for his heir, to which he definitely had no right.”
The manifesto, sent from headquarters in the afternoon and corrected in the evening of March 2 (15), 1917, was signed by Emperor Nicholas II at 23:40. The protocol of the negotiations says: “So that it does not seem that the act was carried out under pressure from the visiting deputies, and since the very decision to abdicate the Throne was made by His Majesty in the afternoon, then, on the advice of the deputies, the Manifesto was signed by 3 o’clock in the afternoon... The deputies asked to sign another duplicate of the Manifesto in case of a possible misfortune with them, which would remain in the hands of General Ruzsky. About an hour later, a duplicate of the Manifesto was presented to His Majesty for signature, after which all four signatures (on the manifestos and two decrees - approx. "Tapes.ru") were countersigned by the Minister of the Imperial Household, Count Fredericks."
The next day, citizen Nikolai Romanov wrote in his diary: “I slept long and soundly. I woke up far beyond Dvinsk. The day was sunny and frosty. I talked to my people about yesterday. I read a lot about Julius Caesar. ...It turns out that Misha renounced. His manifesto ends with four tails (the so-called general, equal, direct and secret elections to the legislative body - approx. "Tapes.ru") for elections in six months Constituent Assembly. God knows who convinced him to sign such disgusting stuff! In Petrograd, the unrest stopped - as long as it continues like this."
Relating to the abdication of Nicholas II and his execution. The list of published papers included the act of abdication of Nicholas II from the throne, signed in pencil - “Nicholas”. Some time ago, Poklonskaya voiced the widespread opinion that such a document has no legal force,
1. From the diary of Emperor Nicholas II: “In the morning Ruzsky came and read a very long conversation on the phone with Rodzianko... My renunciation is needed... I agreed... In the evening, Guchkov and Shulgin arrived from Petrograd, with whom I spoke and gave them the signed and revised manifesto. At one o'clock in the morning I left Pskov with a heavy feeling of what I had experienced. There is treason and cowardice and deceit all around!».
The act of abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne. 
Note from the Minister of the Imperial Court, Count V.B. Fredericks about Nicholas II's announcement of his abdication. 
Act on non-acceptance of the throne by Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich
"...Therefore, calling on the blessing of God, I ask all citizens of the Russian State to submit to the Provisional Government, on initiative State Duma arisen and invested with full power..."
This is all to the question that a certain group of heated white emigration, long ago merged in embraces with the West, is trying to present the Romanov monarchical rule of Russia as still legal, not interrupted.
Notable in this regard response from the Federation Council of the Russian Federation to the speculations of Mrs. Poklonskaya, rushing into the political elite states.
1. The Prosecutor of Crimea [at that time Poklonskaya still held this position] stated that the abdication of Nicholas II from the throne was drawn up without observing legal forms and procedures.
2. SF response:
“The original of Nicholas II’s abdication is kept in the State Archives in Moscow. The autocrat had at that time full power, including the possibility of one’s own renunciation precisely in the form in which God’s anointed one deems possible, and with whatever pen he deems suitable. Even a nail on a sheet of iron. And it will have absolute legal force“Konstantin Dobrynin, deputy chairman of the Federation Council Committee on Constitutional Legislation, told RIA Novosti.
He emphasized that the act of abdication of Nicholas II “to eliminate doubts and misinterpretations” confirmed by the Minister of the Imperial Household, Baron Fredericks. The act of renunciation itself was announced and published in all newspapers Tsarist Russia and was not questioned by anyone, the senator emphasized.
“If colleague Poklonskaya believes that in addition to the procedure and the formal side of abdication, there is a question of the voluntary expression of the will of the autocrat, then it is worth remembering that after March 2, 1917 Nikolai Romanov did not declare anywhere about being forced to renounce for almost a year and a half, although he had a lot of opportunities", said Dobrynin.»
Historian E. Spitsyn, author of a textbook on the history of Russia:
“...Poklonskaya, yes. But she’s just, excuse me, a “fool” who doesn’t understand anything about source studies, and she’s also a “specialist” to me! The sovereign's pencil signature was varnished right there so that it would not be erased, this act is then Averil Minister of the Imperial Household and Appanages Count Fredericks, who held this position for 20 years. All this is visible on the act, including the date of its preparation. So she says - there is no legal force, but she is a lawyer - and nowhere in the law is it written that acts of this kind must be signed with a pen or ballpoint pen- there just needs to be a signature, that’s all. And how the sovereign-emperor put this signature is purely his personal business. The presence of a pencil signature does not in any way detract from that signature on this document.»
By the way, the position of non-recognition of the legality of the abdication of Nicholas II is also the position of the unreconciled part of the ROCOR, which still has parishes on the territory of Russia, does not recognize the ROC MP as a true Russian church, and considers only itself the true “guardian” of the Orthodox faith.
About how closely the emigrants “slept” with the intelligence services of the Third Reich, and then the United States - there is “more and more” information.
So who in Russia is implementing these ideas? After all, the Russian Federation is the successor of the USSR. But the USSR is not the successor of the Republic of Ingushetia.
Accordingly, trying to restore the “legality” of the Republic of Ingushetia, certain forces are encroaching on the legality of the Russian Federation.
Is it possible with such views as Ms. Poklonskaya’s to hold positions in the state apparatus of the Russian Federation? It’s probably possible if you are an ideological “saboteur” or don’t understand the issue at all.
Original taken from
The answer is clear - IT HAS. However, the Official Statement of Ms. Poklonskaya - the prosecutor of Crimea - raises serious concerns about the gaps in the education of modern lawyers in Russia, some of whom received HIGHER EDUCATION and, thanks to it, took HIGH POSITIONS in the State. But I'll start from the beginning.
First. The Sovereign-Emperor does not need abstract “legal force.” He himself is the real “legal force”. The Sovereign-Emperor is the COMPLETE EMBODIMENT OF THE HIGHEST RIGHT AND THE HIGHEST LAW in the Empire. THE WORD OF THE EMPEROR IS HIS WILL AND AT THE SAME TIME THE LAW. Moreover, ANY WORD OF THE EMPEROR, regardless of whether this word is written or spoken out loud. Based on the above, any “piece of paper” with the signature of the Emperor has the ABSOLUTE “legal force” of the Law from the moment of the “stroke of the pen”. In this particular case - a pencil.
Second. Abdication of the Throne - according to the IMPERIAL PROTOCOL, is the inalienable RIGHT of the EMPEROR to Freedom, granted to him by the Creator-Almighty along with the Right to Life and Joy. Perhaps the most famous precedent for the use of the Right to Liberty was the voluntary abdication in 1936 of the English King Edward, the uncle of the current English Queen Elizabeth, in favor of his brother George. It is known that both Sovereign Ivan IV (the Terrible) and Sovereign Emperor Peter I (the Great), taking advantage of this inalienable right to freedom, more than once “abdicated” the Throne. But they were “called” again to the Kingdom.
Third. If the formal requirements of the IMPERIAL PROTOCOL were followed exactly, then the requirements of the so-called INTERNAL IMPERIAL PROTOCOL were not just violated, but represented a blatant VIOLATION OF THE HIGHEST AESTHETICAL PRINCIPLES OF THE UNITY OF THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF THE Emperor AND THE HIGHEST ETHICAL PRINCIPLES OF THE COVENANT between the Emperor, the People and the Creation com-Almighty on the Historical Stage . I'll try to explain. He who has ears will hear.
Sovereign-Emperor on the Historical Stage - Actor in the “two-act” Drama of the Creator-Almighty: “Peace and War”. Drama is ONE, but the behavior of the Actor on the Historical Stage must be consistent with the SUGGESTED CIRCUMSTANCES. What is given to the Emperor as an UNALIENABLE RIGHT during Peace becomes a CRIME OF THE STATE during War. I explain this categorical imperative using an analogy.
Imagine that you are a Spectator who paid money for a ticket and came to the theater to watch the long-awaited performance based on Shakespeare’s great play “Hamlet - Prince of Denmark” performed by your FAVORITE Actor. And suddenly you notice that your loved one is “not himself.” At some point, it becomes obvious to you, the Viewer, that he is “drunk as hell.” Moreover, in the middle of the famous monologue “To be or not to be,” the FAVORITE unexpectedly turns and leaves the stage, informing you, the Spectator, that he is tired of you and the performance will be completed by the unknown “Brother Ivanushka,” playing the role of the Goat in a children’s fairy tale. I can imagine the Spectator’s reaction to such a STATEMENT from a LOVED ONE!
But seriously, there is an ancient chivalric LAW OF HOLY HONOR on the Historical Stage. This TESTAMENT TO HIS DESCENDANTS, brought to Russia (Muscovy) by the distant ancestor of the Romanovs Andrei Kobyla (1347), categorically does not allow the Knight-Monarch, leading the soldiers into battle, to leave the BATTLE FIELD until the very end. Even a mortally wounded Knight Monarch MUST remain on the battlefield until its end.
There have been cases in the History of Wars when the already dead body of the Monarch became the reason for the Victory of the army on the Battlefield. In contrast, a Monarch who voluntarily leaves the Battlefield actually DECLARES HIS DEFEAT and CAPITALITY to the Enemy. Do we need to remind you that this LAW OF HOLY HONOR is universal, eternal and absolutely merciless. “We hear countless examples of this in History.”
Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, who actually won the Battle of Waterloo, WILLILY left the Battlefield and lost both France and his Great Destiny. Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich, who WILLILY left the Battlefield of the GREAT WAR, BETRAYED THE COVENANT of his great ancestor Andrei Kobyla and lost EVERYTHING that an Emperor can lose: the Throne and Holy Honor. The rest of both the life and death of Nikolai Alexandrovich was only a consequence of his WILL. The Sovereign-Emperor does not need abstract “legal force.” He himself is the real “legal force”.
State Archives of the Russian Federation published documents for the first time related to the abdication of Nicholas II and his execution. The list of published papers included the act of abdication of Nicholas II from the throne, signed in pencil - “Nicholas”. Some time ago, Poklonskaya voiced the widespread opinion that such a document has no legal force,
1. From the diary of Emperor Nicholas II:
“In the morning Ruzsky came and read a very long conversation on the phone with Rodzianko... My renunciation is needed... I agreed... In the evening, Guchkov and Shulgin arrived from Petrograd, with whom I spoke and gave them the signed and revised manifesto. At one o'clock in the morning I left Pskov with a heavy feeling of what I had experienced. There is treason and cowardice and deceit all around!».
2. The act of abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne.
3. Note from the Minister of the Imperial Court, Count V.B. Fredericks about Nicholas II's announcement of his abdication.
4. Act on non-acceptance of the throne by Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich
"...Therefore, calling on the blessing of God, I ask all citizens of the Russian State to submit to the Provisional Government, at the initiative of the State Duma, which arose and was invested with full power..."
This is all to the question that a certain group of heated white emigration, long ago merged in embraces with the West, is trying to present the Romanov monarchical rule of Russia as still legal, not interrupted.
*
Notable in this regard response from the Federation Council of the Russian Federation to Ms.'s speculations Poklonskaya, rushing into the political elite states.
- 1. The Prosecutor of Crimea [at that time Poklonskaya still held this position] stated that the abdication of Nicholas II from the throne was drawn up without observing legal forms and procedures.
- 2. SF response:
- “The original of Nicholas II’s abdication is kept in the State Archives in Moscow. The autocrat had at that time full power, including the possibility of one’s own renunciation precisely in the form in which God’s anointed one deems possible, and with whatever pen he deems suitable. Even a nail on a sheet of iron. And it will have absolute legal force“Konstantin Dobrynin, deputy chairman of the Federation Council Committee on Constitutional Legislation, told RIA Novosti.
- He emphasized that the act of abdication of Nicholas II “to eliminate doubts and misinterpretations” confirmed by the Minister of the Imperial Household, Baron Fredericks. The act of renunciation itself was announced and published in all newspapers of Tsarist Russia and was not questioned by anyone, the senator emphasized.
- “If colleague Poklonskaya believes that in addition to the procedure and the formal side of abdication, there is a question of the voluntary expression of the will of the autocrat, then it is worth remembering that after March 2, 1917 Nikolai Romanov did not declare anywhere about being forced to renounce for almost a year and a half, although he had a lot of opportunities", said Dobrynin."
- “...Poklonskaya, yes. But she’s just, excuse me, a “fool” who doesn’t understand anything about source studies, and she’s also a “specialist” to me! The sovereign's pencil signature was varnished right there so that it would not be erased, this act is then Averil Minister of the Imperial Household and Appanages Count Fredericks, who held this position for 20 years. All this is visible on the act, including the date of its preparation. So she says - there is no legal force, but she is a lawyer - and nowhere in the law is it written that acts of this kind must be signed with a pen or ballpoint pen- there just needs to be a signature, that’s all. And how the sovereign-emperor put this signature is purely his personal business. The presence of a pencil signature does not in any way detract from that signature on this document.»
About how closely the emigrants “slept” with the intelligence services of the Third Reich, and then the United States - there is “more and more” information.
So who in Russia is implementing these ideas? After all, the Russian Federation is the successor of the USSR. But the USSR is not the successor to the Republic of Ingushetia.
Accordingly, trying to restore the “legality” of the Republic of Ingushetia, certain forces are encroaching on the legality of the Russian Federation.
Is it possible with views like Ms. Poklonskaya, hold positions in the state apparatus of the Russian Federation? It’s probably possible if you are an ideological “saboteur” or don’t understand the issue at all.
What happened on March 2/15, 1917 in Pskov is still referred to in history as the abdication of Nicholas II from the throne. Until now, historical science and public consciousness perceive as an axiom that Emperor Nicholas II voluntarily, but under the pressure of circumstances, put his signature on the manifesto announcing that he was relinquishing supreme power.
Meanwhile, Russian history has never known such a fact as the abdication of a crowned monarch from the throne. There is a known case of renunciation of the throne by the Heir Tsarevich Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich, brother of Emperor Alexander I, made several years before the death of the Reigning Sovereign. However, the act of this refusal was written by Konstantin Pavlovich in his own hand, after which on August 16, 1823, a manifesto of Emperor Alexander I was drawn up on the transfer of the right to the throne to Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich. This manifesto was classified and placed for storage in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. Three copies of the manifesto, certified by Alexander I, were sent to the Synod, Senate and State Council. After the death of Emperor Alexander I, the first thing to do was to open the package with copies. The secret of the will was known to the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna and Prince A.N. Golitsyn, Count A.A. Arakcheev and Moscow Archbishop Filaret, who compiled the text of the manifesto.
As we see, the decision to renounce the throne of the Grand Duke was certified by numerous witnesses and approved by the Emperor’s manifesto. At the same time, we were talking about the renunciation of the throne not by the reigning monarch, but by the heir to the throne.
As for the Reigning Monarch, then Basic Laws Russian Empire did not provide for the very possibility of his abdication at all(Theoretically, such a basis could only have been the Tsar’s tonsure as a monk.) It is even more impossible to talk about any renunciation of the Tsar, made under moral influence, in conditions of deprivation of freedom of action.
In this regard, the words of Comrade Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Prince N.D., are noteworthy. Zhevakhov, which he said in March 1917 when refusing to swear allegiance to the Provisional Government: “The abdication of the Sovereign is invalid, because it was not an act of good will of the Sovereign, but violence. In addition to state laws, we also have Divine laws, and we know that, according to the rules of the Holy Apostles, even the forced resignation of the episcopal rank is invalid: even more invalid is this usurpation of the sacred rights of the Monarch by a gang of criminals.”
Bishop Arseny (Zhadanovsky), who received martyrdom on Butovo training ground, said that “according to church canonical rules, the forcible deprivation of a bishop of his see is invalid, even if it occurred “at the handwriting” of the expelled one. And this is understandable: every paper has a formal meaning, anything written under threat has no value - violence remains violence.”
Thus, even if Emperor Nicholas II signed, under threat or pressure, a certain document that was in no way a manifesto of renunciation either in form or in essence, then this would not mean at all that he really abdicates the throne.
On the part of the Sovereign, there would be no voluntary renunciation, but an act which, if it applied to the bishop, according to the third rule of St. Cyril of Alexandria, has the following assessment: “He gave the handwriting of the renunciation, as he says, not of his own free will, but by need, fear and threats from some. But besides this, it is not in accordance with church decrees that some clergy present manuscripts of renunciation.” In addition, Emperor Nicholas II, even following the official version, did not abolish the Monarchy, but transferred the throne to his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich.
The abdication of Emperor Nicholas II, thus, did not acquire the force of a Russian legislative act, since the manifesto acquires the force of law only if published, which can only be done by the Reigning Emperor (that is, the appearance of the text of the renunciation in the press does not automatically legitimize it), and Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich was never like that - not for a single minute. Thus, the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II, even if he signed the well-known text, is legally void.
The abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne. Falsification of abdication documents
The conspiracy plan, which provided for the abdication of the Emperor, was conceived long before the February Revolution. One of its main developers was A.I. Guchkov. After the February events, he reported: “The Emperor must leave the throne. Something in this direction was being done even before the coup, with the help of other forces. The very idea of renunciation was so close and related to me that from the first moment, when this vacillation and then the collapse of power became clear, my friends and I considered this solution to be exactly what should have been done.”
Guchkov said that the events of February 1917 led him “to the conviction that it is necessary, at all costs, to achieve the abdication of the Sovereign. I insisted that Duma Chairman Rodzianko take on this task.”
Thus, it is clear that the initiatives of M.V. Rodzianko’s trip to Bologoye, his plans to arrest the Emperor and demands for his abdication were the initiatives and plans of A.I. Guchkova.
The fact that the renunciation was planned in advance was also said by A.I.’s companion. Guchkov on a trip to Pskov V.V. Shulgin. After the coup, he told cadet E.A. Efimovsky: “The question of renunciation was a foregone conclusion. It would have happened regardless of whether Shulgin was present or not. Shulgin feared that the Emperor might be killed. And he went to the Dno station with the goal of “creating a shield” so that the murder would not happen.”
But the abdication of the Emperor was not only part of Guchkov’s plans. It was no less part of Kerensky’s plans. This does not mean, of course, that there were no differences between the two coup leaders. But all this did not interfere with their most active mutual cooperation. Therefore S.P. Melgunov was absolutely right when he asserted that the preparation and organization of the February Revolution of 1917 was led by two Masonic groups. At the head of one of them (military) was A.I. Guchkov, the other (civilian) was headed by A.F. Kerensky.
A.I. Guchkov was closely associated with military circles and played a leading role in organizing the army's inaction in suppressing the unrest in Petrograd. Chief of the Petrograd military guard, Quartermaster General of the General Staff, Major General M.I. Zankevich, fulfilling the terms of the agreement with Guchkov, took steps that were aimed at weakening the defense of the Admiralty and Winter Palace area. On March 2, Zankevich presented himself everywhere as a person acting on the orders of M.V. Rodzianko.
On the other hand, A.F. Kerensky had great connections in Masonic and revolutionary circles.
At A.I. Guchkov had appropriate agreements with the commanders of some regiments on the line of conduct in the event of spontaneous soldier uprisings.
February 28 A.I. Guchkov went to campaign for military personnel in the barracks of the Life Guards Pavlovsky Regiment, and on March 1 and 2 he carried out campaigning in other units. Participated by A.I. Guchkov and in the capture of the Main Artillery Directorate.
Thus, A.I. Guchkov in every possible way contributed not to the palace coup, which he spoke about earlier, but to the revolution. The very revolution that A.F. so strived for. Kerensky.
The cooperation of Guchkov and Kerensky was clearly manifested in the seizure of the Imperial train on March 1, 1917. Both Guchkov and Kerensky needed the seizure of the train and the abdication of the Sovereign. There is no doubt that after the Imperial train was sent to Pskov, Kerensky and Guchkov acted in complete agreement regarding the Sovereign.
Already on the afternoon of March 2, the manifesto with the abdication of the Sovereign was spoken openly in different places of the Empire. Let us remember that at this time, even according to Ruzsky, the Emperor had not yet made any decision.
At 15 o'clock in the Catherine Hall of the Tauride Palace P.N. Miliukov spoke of abdication as a decided matter: “The old despot, who brought Russia to complete ruin, will voluntarily renounce the throne, or will be deposed. Power will pass to the regent, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. Alexey will be the heir.”
At 5 p.m. 23 min. March 2 General V.N. Klembovsky confidently stated: “There is only one outcome - abdication in favor of the Heir under the regency of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. His Majesty has not yet made a decision, but it seems inevitable.”
At 19:00 on March 1, the Imperial train arrived in Pskov. The situation around him was not typical for the Tsar’s usual meetings. A.A. Mordvinov wrote that the platform “was almost unlit and completely deserted. Neither the military nor the civilian authorities (with the exception, it seems, of the governor), always long ago and in large number The Tsar, who was gathering for the meeting, was not there.”
General D.N. wrote the same thing. Dubensky: “There will probably be no official meetings, and there will be no honor guard in sight.”
Chief of staff Northern Front General Yu.N. Danilov adds a number of important details to previous memories. He writes that “by the time the Tsar’s train arrived, the station was cordoned off, and no one was allowed into its premises.”
Deputy Head of the Commissioner for the Northern Front of the All-Russian Zemstvo Union, Prince S.E. Trubetskoy arrived at the Pskov station on the evening of March 1 to meet the Tsar. When the officer on duty asked “Where is the Emperor’s train?”, he “showed me the way, but warned me that in order to enter the train itself, special permission was required. I went to the train. The parking of the Tsar's train on unsightly sidings covered with snow made a depressing impression. I don’t know why, this train, guarded by sentries, did not seem like a Tsar’s residence with a guard posted, but suggested a vague idea of arrest.”
The events that took place in Pskov on the Imperial train on March 1-3 remain unsolved to this day.
According to the official version, Emperor Nicholas II, who had previously categorically refused any attempts to convince him of the need for a responsible ministry, suddenly approved and signed three manifestos in Pskov within 24 hours. One of these manifestos radically changed the country’s political system (introducing a responsible ministry), and the other two successively transferred the Russian throne, first to the young Tsarevich, and then to Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich.
After the Imperial train was placed on a siding, the Commander-in-Chief of the armies of the Northern Front, General N.V., arrived in the Imperial carriage. Ruzsky, his chief of staff, General Yu.N. Danilov and two or three more officers. According to the recollections of members of his retinue, General Ruzsky began to demand cardinal concessions from Nicholas II as soon as he entered the carriage and was received by the Emperor. V.N. Voeikov, during interrogation at the VCHSK, stated, in contrast to his memories, that “all the talk about the Responsible Ministry took place after arriving in Pskov.”
The generals began to actively put pressure on Emperor Nicholas II even before his arrival in Pskov. On the afternoon of March 1, when the Emperor was at Dno station, Adjutant General M.V. Alekseev sent him a telegram. Having reported about the unrest in Moscow, Alekseev wrote to the Tsar that the unrest would spread throughout Russia and a revolution would occur, which would mark the shameful end of the war. Alekseev assured that the restoration of order is impossible “if Your Imperial Majesty does not follow an act that contributes to general calm.” Otherwise, Alekseev declared, “power will pass into the hands of extreme elements tomorrow.” At the end of the telegram, Alekseev begged the Tsar “for the sake of saving Russia and the dynasty, put at the head of Russia a person whom Russia would trust, and instruct him to form a cabinet.”
The entire tone and argumentation of this telegram to M.V. Alekseev are completely consistent with the syllable and his arguments by M.V. Rodzianko. This telegram to M.V. Alekseev was supposed to send to Tsarskoye Selo, but did not do so, allegedly because there was no communication. In fact, they decided to delay sending the telegram, since they knew that the Emperor had to be delivered to Pskov.
Colonel V.L. Baranovsky, in his conversation with the assistant chief of the intelligence department of the Northern Front headquarters, Colonel V.E. Mediocritan via direct wire on March 1 at 15:00. 58 min. noted: “The Chief of Staff asks to convey this telegram to the Commander-in-Chief and asks him to present this telegram to the Sovereign Emperor when His Majesty passes through Pskov.”
As a result of behind-the-scenes negotiations with Rodzianko on the evening of March 1, Alekseev’s telegram underwent significant changes. In fact, it was a manifesto about the introduction of a responsible ministry headed by Rodzianko.
General M.V. Alekseev and Grand Duke Sergei Mikhailovich, who was at Headquarters, authorized the assistant chief of staff of the Northern Front, General V.N. Klembovsky “to report to His Majesty on the absolute need to take the measures indicated in the telegram of General Alekseev.”
Full support for the request set out in Alekseev’s telegram came from Tiflis and from Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich.
Pressure on the Tsar to grant a responsible ministry was continued in Pskov by General N.V. Ruzsky. When meeting with the Tsar, Ruzsky asked whether Nicholas II had received his telegram about the responsible ministry. We were talking about Ruzsky’s telegram, which he sent to the Emperor on February 27 at Headquarters. Nicholas II replied that he had received it and was waiting for Rodzianko’s arrival.
Ruzsky, in a conversation with Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich a year after the events, explained that Emperor Nicholas II agreed to give a responsible ministry after the commander-in-chief gave him a telegram from General Alekseev with a draft manifesto.
However, in the response telegram drawn up by the Tsar there was no mention of any granting of a responsible ministry. Ruzsky said that when they finally brought him a telegram from the Emperor, it turned out “that there was not a word about a responsible ministry.” The only thing Emperor Nicholas II agreed to was to instruct Rodzianko to form a government, choosing ministers at his own discretion, except for the ministers of military, naval and internal affairs. At the same time, Rodzianko himself had to remain responsible to the Emperor, and not to the Duma. Essentially, the telegram of Nicholas II with the instruction of Rodzianko to head a government in which the appointment of chief ministers would remain with the Tsar, and Rodzianko himself would be responsible to the Monarch, turned the responsible ministry into an ordinary cabinet.
To all of Ruzsky’s objections about the need for a responsible ministry, Emperor Nicholas II replied that he “considers himself not entitled to transfer the entire matter of governing Russia into the hands of people who today, being in power, can cause the greatest harm to the Motherland, and tomorrow they will wash their hands of leaving with the cabinet.” resign". “I am responsible before God and Russia for everything that happens and has happened,” said the Emperor; “whether the ministers will be responsible before the Duma and the State Council is indifferent.”
According to General N.V. Ruzsky, the telegram from M.V. was decisive for the Sovereign. Alekseeva. Having familiarized himself with it, Nicholas II agreed to a responsible ministry, saying that “he made a decision, because both Ruzsky and Alekseev, with whom he had spoken a lot on this topic before, were of the same opinion, and he, the Sovereign, knows that they rarely agree on something completely."
Having allegedly received consent from the Tsar, Ruzsky went to the telegraph office to talk via direct wire with M.V. Rodzianko. N.V. Ruzsky told M.V. Rodzianko that the Tsar agreed to a responsible ministry and asked the Chairman of the Duma whether it was possible to send a manifesto with this message for its “publication.” However, the text of the “manifesto” transmitted by Ruzsky was in fact a draft version, largely repeating the text of General Alekseev’s telegram. Of course, such a text could not be transmitted by the Emperor.
In response to M.V. Rodzianko told General N.V. Ruzsky that the situation has changed, “one of the most terrible revolutions has arrived, which will not be so easy to overcome.” In connection with this, a “formidable demand for abdication in favor of his son arose during the regency of Mikhail Alexandrovich.”
Ruzsky asked: “Is it necessary to issue a manifesto?” Rodzianko gave, as always, an evasive answer: “I really don’t know how to answer you. Everything depends on events that fly by at breakneck speed.”
Despite this ambiguity, Ruzsky understood the answer clearly: there is no need to send a manifesto. From this moment, intensive preparations begin for the preparation of a new manifesto of renunciation.
At the end of the conversation N.V. Ruzsky asked M.V. Rodzianko, can he report to the Emperor about this conversation. And I received the answer: “I have nothing against this, and I even ask about it.”
Thus, Rodzianko decided whether to report anything to the Emperor or not. At the same time, the opinion of the Tsar, his instructions and orders were not taken into account at all. For Ruzsky, there were other bosses, and first of all, he was M.V. himself. Rodzianko.
It was General M.V. Alekseev, Chief of Staff of the Northern Front, General Yu.N. Danilov sent a telegram on the morning of March 2, in which he reported on the conversation between Ruzsky and Rodzianko. At the end of the telegram, Danilov wrote: “The Chairman of the State Duma recognized the contents of the manifesto as belated. Since the commander in chief will be able to report to the Sovereign about the above conversation only at 10 o’clock, he believes that it would be more careful not to release the manifesto until additional instructions from His Majesty.”
Already at 9 o'clock in the morning General A.S. Lukomsky on behalf of M.V. Alekseev was called by direct line to General Yu.N. Danilova. Alekseev, in a harsh manner, discarding the “loyal” tone, pointed out to Danilov the need to demand abdication from the Emperor, threatening otherwise an internecine war and paralysis of the front, which would lead Russia to defeat.
Yu.N. Danilov expressed the opinion that it would not be easy to convince the Emperor to agree to a new manifesto. It was decided to wait for the results of Ruzsky’s conversation with the Tsar. In anticipation of this result, Alekseev sent out circular telegrams to the commanders-in-chief of the fronts A.E. Everta, A.A. Brusilov and V.V. Sakharov, in which he asked them to express their attitude towards the possible abdication of the Sovereign.
Before General Alekseev had time to ask the opinion of the commanders-in-chief, they immediately, without hesitation, answered that abdication was necessary, and as soon as possible. Here, for example, is the answer of General A.A. Brusilova: “You can’t hesitate. Time is running out. I completely agree with you. I am immediately telegraphing through the commander-in-chief the most humble request to the Sovereign Emperor. I completely share all your views. There can’t be two opinions here.”
The answers of all the commanders were approximately the same in meaning. Such a reaction on their part could have happened if they knew in advance about the upcoming telegram from General Alekseev with a question about abdication. Just like they knew in advance the answers to this question.
On the evening of March 2, generals N.V. came to the Tsar’s carriage with telegrams from the commanders-in-chief. Ruzsky, Yu.N. Danilov and S.S. Savich. They continued to put pressure on the Tsar, convincing him that the situation was hopeless and the only way out from the position is renunciation.
According to the recollections of the above-mentioned generals, during this pressure and, most importantly, telegrams from the commanders-in-chief, Emperor Nicholas II decided to abdicate the throne in favor of his son Tsesarevich.
Ruzsky in his stories to different persons I was confused about the form in which the Emperor expressed his consent to abdication. The general claimed that it was telegram, That act of renunciation That several drafts. Thus, from all the memories we see that the Emperor drew up a telegram (telegrams, drafts, act), but not a manifesto on abdication.
Meanwhile, it is known for sure that a draft of such a manifesto has been prepared. “This manifesto,” wrote General D.N. Dubensky,” was developed at Headquarters, and its author was the Master of Ceremonies of the Supreme Court, the director of the political office under the Supreme Commander Basili, and this act was edited by Adjutant General Alekseev.”
The same is confirmed by General Danilov: “During this period of time, a draft Manifesto was received from Mogilev from General Alekseev, in case the Emperor decided to abdicate in favor of Tsarevich Alexei. The draft of this Manifesto, as far as I know, was drawn up by the Director of the Diplomatic Chancellery under the Supreme Commander-in-Chief N.A. Basili by general instructions General Alekseev."
Dubensky wrote: “When we returned a day later to Mogilev, they told me that Basili, having come to the headquarters dining room on the morning of March 2, said that he had not slept all night and worked, drawing up, on the instructions of General Alekseev, a manifesto on the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from throne. And when they pointed out to him that this was too serious a historical act to be drawn up hastily, Basili replied that there was no time to hesitate.”
However, from the memoirs of N.A. himself. Basili makes it clear that his work was not at all hard labor: “Alekseev asked me to sketch out an act of renunciation. “Put your whole heart into it,” he said. I went to my office and returned an hour later with the text.”
On the evening of March 2, General Alekseev sent a draft manifesto by telegraph to General Danilov, providing him with the following telegram: “I am sending a draft of the developed manifesto in case the Sovereign Emperor deigns to make a decision and approve the presented manifesto. Adjutant General Alekseev."
Immediately following this message was the text of the draft manifesto: “In the days of the great struggle against the external enemy, who has been striving to enslave our homeland for almost three years, the Lord God was pleased to send down a new ordeal to Russia. The outbreak of internal popular unrest threatens to have a disastrous effect on the further conduct of the stubborn war. The fate of Russia, the honor of our heroic army, the good of the people, the entire future of our dear Fatherland require bringing the war, at all costs, to a victorious end. The cruel enemy is straining his last strength, and the hour is already approaching when our valiant army, together with our glorious allies, will be able to finally break the enemy. In these decisive days in the life of Russia, WE considered it a duty of conscience to facilitate for OUR people the close unity and rallying of all the people's forces for the speedy achievement of victory and, in agreement with the State Duma, WE recognized it as good to renounce the Throne of the Russian State and lay down the Supreme Power. In accordance with the order established by the Basic Laws, WE pass on our heritage to our Dear Son, OUR Sovereign, Heir, Tsarevich and Grand Duke ALEXEY NIKOLAEVICH and bless HIM for his accession to the Throne of the Russian State. We entrust OUR Brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, with the duties of Ruler of the Empire for the period until OUR Son comes of age. We command OUR Son, as well as during His minority, the Ruler of the Empire, to rule over state affairs in complete and inviolable unity with the representatives of the people in legislative institutions, on those principles that will be established by them, having taken an inviolable oath. In the name of our beloved homeland, we call on all the faithful sons of the Fatherland to fulfill their duty to him by obedience to the Tsar in difficult times of national trials and to help HIM, together with representatives of the people, lead the Russian State onto the path of victory, prosperity and strength. May the Lord God help Russia.”
This text was almost entirely taken from a telegram from General M.V. Alekseev with a draft manifesto on a responsible ministry. Only minor additions were made and the theme of renunciation was introduced. Colonel of the Operations Department of Headquarters V.M. Pronin cites diary entries for March 1 in his book. From them it becomes obvious that the authors of the manifesto on a responsible ministry and the abdication of the throne are the same persons: “22.40. Just returned from the editorial office of Mogilevskie Izvestia.” The Quartermaster General ordered me to obtain, at all costs, a sample of the Supreme Manifesto. In the indicated edition, together with its secretary, I found No. for 1914 with the text of the Highest Manifesto on the declaration of war. At this time, a draft Manifesto on the granting of a responsible ministry had already been drawn up. Made up his gene. Alekseev, gen. Lukomsky, Chamberlain Vysoch. Dvora N.A. Basili and Grand Duke Sergei Mikhailovich. The text of this Manifesto with the corresponding note from General Alekseev was sent to the Emperor at 10 p.m. 20 minutes.".
However, the “manifesto” did not reach the Emperor at all. In his telegram to Alekseev on March 2 at 20 o’clock. 35 min. General Danilov reported: “The telegram about General Kornilov has been sent for delivery to the Sovereign Emperor. The draft manifesto was sent to the Glavkosev carriage. There are fears that it might be too late, since there is private information that such a manifesto has already been published in Petrograd by order of the Provisional Government.”
It is strange that the telegram with the proposal to appoint General L.G. Kornilov for the post of head of the Petrograd Military District is sent to the Sovereign, and for some reason the manifesto of abdication is sent to Ruzsky! Stunning is Danilov’s assumption that a top secret manifesto, which even the Emperor had not seen, could be published in Petrograd by order of the rebels! In fact, this is a direct recognition that the question of abdication in no way depended on the Sovereign Emperor.
Thus, on March 2, no new manifesto on abdication was drawn up at Headquarters; its basis was prepared in advance and the necessary changes were made to this basis.
On a copy of the draft manifesto owned by N.A. Basil, there are amendments made by the hand of General Alekseev.
Therefore, we can draw an unambiguous conclusion: Emperor Nicholas II had nothing to do with the authorship of the manifesto on abdication of the throne in favor of the Heir and never signed it.
According to Ruzsky, the signing of the manifesto by the Sovereign did not take place, since news was received at the headquarters of the Northern Front about coming soon in Pskov A.I. Guchkov and V.V. Shulgina. N.V. Ruzsky and Yu.N. Danilov tried to explain the delay in signing the manifesto by the desire of Nicholas II to meet first with A.I. Guchkov. However, apparently, this decision was made by the commander in chief.
Headquarters were also confident in the inevitability of abdication. At 5 p.m. 23 min. On March 2, in a conversation via direct wire between General Klembovsky and the chief commander of the Odessa Military District, Infantry General M.I. Ebelov Klembovsky confidently stated that there was only one outcome: “abdication in favor of the Heir under the regency of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich.”
It is quite possible that the arrival of A.I. Guchkov in Pskov and the emergence after his arrival of the third manifesto of abdication, this time in favor of the Tsar’s brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, were associated with the conspiracy of A.I. Guchkova and N.V. Ruzsky, bypassing M.V. Alekseeva. Alekseev apparently believed that by abdicating in favor of the Tsarevich the issue would be resolved. Moreover, it was assumed that the abdicated Emperor would be sent to Tsarskoe Selo and there he would announce the transfer of the throne to his son. Back at 9 pm on March 2, State Duma deputy Cadet Yu.M. Lebedev said in Luga that “in a few hours, Duma members Guchkov and Shulgin, who are entrusted with negotiating with the Emperor, will leave Petrograd for Pskov, and the result of these negotiations will be the arrival of the Emperor in Tsarskoe Selo, where a number of important state acts will be issued.”
Apparently, M.V. Alekseev hoped to play a leading role in the new government (hence his authorship of the manifesto). However, events did not go as Alekseev expected. The “Alekseevsky” manifesto was sent to Petrograd via Pskov, from where there was no information about it future fate was not received at Headquarters. Moreover, it became known that no announcement about the manifesto would be made without the additional permission of General N.V. Ruzsky. This could mean that for some reason Ruzsky decided to replay the situation. What's happening in Pskov, M.V. Alekseev didn’t know. By order of Alekseev, General Klembovsky contacted Pskov and “requested” “to orient the top as to the situation of the issue.” Alekseev was especially worried about the message that the letter trains were leaving in the direction of Dvinsk.
Soon, General Alekseev received a response telegram from the headquarters of the Northern Front, in which it was reported that the issue of sending trains and their further route would be resolved “at the end of the conversation with Guchkov.”
At 00 o'clock. 30 min. On March 3, Colonel Boldyrev reported to Headquarters: “The manifesto has been signed. The transfer was delayed by the removal of the duplicate, which will be handed over to Deputy Guchkov upon signature by the Sovereign, after which the transfer will continue.”
The text of the so-called manifesto almost completely repeated the previous version of the manifesto in favor of the Tsarevich, developed at Headquarters under the leadership of M.V. Alekseeva. The only differences were in the name of the one to whom the throne was transferred. However, there is no certainty that M.V. Alekseev was given this text.
The famous manifesto, which for almost a hundred years now has been the main and, in fact, the only “evidence” of the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II on March 2, 1917, was first “discovered” in the USSR in 1929 in Leningrad by a special commission for cleaning the apparatus Academy of Sciences. All employees of institutions of the USSR Academy of Sciences, whose Presidium was located in Leningrad until 1934, were required to undergo a background check and a procedure for discussing suitability for the position held. In this “purge”, the Academy of Sciences suffered significant personnel losses: due to social origin (nobles, clergy, etc.), the most qualified employees were fired, and new people were taken in their place, whose not only loyalty, but also devotion Soviet power was no longer in doubt. As a result of the purge, 38 people were dismissed from the Academy of Sciences in 1929 alone.
During this check, “documents of historical importance” were discovered, which were allegedly illegally kept by staff members. The Trud newspaper of November 6, 1929 wrote: “Materials from the Police Department, the gendarme corps, and the Tsar’s secret police were discovered at the Academy of Sciences. Academician Oldenburg has been removed from his duties as Secretary of the Academy.”
The commission’s conclusion stated: “Some of these documents are of such current importance that in the hands of the Soviet government they could play a big role in the fight against enemies.” October revolution, both domestically and abroad. Among these documents is the original about the abdication of Nicholas II and Michael from the throne.”
It was the “find” of the Imperial “manifesto” that became the main “evidence” for the OGPU in accusing academicians, primarily the historian S.F. Platonov, in a conspiracy to overthrow Soviet power and restore the Monarchy.
How did these important documents end up in the Academy of Sciences? This becomes clear from the message in the “Bulletin of the Provisional Government” made in March 1917. “By order of the Minister of the Provisional Government Kerensky, Academician Kotlyarevsky was instructed to remove from the police department all the papers and documents that he finds necessary and deliver them to the Academy of Sciences.”
As the biographer of academician S.F. writes. Oldenburg B.S. Kaganovich: “In fact, the government authorities knew about the storage of documents of modern times in the Academy of Sciences, which got there for the most part in the chaos of 1917-1920, when they were threatened with physical death, and did not see this as a danger to the regime.”
On October 29, 1929, the commission drew up a document that described the “manifesto.” The document stated: “The document was typed. Below, with right side There is a signature “Nikolai”, depicted in chemical pencil. At the bottom, on the left side, there is a handwritten number “2”, then a typewritten word “Martha”, then a handwritten number “15”, after which there is a typewritten word “hour”. After this there is an erasure, but the handwritten number “3” is clearly visible, then the word “min” follows, and then the typewritten “1917”. Below this is the signature “Minister of the Imperial Household, Adjutant General Fredericks.” Fredericks' signature depicted written from a cleaned place».
The examination of the found “denials” took place under the leadership of P.E. Shchegolev, the same one who participated in the creation of the fake “diaries” of Vyrubova and Rasputin. Strictly speaking, there is no need to talk about any kind of examination, since the signatures of Emperor Nicholas II and Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich were only verified with the originals. The results of the reconciliation were reported to the commission: “Having verified the signatures on the mentioned two documents with the undisputed signatures “Nicholas II” and “Mikhail”, presented by N.Ya. Kostesheva, from documents stored in Leningrad in the Central Archive, came to the conclusion that both the first and second documents have original signatures, and therefore are original. Signed: P. Shchegolev.”
Erasures in the document, the brand of the typewriter, the correspondence of its font to the 1917 font - nothing interested the commission.
Thus, from the depths of the “academic” case falsified by the Bolsheviks, from the conclusion of the falsifier Shchegolev, a document was born, on the basis of which the opinion that Emperor Nicholas II abdicated the throne was firmly entrenched in the minds of the people.
The order of execution of the Highest Manifestos and the Pskov “Manifesto”
A large number of samples of originals and drafts of manifestos in the archives of Russia allows us to conclude that, mainly under Emperor Nicholas II, draft manifestos were compiled on a typewriter. At the top, even on the project, was a cap with the title of the Emperor: “By the Grace of God We are Nicholas II...” and so on. This was followed by the text, and then there was always the following postscript, which was then also necessarily transferred to the original: “Dan in the city of N, on such and such a day, in such and such a month, in the summer of the Nativity of Christ such and such, in Our Reign such and such." Next came the following obligatory phrase, which was also then transferred to the original: “On the original, His Imperial Majesty’s Own hand is signed by NICHOLAS.” Moreover, in the project the name of the Sovereign was put by the designer of the manifesto, and in the original, naturally, by the Emperor himself. At the very end of the project, the name of its compiler was obligatory. For example, “the project was drawn up by State Secretary Stolypin.”
The Tsar did not put his signature on the draft manifestos. The name “NIKOLAY” was written in the project by its compiler, who put his signature at the end. Therefore, if the March “manifesto” was a project, then at the end there should have been an inscription: “The project was compiled by Alekseev,” or “The project was compiled by Chamberlain Basili.”
The project was approved by Emperor Nicholas II, who put the corresponding resolution on the draft. For example, on the draft manifesto about his marriage to Grand Duchess Alexandra Feodorovna Nicholas II wrote: “I approve. For publication."
When the project was approved by the Sovereign, they began to compile the original. The text of the original manifesto was necessarily copied by hand. Only in this form did the manifesto receive legal force. In the office of the Ministry of the Imperial Court there were special scribes who had a special, especially beautiful handwriting. It was called “rondeau”, and the persons who owned it were accordingly called “rondists”. Only they were used for copying especially important papers: rescripts, charters and manifestos. Of course, no blots or erasures were allowed in such documents. Examples of the Highest Manifesto are the manifestos on the beginning of the war with Japan in 1904 or on the granting of the State Duma on October 17, 1905.
After the manifesto was copied by the rondists, the Emperor put his signature. The signature was covered with a special varnish. Further, according to Art. 26 of the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire: “The decrees and commands of the GOVERNOR EMPEROR, in the order of supreme administration or issued directly by Him, are sealed by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers or the underlying Minister or the Chief Administrator of a separate part and promulgated by the Governing Senate.”
Thus, the manifesto came into legal force at the moment of its promulgation in the Senate. The personal seal of the Emperor was placed on the original manifesto. Besides, in printed version the manifesto was given the date and place where the manifesto was printed. For example, in the printed version of the manifesto of Emperor Nicholas II on his accession to the throne it is written: “Printed in St. Petersburg under the Senate on October 22, 1894.”
The “Manifesto” of renunciation was typed, not written by a rondist. Here one can anticipate the objection that it was impossible to find a rondist in Pskov. However, it is not. Together with the Sovereign, a retinue carriage led by K.A. always followed. Naryshkin. It is impossible to imagine that during the Sovereign’s trips to Headquarters during the war, in this retinue carriage there were not those who could compose the Highest Manifesto or the Imperial Decree according to all the rules - it is impossible! Especially during the troubled times of late 1916 - early 1917. Everything was there: the necessary forms and the necessary clerks.
But even if we assume that there was no rondist in Pskov on March 2, the Emperor himself had to write the text by hand, so that no one would doubt that he was really abdicating the throne.
But let us again assume that the Emperor decided to sign the typewritten text. Why didn’t those who printed this text put the obligatory postscript at the end: “Given in the city of Pskov, on the 2nd day of March, in the year after the Nativity of Christ One Thousand Nineteen Hundred and Seventeen, in Our Twenty-third Reign. On the genuine His Imperial Majesty’s Own hand signed NICHOLAS”? Drawing this postscript would take a few seconds, but at the same time the formality required by law for drawing up the most important state document would be observed. This formality would emphasize that the manifesto was signed by Emperor Nicholas II, and not by the unknown “Nicholas”.
Instead, in the “manifesto” there appear completely unusual designations: “G. Pskov, March 2, 15.00. 5 minutes. 1917." There are no such designations in any manifesto or its draft.
What prevented the drafters of the “manifesto” from observing this simple but so important formality? What prevented the Emperor, a most experienced politician, from forcing this formality to be included in the “manifesto”?
"Bid. To the Chief of Staff. In the days of the great struggle with an external enemy, who had been striving to enslave our homeland for almost three years, the Lord God was pleased to send Russia a new and difficult test. The outbreak of internal popular unrest threatens to have a disastrous effect on the further conduct of the stubborn war.
The fate of Russia, the honor of our heroic army, the good of the people, the entire future of our dear Fatherland demand that the war be brought to a victorious end at all costs. The cruel enemy is straining his last strength, and the hour is already approaching when our valiant army, together with our glorious allies, will be able to finally break the enemy. In these decisive days in the life of Russia, WE considered it a duty of conscience to facilitate for OUR people the close unity and rallying of all the people's forces for the speedy achievement of victory and, in agreement with the State Duma, WE recognized it as good to renounce the Throne of the Russian State and lay down the Supreme Power. Not wanting to part with OUR beloved Son, WE pass on our legacy to OUR Brother Grand Duke MIKHAIL ALEXANDROVICH and bless HIM for his accession to the Throne of the Russian State. We command OUR Brother to rule over state affairs in complete and inviolable unity with the representatives of the people in legislative institutions, on those principles that will be established by them, taking an inviolable oath to that effect. In the name of our beloved homeland, we call on all the faithful sons of the Fatherland to fulfill their duty to him by obedience to the Tsar in difficult times of national trials and to help HIM, together with representatives of the people, lead the Russian State onto the path of victory, prosperity and strength. May the Lord God help Russia. G. Pskov, March 2, 15 o'clock. 5 minutes. 1917."
We see that the text of this manifesto is an almost complete repetition of the draft manifesto on the responsible ministry and the draft manifesto on the abdication in favor of the Heir Alexei Nikolaevich, with the difference that the name of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich is introduced into this text.
Thus, we know the authors of the text of the manifesto: they were General Alekseev, Basili and Grand Duke Sergei Mikhailovich. The date of its original writing was March 1, 1917, the day on which the draft manifesto for a responsible ministry was drawn up. The day of his first edit was the night of March 2, when the renunciation manifesto was drawn up. But when and by whom was the third version of this manifesto drawn up, which transferred the throne to Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich?
In our opinion, on the basis of this text, a false manifesto was prepared in Petrograd, and the signature of Emperor Nicholas II and Count Fredericks was forged. Next, space was left for the date and time, which were entered later.
It was inconvenient to make such a forgery at Headquarters: it was necessary to look for samples of the signature of the Sovereign and Fredericks, and carry out long, painstaking work. It should be noted that the riots and pogroms in those February days in Petrograd were strictly controlled. They smashed only the one whom the conspirators needed to smash, and arrested only the one who was profitable to arrest. Thus, the counterintelligence department, the premises of the State Housing Administration, and police stations were destroyed, but the military command institutions, in particular the General Staff, were completely untouched.
Meanwhile, in Guchkov’s entourage, long before the coup there was a large number of officers and even generals of the General Staff. Naturally, during the days of the February Revolution, these connections were fully utilized by Guchkov. According to the recollections of many eyewitnesses, Guchkov was literally surrounded by General Staff officers. Apparently, these officers played an important role in maintaining Guchkov’s connection with Headquarters and the headquarters of the Northern Front. Among his closest supporters was Lieutenant General of the General Staff D.V. Filatiev. After February Revolution he became an assistant to Minister of War Guchkov.
Under the conditions of the General Staff, producing a false manifesto was not such a difficult task. Like any highest military body, the Russian General Staff had its own code-breakers and code-breakers, and had specialists in identifying forged handwritings, as well as in forging documents.
The special role that General Staff officers played in Operation Abdication is indicated by a conversation over a direct wire between the staff officer for assignments at the headquarters of the Commander-in-Chief of the armies of the Northern Front, V.V. Stupin and Lieutenant Colonel of the General Staff at Headquarters B.N. Sergeevsky, which occurred at 11 p.m. March 2, 1917 At this time, Guchkov and Shulgin had already arrived in Pskov. In the conversation, Stupin informs Sergeevsky that Alekseev is sending him to look for Adjutant General Ivanov in the outskirts of Petrograd. Stupin expresses his misunderstanding of this task. He goes on to say: “The expected resolution of all issues will begin any minute now. Is my trip necessary under these conditions? I am asking about this privately and asking you to inquire with the heads of the operations department about the need for me to leave Pskov, especially since with the current work here it is undesirable to lose an officer of the General Staff.”
In this regard, the title with which the text of the manifesto begins is very interesting: “Bet. To the Chief of Staff." It is usually believed that General Alekseev is meant. However, when Guchkov left the Imperial carriage, at about 1 am on March 3 he sent the following telegram to Petrograd: “Petrograd. To the Chief of the General Staff. Encrypted by Colonel Mediocritsky. We ask you to convey to the Chairman of the Duma Rodzianko: “The Emperor agreed to abdicate the throne in favor of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich with the obligation for him to take the oath to the constitution.”
So, the addressee appears again: “Chief of Staff.” It is clear that this is not about Alekseev. The latter was usually called “Nashtaverh” in telegrams and official documents.
We can find numerous examples of this in telegraph correspondence during the German war and in correspondence from February-March 1917. In a telegram from General Danilov to General Klembovsky dated March 1, 1917: “Glavkosev asks to orient him urgently, where does Nashtaverkh come from...”, etc. .d.; in a telegram from General Lukomsky to General Danilov dated March 2, 1917: “Nashtaverh asks to ask for the Highest instruction...”; in a telegram from General Boldyrev to General Lukomsky: “the chief of staff instructed me to report to the Headquarters...”.
However, the Sovereign, in his personally written telegrams, addressed Alekseev as follows: “To the Chief of Staff Supreme High Command. Bid".
At the same time, the text of the telegram was written by the Sovereign on a telegraph quarter (it was on this that, according to Shulgin, the text of the “manifesto” about renunciation was printed). The place of departure, date, time and surname of the officer who sent the telegram were indicated at the top. Moreover, the words “To the Chief of Staff V.G.” “quarters” were written on the left, and the word “Stavka” was written on the right. The Emperor's handwriting was covered with a special varnish.
Therefore, it is obvious that the telegram about the “manifesto” was sent to some other person, and not to General M.V. Alekseev.
This title of the “manifesto” (“To the Chief of Staff”) has always worried many researchers who did not understand and do not understand why Emperor Nicholas II suddenly sent the most important act of the Reign to General M.V. Alekseev? In fact, this headline is the most important evidence of the fabrication of the renunciation manifesto. And A.I. himself was the first to let it slip. Guchkov during the interrogation of the VCHSK in the summer of 1917. Commission member Ivanov, interrogating Guchkov, asked: “How can one explain that the abdication was addressed, it seems, to the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief?” To which Guchkov replied: “No, the act of renunciation was nameless. But when this act was encrypted, it was supposed to be sent to the following addresses: to the address of the Chairman of the State Duma Rodzianko, and then to the addresses of the commanders-in-chief of the fronts for promulgation among the troops.” Ivanov asks Guchkov again: “So you got it in your hands without asking”? Guchkov replies: “No appeal.”
These answers give Guchkov away completely. Firstly, he does not say a word that he sent the encrypted manifesto to the Chief of the General Staff in Petrograd, and not directly to the Chairman of the State Duma. And secondly, and this is the main thing, Guchkov’s denial of the heading “To the Chief of Staff” on the manifesto means that he, Guchkov, did not even see this manifesto! Since this heading is not on the encrypted text of the telegram, but on the “original” of the manifesto, under which is the “personal” signature of the Sovereign! A few years later, another “eyewitness”, Yu.V. Lomonosov will describe how he saw the manifesto for the first time on the morning of March 3, when Guchkov “brought” it to Petrograd: “everyone’s eyes fixed on the piece of paper I placed on the table. "Bid. To the Chief of Staff."
Special mention should be made about this addressee - “Chief of the General Staff” (in other versions - Chief of Staff, Chief of the General Staff). His name appears frequently in revolutionary and Masonic correspondence of the early twentieth century.
And by this name we mean, of course, not the real current Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Army.
For example, on May 20, 1914, the security department intercepted a strange letter from Lausanne from one of the leaders of the revolutionary movement. The letter was sent to the “All-Russian Supreme General Staff, His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief.” This letter, written to a like-minded person, described in detail the coming revolution in Russia. It ended with the following words: “As for your Emperor, his exile will be assured.”
So, Guchkov sends a notice of the abdication of the Sovereign to the Chief of the General Staff in Petrograd and at the same time reports that the encrypted text of the manifesto is sent immediately to the same Chief of the General Staff. At the same time, nothing is sent to Alekseev!
Alekseev, in a conversation with Rodzianko on March 3, said that “This Manifesto was telegraphed to me from Pskov at about two o’clock in the morning.”
However, there is no indication that M.V. Alekseev received the text of the manifesto about abdication in favor of Mikhail Alexandrovich. For until March 4, the commanders-in-chief did not know the contents of this text, although, according to Alekseev, he managed to send it to some of them.
Most likely, Alekseev only knew what A.I. reported. Guchkov: “The Emperor agreed to abdicate the throne in favor of Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich.”
Chapter from the book “Russia during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II” by Candidate of Historical Sciences Peter Multatuli.
Loading...