In Soviet (and by inertia, in today's) textbooks, this was presented as an indisputable fact. True, without hard evidence. “But there is evidence that the Abdication Manifesto is the fake of the century,” says historian Pyotr Multatuli.

Train hijack

Peter Multatuli:- On March 4, 1917, almost all newspapers published a Manifesto on the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from the throne in favor of his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. However, no one saw the original until ... until 1928, when it was discovered in the archives of the Academy of Sciences in Leningrad. It was a text typed on a typewriter, where the signature of Nicholas II was made in pencil (!). The title of emperor and the personal imperial seal are missing. This very document is still considered the original of the manifesto and is stored in the State Archives of the Russian Federation! It is clear that documents of state importance were never signed by the sovereign with a pencil. In 2006, researcher Andrei Razumov actually proved that the "pencil signature" was taken from the Order of Nicholas II on the army and navy of 1915. "Translated" using a special technology. The manifesto also bears the signature of the Minister of the Imperial Court, Count Frederiks. This signature is also written in pencil and outlined in pen. And when Fredericks was interrogated by the Extraordinary Investigative Commission of the Provisional Government, he stated: "I was not at that moment next to the emperor." This interrogation is documented.

"AiF": - What happened in reality?

P. M.:- By February 1917, a conspiracy to overthrow Nicholas II had been prepared for a year already. This was done by the top of the State Duma (its chairman Rodzianko, the leader of the Cadets Milyukov, the industrialist Konovalov, the representative of the revolutionary wing of the Duma Kerensky), the leadership of the military-industrial committees (Guchkov) and representatives of the Headquarters (generals Alekseev, Ruzsky, Brusilov). They were driven to the coup by the presumptuous notion that they could govern Russia better than the tsar. The conspirators were supported by the ruling circles of some Western countries. The forces seeking to abolish the monarchy took over. This required an abdication in favor of a candidate who, on the one hand, seemed to have the right to the throne, and on the other hand, if desired, this right could be challenged. Such was the emperor's brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. After he married the twice-divorced Natalia Wulfert in 1912, his offspring lost their rights to the throne. And Michael himself - the right to become the ruler of the state in the event of the death of Nicholas II. Could Nicholas II voluntarily transfer the throne into the hands of such a person? Of course not! According to the current law, the emperor could not abdicate at all!

"AiF": - How then did the conspirators achieve renunciation?

P. M.:- The chief of staff, General Alekseev, lured the tsar from Petrograd to Headquarters so that the train would be captured on the way. Contrary to the established notion, Nicholas II was imprisoned not on March 8, 1917 in Mogilev, but on the night of February 28 in Malaya Vishera. The imperial train could not pass to Tosno and further to Tsarskoye Selo, not because the "revolutionary troops" blocked the railway tracks, as we were long lied to, but because in Malaya Vishera the train was forcibly sent by the conspirators to the city of Dno, and then to Pskov . On February 28, Nicholas II was completely blocked. At the same time, in Petrograd, in the apartment of Prince Putyatin on Millionnaya Street, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich was blockaded. In Pskov, the royal train was taken under tight control by the active conspirator Adjutant General Ruzsky, commander-in-chief of the armies of the Northern Front. No one could get to the emperor without his permission. It was in such conditions that the so-called “abdication” was “signed” by the sovereign. According to the published memoirs of the conspirators, the sovereign went into the office, and then returned with several "quarters" (forms for telegrams), on which the text of the manifesto was printed. can you imagine an emperor typing like a typist? It is said that the emperor himself drafted the manifesto. In fact, the document was written by Ruzsky and Rodzianko a few days before the events. The emperor did not even see him. The emperor's signature was forged. After "writing" the abdication manifesto on March 8, 1917, the emperor was officially arrested. The conspirators were afraid that if the sovereign got out of control, he would immediately speak and refute his abdication. The emperor was under strict house arrest until his death.

Cross for Russia

"AiF": - But there are diaries of Nicholas II, in which he admits that he abdicated.

P. M.:- As for the diaries, there are serious fears that the Bolsheviks introduced fakes into them. Anna Vyrubova, a friend of the Empress, wrote in her memoirs published abroad in the 1920s that the tsar, when he was brought to the Alexander Palace, told her: “These events in Pskov shocked me so much that I could not keep my diary all these days. ". The question arises: who led them then? In addition, from the diaries of Nicholas II, it turns out that he did not know the time of his departure from Pskov to Headquarters, nor his arrival in Mogilev, since the time of departure and arrival indicated in the diary does not coincide with the time indicated in the documents of Headquarters.

AiF: Why didn't the emperor try to escape?

P. M.:- Nicholas II was an Orthodox person. When he, who refused to sign any papers with a renunciation, found out that, despite this, the manifesto had nevertheless been published on his behalf, he took it as the will of God and did not fight for power. He and his family bore their cross of martyrdom for Russia.

Pyotr Multatuli, candidate of historical sciences, author of books about Nicholas II

Then, in March 1917, in Russia they believed the Manifesto on the abdication of the emperor Nicholas II. Rather, they believed what the newspapers published. After all, no one has seen the original document. And if they saw it, a lot of questions would immediately arise.

How did they do it?

Let's start with how the so-called. manifesto stored in the State Archive of the Russian Federation. It is a piece of paper torn (cut?) in half. The top and bottom parts are printed on different (!) typewriters. Although, according to the basic law of the empire, the sovereign had to write the original documents of such importance by hand. The word "Pskov" is generally typed on a third typewriter, and the date and time entered by hand at the bottom have traces of erasures and corrections. The "Manifesto" is addressed not to "loyal subjects", but to the mysterious "chief of staff". The title of the emperor and his personal seal are missing from the document. The sovereign's signature is inscribed in pencil (!). Signature of the Minister of the Imperial Court Count Fredericks also applied with an indelible pencil, and only then outlined with ink. During interrogation at the Extraordinary Investigative Commission of the Provisional Government, Frederiks said: "I was not at that moment next to the emperor." A member of the Duma Shulgin, which, in his own words, together with Guchkov accepted the abdication from the sovereign, assured that the document of the "manifesto" was not one sheet of paper, but ... four telegraph quarters!

These gross frauds point to the violent overthrow of Nicholas II from the throne. Representatives of the Kadet-liberal opposition, big industrial and banking capital, and, of course, revolutionary circles, who were greatly assisted by representatives of the Stavka generals, took part in the conspiracy. Not without the support of the conspirators from the ruling circles of a number of Western countries.

Who benefited?

It was important for our Western "allies" to weaken Russia from within, to prevent its victory in the First World War, which by March 1917 was close to. After all, then Russia would have received under its control the Black Sea Straits, Constantinople (Istanbul), East Prussia, Galicia, Western Armenia, becoming a superpower.

The plan of the conspirators was daring: to capture the sovereign. To do this, he was lured from Petrograd to Headquarters. There the emperor learned about the unrest that had begun in Petrograd and ordered them to be suppressed. Convinced of the inaction of the authorities in the capital and the existence of a conspiracy in Headquarters, Nicholas II ordered loyal troops to be sent to the capital and he himself went to Tsarskoye Selo. However, the imperial train was forcibly sent by the conspirators, first to the Dno station, and then to Pskov, where a false manifesto was drawn up. The sovereign was blocked in the carriage. No one could get to him without the permission of the commander-in-chief of the armies of the Northern Front, General Ruzsky.

Manifesto on the abdication of Nicholas II. Photo: Public Domain

According to the plan of the conspirators, an abdication was required in favor of a candidate who would have the right to the throne, but this right could be challenged. This was the emperor's brother Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. In 1912 he married a divorced Natalia Wulfert, forfeiting the right to become emperor. Nicholas II himself signed the order depriving his brother of the rights to the throne. Could he then transfer the throne into his hands?

What is the law?

And finally, the legal aspect of the issue. The basic laws of the Russian Empire did not know such a thing as "renunciation" when it came to the reigning monarch. Even if we assume that Nicholas II signed a well-known paper in Pskov, then according to Art. 91 of the Fundamental Laws, the document on renunciation could come into force only after its promulgation in the Governing Senate. And nothing else. As you know, the "manifesto" of Nicholas II was never published by the Senate, and therefore did not enter into force. In addition, according to Art. 86, this document could not be adopted "without the approval of the State Council and the State Duma." However, the meetings of the State Duma from February 27, 1917 were suspended by an imperial decree. And the so-called "abdication" dates back to March 2 (15), 1917. Thus, the "abdication" of Nicholas II as a legal fact is absent.

4. Signatures of Nicholas II.

Here are the signatures that stand under the "renunciations".

Let's try to put them on top of each other.

When the signatures were superimposed, a very characteristic feature appeared - two autographs from two different sheets of "renunciation" are absolutely identical.

There may be the following explanations for this. It can be assumed that during the years of his reign, the Sovereign either developed an exceptionally stable signature with uniquely similar strokes, or the signatures were applied by someone else under a carbon copy, or through glass. As mentioned earlier, the "signatures of the Sovereign" were made in pencil. This fact, in the context of what has been said, explains a lot and does not already cause the surprise that researchers experience when they look at the only pencil signature of the Tsar in history on a state document.

To verify both versions of the signatures, let us turn to other well-known signatures of the Sovereign, the belonging of which to the hand of the Monarch is beyond doubt.

5. Signatures of the King: the end.

To identify the signatures of the Tsar, we will use two documents available to us with a known date.

This:

1. "Order of Nicholas II for the army and navy on the assumption of the duties of the Commander-in-Chief" of August 23, 1915 and

The signature from the "Order of Nicholas II on the army and navy on the assumption of the duties of the Commander-in-Chief" dated August 23, 1915 looks like this:

Let's try to combine them.

When comparing the signatures, we see that, with the exception of strokes, they generally coincide. However, there is no need to talk about the unique stability of strokes.

It remains to be checked whether the signatures on the "renunciations" correspond to the real signatures of the Tsar.

The real signature of the Tsar from the "Order on the Army ..." is superimposed on the real signature of the Tsar from the Autograph and two signatures from the "renunciations". Judge for yourself.

6. The third original "renunciation".

How many times we were told that the “renunciation” was signed in TWO copies! How many false eyewitnesses wrote their memoirs explaining why so many "renunciations" came from!

The third original copy of the "renunciation", published earlier than the first two, looks like this:

A facsimile of this "repudiation" was published in 1919 in New York by Mr. Lomonosov, Bublikov's assistant, in the book of memoirs "Memoirs of the Russian Revolution", on the 54th page.

It is easy to make sure that this is the third copy, and not a copy of the first two, by comparing the “signatures of the Sovereign”. It can be seen even by eye - they are different. The latter has pronounced differences from the first two. See:

It is enough to compare the second letter "i" and the penultimate "a".

So, a third, completely unknown original appeared. It is absolutely impossible to explain his appearance within the framework of the official version of the renunciation.

And nothing can be done about it.

According to Lomonosov's "Memoirs", the fate of the first "Guchkov-Shulgin" copy of the "abdication" delivered to Petrograd was as follows. Guchkov and Shulgin bring him to the Warsaw railway station, where, for unclear reasons, he ends up in the hands of a certain Lebedev. He is carrying him on foot somewhere along Izmailovsky Prospekt. Lomonosov is moving towards him in a car with a driver, probably Ivan Rogovsky. Almost by accident, Lomonosov notices Lebedev among the crowd of people. After some time, Lebedev gets into the car and gives Lomonosov the act of "renunciation", which he hides in the left side pocket of his jacket (where, I note, such papers are the place). Having brought the "renunciation" not to the Duma, but to the Ministry of Railways, Lomonosov does not wave it publicly in public, but modestly shows only two initiates: Bublikov and Dobrovolsky - and again puts the "renunciation" in his side pocket.

Secretly, so that no one would know anything, a Committee for the Rescue of the “Missed Letter” (where the missing one? - R.) is compiled from four: Lebedev, Lomonosov, Bublikov and Dobrovolsky. Then a handwritten copy is removed from the paper: Lebedev dictates, Lomonosov writes. When the copy was ready, all four assured it with their honest names, and “the original was hidden among the old dusty numbers of official newspapers, folded on a bookcase in the secretarial room,” where he was for some time. The brave savior of the “letter” did not tell us about the further fate of this paper.

Thus, based on the "Memoirs" of Lomonosov, it is clear that the latter was directly related to the described instance of "renunciation". Lomonosov shyly keeps silent about where the facsimile of the “renunciation” came from in his Memoirs, because there is no question of making facsimile copies in his book. It is possible that he managed to take the "original renunciation" abroad, where this sheet may still be.

7. Signature of Frederiks.

All those present, with the exception of
elderly gr. Frederiks, they told
the environment in which it happened
formal abdication
reigning Monarch.

S. P. Melgunov
March Days 1917.

“A document-note is announced,
on which the hand of Frederiks
tagged: received from Sukhomlinov
February 17, 16

Fredericks: ...I can tell you
that it looks like mine
handwriting. But for me to write such a thing,
I can swear that I wouldn't.
I would swear I didn't write this
but I can't swear.
Investigator: It only looks like
your handwriting or is it your handwriting?
Frederiks: I say: it looks like it's not me
wrote. I'm willing to swear I didn't.
Investigator: Are you ready to swear that you didn't write?
Fredericks: And the resemblance is unconditional.

Interrogation of Fredericks on June 2, 1917
S. P. Melgunov.
The fate of Emperor Nicholas II after the abdication.

Finishing the analysis of the appearance of the "renunciations", it is necessary to dwell on the last signature in these documents - the certifying (countersigning) signature of Frederiks. The inscription reads:

"Minister of the Imperial Court

Adjutant General Count Fredericks"

I was surprised by the similarity of the countersigning inscriptions of Count Fredericks on all three "renunciations", and I superimposed the three inscriptions on each other. Moreover, he did not superimpose word for word, but superimposed the WHOLE INscription, ALL SEVEN WORDS AT ONCE, in two lines, with spaces, gaps and flourishes. Three autographs on three different documents matched to the letter.

Judge for yourself.

There is no difference even not between the letters, but BETWEEN THE LOCATION OF ALL SEVEN WORDS IN ALL THREE DOCUMENTS. Without copying on glass, this effect cannot be achieved.

It is characteristic that on all three documents in the words: "15 hours." - the numbers "5" are different. They really were affixed separately. That is, they are really different papers.

I made and left the zigzags connecting the red words on purpose: with their help, I superimposed the text not by words, but in its entirety.

Absolute coincidence in the handwriting of seven words in three documents is impossible.

Here is what an eyewitness tells about it:

“These manifestos were finally rewritten at about one in the morning, when they were brought from the Sovereign in a compartment to Count Fredericks, and with what desperation the poor old man, coping with difficulty, with a trembling hand, signed them for a very long time.”

Regiment. A. A. Mordvinov.

Abdication of Nicholas II. S. 119.

Compare with the description of the “renunciation” document made by the RF GA specialists: “in the lower left cornerblack ink over pencilconfirmation inscription by V.B. Fredericks: Minister of the Imperial Court, General Adjutant Count Fredericks".

"In black ink over a pencil"... Yes, yes, that's exactly how I always imagined the assurance of the Royal documents. Poor old Fredericks desperately certifies the three “repudiations” with a pencil, and then, with horror, apparently realizing what he has done, with a trembling hand traces the certification signatures with a pen.

OK. Stop joking. They've been joking around with us for too long.

So, the three signatures of Fredericks are copies of the same signature made from some fourth document. What kind of document it is, where it is now and whether it is alive at all - remains to be seen. It's all little things and technical details.

The main point is that Fredericks' signatures on the "repudiations" are cheaply forged copies. It's proven.

That's all, my friends. Their game is over.

________________________________________ ___________________

Conclusions.

1. The text of the renunciation was not compiled by the Sovereign. A draft of the abdication was written and sent to Pskov from Headquarters on March 1 in the form of a telegram from Alekseev, Lukomsky and Bazili, and then someone finalized it to a combination of words familiar to us.

2. The text of the abdication was not written by the Sovereign by hand. All known copies of the renunciation are typewritten.
Shulgin, Mordvinov and Gen. Danilov. Head of the field office, Gen. Naryshkin writes more slyly in the “repudiation protocol”: the Sovereign ordered “to rewrite it”, which, however, also indicates that the text of the renunciation was not written down by the Sovereign personally.

3. Three eyewitnesses, Mordvinov, Shulgin and Danilov, directly indicate that the text was printed on telegraph forms, despite the fact that the military field office of the Sovereign kept any forms, including, of course, forms of the Tsar's Manifestos. At the same time, Danilov writes about TWO telegraph forms, and Shulgin - about three.

4. It can be seen from the text of the renunciation that it is composed in a special way: according to the meaning and number of lines, it is divided into three paragraphs, or “three quarters”, described by Shulgin. The middle part of the "renunciation" in terms of the number of characters absolutely coincides with the size of the telegraph form. This means that the conspirators envisaged a variant of forgery: “stuffing” or replacing the middle quarter in a telegram signed by the Sovereign, with the subsequent neutralization of Sovereign Nicholas II.

5. Signatures on the abdications (or renunciations?) of the Sovereign from the Throne, stored in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, as well as their facsimiles in the Bolshevik publications known to us, were forged.

6. According to the description of the abdication document by the State Archives of the Russian Federation, the attesting (countersigning) inscription of the Minister of the Imperial Court, Count Fredericks, on the abdication was also made in pencil and then circled in pen. The original signature of Fredericks on the document of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is missing.

Results:
The Autocrat of the All-Russian Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II never made a renunciation, did not write it by hand and did not sign it.
The document was also not certified by Frederiks.

Thus, the Sovereign has nothing to do with his own renunciation.

Andrey Razumov.

May 19 is the birthday of St. Passion-bearer Tsar Nicholas II. Could the anointed of God renounce the throne? How did the Russian Church react to the abdication? Historian Andrey ZAYTSEV answers

Valentin Serov. Portrait of Emperor Nicholas II (1900)

Mystery Document

On the afternoon of March 2, 1917, two documents appear in Pskov with a difference of several hours, signed by Nicholas II. In the first text, signed from 2:45 pm to 3:00 pm and handed over to General N. Ruzsky and his entourage, the last Russian emperor abdicated in favor of his son Alexei. At 4 p.m., Nicholas II sent a telegram to General M. Alekseev, Chief of Staff of the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief: “In the name of the good, tranquility and salvation of my beloved Russia, I am ready to abdicate the throne in favor of my son. I ask everyone to serve him faithfully and without hypocrisy. NICHOLAS".

However, this telegram was not destined to become a historical document about the abdication of the last Russian tsar. On March 2, at 11:40 p.m., representatives of the State Duma A. I. Guchkov and V. V. Shulgin received the final text of the abdication of Nicholas II from the throne for himself and his heir Alexei, known in history as the Abdication Manifesto. Power passed to Mikhail Alexandrovich Romanov, who abdicated the next day until the convocation of the Constituent Assembly.

The manifesto on the abdication of Nicholas II is one of the key and mysterious documents of the Russian history of the twentieth century. Until now, historians cannot come to a consensus regarding the reasons that caused its appearance. The range of versions is unusually wide: from attempts to prove that there was no abdication and Nicholas II deliberately signed a text that could not be legal, to the idea that the fall of the monarchy in Russia was the result of a well-organized conspiracy of the military, deputies and dignitaries, who believed that in order to save the country it was necessary to remove the last autocrat from power.

Most likely, we will never be able to fully find out what exactly happened on the tsar's train, en route from Mogilev to Tsarskoe Selo, but ended up in Pskov. A significant number of memoirs have come down to us, but their value as historical sources is unequal. Some memoirs were written much later than March 2, taking into account the political situation in Russia and the position that the author took in relation to the events of February or October 1917.

One thing is clear: the emperor had to make a decision in a critical, constantly changing situation and in a very short time (this explains several telegrams of the sovereign). Neither Nicholas II nor Alexandra Feodorovna could at that moment calmly communicate with each other, and also get a more or less complete picture of what was happening. What seemed to the Empress a rebellion of “boys and girls” on February 25 turned into a powerful revolution in two days, when the troops refused to obey orders, and the front commanders asked Nicholas to abdicate.

Almost all sources reporting on the reasons that guided Nicholas II on March 2 speak of his unwillingness to shed blood, his desire to stay with his family and live as a "private person" without leaving his homeland. Nicholas II decided to abdicate under strong pressure from the military and deputies and in circumstances of exceptional difficulty. Until the very last moment, the emperor hoped to save the dynasty: only on the night of March 1-2 did he agree to reforms in the government of the country, which were demanded by the representatives of the Duma and which limited the autocratic power of the monarch, but the situation changed too quickly. This measure, as Nicholas II was assured, was no longer enough to stop the unrest in St. Petersburg and Moscow.

The Church took note

At the same time, the king himself believed that the abdication of the throne gives reason to accuse him of violating the oath. The historian S.P. Melgunov in his book gives one of the versions of how the act of renunciation was signed: “If it is necessary that I step aside for the good of Russia, I am ready for it,” said the Sovereign: “but I am afraid that people won't understand. The Old Believers will not forgive me that I changed my oath on the day of the sacred coronation. However, despite the fears of Nicholas II, “attempts to discover the composition of a certain church-canonical crime in the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from power seem to be untenable,” notes the Act of glorification of the family of the last Russian emperor. The canonical status of the Orthodox sovereign anointed for the Kingdom was not defined in church canons. The anointing to the kingdom has never been an ecclesiastical sacrament. There are also no sufficient theological and historical grounds for considering royal power as a kind of priesthood. In Byzantine and Old Russian texts, we can find many pompous expressions describing the power of the tsar, who is responsible only to Christ and himself represents a certain image of Christ on Earth. But these magnificent metaphors did not protect the rulers either from political conspiracies, or from forced monastic tonsure, or from violent death. Suffice it to recall the fate of some Byzantine emperors, as well as Paul I, Alexander II and other Russian rulers. Of course, in the Middle Ages the figure of the monarch was sacred. In France and England, there was a belief that the hand of the king heals from scrofula, and the rulers periodically performed a certain ritual of healing and distribution of alms. In Rus', the position of the tsars was also special: disputes between Patriarch Nikon and Archpriest Avvakum ended in tragedy for both after Alexei Mikhailovich supported Nikon's reforms, but then took a personal part in condemning the patriarch. The tragic conflict between Ivan the Terrible and St. Philip also showed that the tsar felt he had the right to interfere in the affairs of the Church, but the latter opposed this even during the synodal period. The church looked at the monarch not as a priest, but as a person who received a blessing to govern the state. The king differed from other people in his origin and ministry, but he remained a layman. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish loyal praise of the king from his canonical status in the Church.

On March 9, 1917, the Holy Synod expressed its attitude towards the renunciation. The working papers stated that the abdication of Nicholas II and his brother Mikhail should be "taken into account." In the promulgated appeal “To the faithful children of the Russian Orthodox Church on the occasion of the events now going through,” it was written: “The Holy Synod earnestly prays to the All-Merciful Lord, may He bless the works and undertakings of the Provisional Government, may He give him strength, strength and wisdom, and the great sons subordinate to him May the Russian state lead on the path of brotherly love. According to one version, such a reaction of the Synod could be explained by the fact that the Synod followed the logic of the sovereign, also trying to avoid bloodshed and stop the unrest.

Almost immediately, the prayerful commemoration of the royal family ceased. Letters were sent to the Synod from believers asking whether the support of the new government by the Church was perjury, since Nicholas II did not abdicate voluntarily, but was actually overthrown? Therefore, they tried to raise the question of the abdication of Nicholas II at the Council of 1917-1918. It was discussed on the sidelines and in the special commissions of the Council, but was not put on the agenda: the situation in the country was changing rapidly, the Provisional Government was losing power, which passed to the Bolsheviks, and as a result, the Council was forced to interrupt its work.

It is worth noting that St. Tikhon of Moscow, having learned in July 1918 about the execution of the royal family, during the discussion at the Council of the Local Council of the issue of commemorating her, decided to serve memorial services everywhere with the commemoration of Nicholas II as emperor. And this meant that the Church understood at what tragic moment the tsar abdicated, and refused to consider him a "citizen Romanov." Having canonized the royal family as royal martyrs, and not just as Nikolai Alexandrovich and Alexandra Feodorovna, the Russian Church recognizes the fact of the abdication of the sovereign, but also recognizes that this step was forced and not voluntary.

The tragedy of Nicholas II and his family was that the emperor was forced to abdicate the throne, who perceived the absolute monarchy as a shrine for which he was responsible before God. Almost all the stories about the family of the last Russian emperor note their true religiosity and readiness to give their lives for Russia. Alexandra Fedorovna writes to him the day before and after her husband's abdication that the people love him, that the army supports him, and that God will return the Russian throne to him for the suffering they endure in February 1917. These hopes were not destined to come true, but the family of the last Russian emperor considered abdication as a sacrifice that they had to make to appease Russia. These motives became one of the reasons why the abdication of the throne did not become an insurmountable obstacle to the glorification of the family of Nicholas II in the rank of martyrs, which is directly stated in the act of canonization: subjects, decided to abdicate the Throne in the name of inner peace in Russia, gives his act a truly moral character.

Speaking about the March events of 1917, it should be said that they became the final stage of the conspiracy that matured against Emperor Nicholas II in the bowels of the Progressive Bloc of the State Duma, certain circles of the highest generals and representatives of the ruling circles of the Entente countries. This conspiracy was the result of many years of confrontation between Russian social, liberal and revolutionary forces with the Tsarist government.

Speaking about the participation of the West in the overthrow of the monarchy in Russia, it is wrong to present it as a result of the activities of the national governments of England, France and the United States. Although the representatives of these governments took a lively part in organizing the coup d'état, they primarily represented not the interests of their countries, but the interests of transnational financial groups. The headquarters of these financial groups was in the United States of America.

The main residence of this center was in New York at 120 Broadway, in a 35-story skyscraper. By the way, William Schacht, the father of the future chief financier of Adolf Hitler, Hjalmar Horace Schacht, took part in the construction of this skyscraper. On the 35th floor was the Bankers' Club, where Morgan, Schiff, Baruch, Loeb and other "whales" of the American financial world gathered. In the same building were the offices and directors of the US Federal Reserve System, headed by the banker Warburg, a relative of Jacob Schiff. In addition, the skyscraper housed the office of American International Corporation. The main shareholder of this company was the bank of the same Schiff Kuhn and Loeb. At 120 Broadway was the office of John McGregor Grant, who represented the Petrograd banker D. G. Rubinstein in the United States. Grant was put on the list of suspicious persons by US military intelligence. Grant, in turn, was closely associated with the banker Morgan's Grand Trust. All these organizations took an active part in the February and then in the Bolshevik revolutions.

In the same Broadway building, there were constantly people closely associated with the future leaders of the revolutionary governments. At 120 Broadway was the banking office of Veniamin Sverdlov, the brother of the Bolshevik Yakov Sverdlov. Settled in a skyscraper and the famous English agent Sydney Reilly, the main link between Trotsky, Sverdlov and American financial groups. Reilly was on close friendly terms with the banker Abram Zhivotovsky, the uncle of Leon Trotsky. At 120 Broadway, Alexander Weinstein, also a good friend of Reilly, ran his business. Weinstein's brother, Grigory Weinstein, was the owner of the Novy Mir newspaper. The composition of the editorial board of this newspaper is interesting: Bukharin, Volodarsky, Chudnovsky, Uritsky, Kollontai - all the future leaders of the Bolshevik government.

Another frequenter of the bankers' club was Sidney Reilly, a resident of the English intelligence officer William Wiseman. It was through Reilly that Wiseman came across the eminence grise of American politics, Colonel House. House, long before Zbigniew Brzezinski, expressed the idea that “the rest of the world will live more peacefully if there are four Russias in the world instead of a huge Russia. One is Siberia, and the rest are the divided European part of the country.” Weissman began to transmit information received from House to his immediate superiors in London, bypassing the British ambassador.

Soon, English politicians were actively drawn into the preparation of a conspiracy against Emperor Nicholas II. First of all, these are Lord Alfred Milner, British Prime Minister D. Lloyd George and the British Ambassador in Petrograd, Sir George Buchanan. Milner maintained close ties with Weissman, and thus with the American bankers who lived on 120 Broadway.

What united such diverse people as English lords, American financiers, Russian revolutionaries and British intelligence officers? A careful study of these people, it turns out that they were involved in secret societies, whose members were often related to each other by blood.

In 1891 a secret society called the Round Table was formed in London. This society became one of the most influential forces in the formation and implementation of British imperial and foreign policy in the early twentieth century. Among the founding members of the society were, for example, Stead, Lord Escher, Lord Alfred Milner, Lord Rothschild, Lord Arthur Balfour and Sir George Buchanan, the future British ambassador to Russia. The main task of the group was to spread British dominance throughout the world, as well as the introduction of English as a world language, the creation of a single world government.

In 1904, Alfred Milner became the head of the Round Table. He established the Rhodes Scholarship, which enabled selected students from all over the world to study at Oxford University. Each of these students, at the most receptive period of his life, was indoctrinated with the founder's dream of a one world government.

Colonel Mandel House was closely associated with the Round Table and knew Milner well. Collaborated with the "Round Table" and Lloyd George. Subsequently, during the Versailles Conference, Lloyd George's closest advisors were members of the Round Table. Through Rothschild, the Round Table has links in the US with the Schiff, Warburg, Guggenheim, Rockefeller, and Carnegie families. Schiff, Warburgs, Aschberg generously financed Kaiser Germany in its subversive activities directed against Russia. Beginning in 1914, the Germans subsidized the Russian Revolution through the international bank of the Warburgs in Hamburg. This bank provided revolutionaries in Russia with money through its representative offices in Sweden. With the same money, German agents organized strikes and riots in Russia in 1915 and 1916. By the way, the main enemy of Russia in the German leadership was Chancellor Theobald Bethmann-Hollweg, who was a distant relative of Jacob Schiff. Namely, Bethmann-Hollweg, without informing Wilhelm II, gave the consent of the German government to Lenin's passage through Germany in the spring of 1917. Thus, we see that the circle is closed: the American and British participants in the conspiracy against the Tsar were united with the Germans. Therefore, the main reason for the participation of Western forces in the overthrow of Emperor Nicholas II was not the national interests of certain countries, but the desire of a supranational secret organization to establish a New World Order in the world.

It is noteworthy that the general head of the French military mission at the tsarist Headquarters, Maurice Janin, wrote in his diary on April 7, 1917 that the February Revolution "was led by the British and specifically by Lord Milner and Sir Buchanan."

In Russia itself, the organizers of the coup found serious support in the face of representatives of the Duma opposition, the same representatives who in 1915 were part of the Progressive Bloc. However, in addition to them, an active role in the seizure of power was to be played by the lawyer Alexander Fedorovich Kerensky, also a deputy of the State Duma. The name of Kerensky was then not at that time known as the names of Guchkov or Milyukov, but it was he, Kerensky, who, according to the plans of Milner and Buchanan, was to become the main figure in the coming upheaval. Compared with other oppositionists, Kerensky had one advantage: he headed the Masonic lodge "Great East of the Peoples of Russia."

M. Safonov believes that the text of the “renunciation” was written on the form of the royal telegram, with the signature of the Tsar and the Minister of the Court, Count Frederiks, already in place. What kind of "historical document" can then be discussed? And what was said in the original test of the manifesto, which Emperor Nicholas II handed over in two copies to Guchkov and Shulgin, about which there is an entry in the Tsar's diary, unless, of course, the diary was falsified? “If the ‘drafters’ of the Act of Renunciation so freely manipulated its form,” Safonov asks, “didn’t they treat the very text that Nicholas II transmitted to them with the same freedom? In other words, didn’t Shulgin and Guchkov make fundamental changes to the text of Nicholas II?

The most interesting study of the so-called "abdication manifesto" of Nicholas II was the study of A. B. Razumov. This study convincingly and reliably proved that the so-called "abdication manifesto" of Emperor Nicholas II was nothing more than a clever fake. Razumov writes: “Let's look carefully at this paper. Its unhurried analysis will tell an inquisitive person a lot. For example, all researchers are struck by the fact that the Sovereign's signature was made in pencil. Surprised historians write that during the 23 years of his reign, it was the only time when the Sovereign put a pencil signature on an official document.

In addition, there is no personal seal of Nicholas II on the paper, and the paper itself was not endorsed by the Governing Senate, without which no tsar's manifesto had legal force.

A lot of confusion arises when clarifying the question of how the very paper that the Sovereign signed looked like. So, V. V. Shulgin writes that the text of the renunciation was written on telegraph "quarters". “These were two or three quarters,” he writes, “such as, obviously, were used at Headquarters for telegraph forms.”