January 20, 2009 on the TV channel "Russia" was shown documentary Nicholas II. A thwarted triumph”, about the last Russian tsar and the history of Russia during his reign. Due to the fact that domestic television rarely broadcasts historical programs, preferring erotic or ufological films (however, the symbiosis of these genres would not surprise anyone either), this film did not go unnoticed. Users of the Russian-speaking segment of the Internet also responded vividly to it, and their opinions about the “Torn Triumph” turned out to be very diverse, and far from always justified.

As the voice-over reader Mr. Verkhovykh said in the first frames of the film, “the time has come to tell the truth about the last Russian tsar.” This application is very serious. It obliges any conscientious researcher to conduct a presentation of historical events based solely on facts. Consideration of the extent to which the word "truth" is acceptable to the information contained in the film "Thwarted Triumph" is the subject of this article. It should immediately be noted that the presentation of events by the authors of the film is by no means in strict accordance with the chronological sequence, which makes it difficult to perceive them and prevents the creation of a complete picture of the reign of Nicholas II. This review is mainly built on the same principle, so that it would be easier for any interested reader to navigate the individual moments of the film and their critical analysis.

"Thwarted Triumph" begins with a brief account by the announcer of the events of January 6 (OS), 1905, when, during the ceremony of blessing water on the river. Neve volley of guns of the Peter and Paul Fortress was fired not with a blank charge, as usual, but with grapeshot. Commenting on this incident, Mr. Verkhovykh says the following: “The live shot of the fortress gun was not an accident. They wanted to kill the sovereign! But who and for what? .. "

The version of an assassination attempt on the king is postulated as an axiom. Meanwhile, even the apologist of Nicholas II S.S., who was in exile. Oldenburg, in his work “The Reign of Nicholas II” commissioned by the Supreme Monarchist Council, unequivocally indicated: “... rumors of an assassination attempt immediately spread; the investigation later found out that this, apparently, was someone's simple negligence. This point of view seemed unconvincing to Mr. Multatuli, however, in support of his version of the assassination attempt, he does not provide a single confirmation, leaving it suspended in the air, as well as information about the words allegedly uttered by the emperor: “Until the eighteenth year, I am not afraid of anything.” It is even strange that the screenwriter, describing this plot, kept silent about such a significant and undoubtedly mystical (what doubts there can be in this? ..) nuance, like the wounding of a policeman by the name of ... Romanov.

Then the floor is taken by the first historian invited to participate in the film - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Deputy Director for Science of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences V.M. Lavrov. From his remark, dedicated to the beginning of 1917 (the viewer can forget about 1905 for a while), it follows that at that time “Russia was victorious in a terrible world war, and it was on the verge of triumph! The triumph has already begun! .. And - February of the seventeenth year thwarted the triumph of Russia.

It was this maxim, voiced by Mr. Lavrov, that served as the title for the entire film. The extent to which it corresponded to reality will be discussed below. While the viewer, undoubtedly intrigued and inspired, listens to yet another, this time a spiritual "expert" - Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov), the author of the sensational television propaganda "Death of the Empire. The Byzantine Lesson”, which quite freely interprets the history of medieval Romania and modern Russia in their timeless connection. He regrets "the doom of the figure of Nicholas II to misunderstanding, sometimes even to enmity", apparently not suspecting that misunderstanding will be the only logical reaction of a thoughtful viewer to the presentation of the personality of the last Russian tsar both by himself and his colleagues, and mainly by the screenwriter film by P. Multatuli. The next frame becomes a clear example of this.

It contains a well-known political scientist, Doctor of Historical Sciences V.A. Nikonov says: “Many said that Nikolai was weak-willed, and this predetermined his fate. In my opinion, the situation here is more complicated. He was a man of very strong, resolute convictions." So, who was among these "many" contemporaries of Nicholas II, who mentioned his lack of will?

S.Yu. Witte: "An intelligent man, but weak-willed."

A.V. Bogdanovich: "A weak-willed, cowardly tsar."

A.P. Izvolsky: "He had a weak and changeable character, difficult to accurately define."

M. Kshesinskaya: “... one cannot say that he was weak-willed. Yet he could not force people to submit to his will."

“Nicholas does not have a single vice,” Ambassador M. Paleologus wrote on November 27, 1916, “but he has the worst drawback for an autocratic monarch: lack of personality. He always obeys."

This shortcoming of Nicholas II was repeatedly recognized by his wife, Alexandra Fedorovna. In particular, on December 13, 1916, she wrote to him:

“How easy it is for you to waver and change your mind, and what it takes to make you stick to your mind... How I wish I could pour my will into your veins... I suffer for you like a tender, soft-hearted child who needs guidance.”

(letter No. 639 - she numbered all her letters to her husband). In them, the queen constantly asked and demanded that the royal spouse be firm, tough, strong-willed:

“Show them your fist... Reveal yourself as a sovereign! You are an autocrat, and they do not dare to forget it” (No. 351 of September 11, 1915);

“Show everyone that you are the ruler... The time has passed... for condescension and gentleness” (No. 631 of December 4, 1916);

"... be Peter the Great, Ivan the Terrible, Emperor Paul - crush them all!" (No. 640 of December 14, 1916). This is how Alexandra Feodorovna instructed her husband during the World War, mainly during his tenure as Supreme Commander-in-Chief (!) of the Russian Army...

The fact that the direct manifestation of the strength of character was not an easy task for Nicholas II is invariably indicated in Russian historiography, however, Mr. Nikonov considered himself more knowledgeable in this matter than his colleagues, contemporaries of the tsar and even his mistress and wife, who specially studied him.

Meanwhile, consideration of the character of Nicholas II is replaced by an excursion into the economic history of Europe at the end of the 19th century. The announcer, Mr. Verkhovykh, rightly states: “By the time of the accession to the throne of Nicholas II ... Russia was still generally an agrarian country,” while Germany was ahead of all countries in the world in terms of economic development. However, the following words about Germany's desire for world domination since the accession to the throne of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Hohenzollern are highly doubtful: it is known that the German General Staff since 1888 advocated a preventive war, but Wilhelm opposed the implementation of this strategy for a long time. Each time he looked into the abyss, he recoiled in horror and rescinded the orders of his generals. But, turning a blind eye to this, the filmmakers thereby bring the viewer to the next plot - the Hague Conference in 1899.

It is positioned by Mr. Verkhovykh as "the world's first conference on the reduction of conventional arms." This formulation is surprising, because in relation to late XIX For centuries, weapons were not divided into "conventional" and, for example, "mass destruction". However, let's leave this formally incorrect detail on the screenwriter's conscience and turn to the factual side of the issue. Her presentation is completed by the words of the announcer - about the desire of the king to create a system of international relations that would allow avoiding wars - and the doctor of historical sciences N.A. Narochnitskaya (another invited specialist), who calls Nicholas II the founder of "peacekeeping efforts now raised to the shield" - no less.

It would seem that the creators of the film didn’t cheat here, and the information they report is correct. But no! Trying to portray the king as a pacifist, whom the world has never seen, the screenwriter of the film is silent (or simply does not know) that the reasons for convening the Hague Conference were very prosaic - everything rested on money. Initially, the idea of ​​holding a peace conference began to mature not at all in the head of Nicholas II, but in the financial department. Back in 1881, the Minister of Finance of Russia N.Kh. Bunge insisted on cutting spending on armaments. I.A., who replaced him in this post. Vyshnegradsky in the autumn of 1891 in an address to the Minister of Foreign Affairs N.K. Girsu also expressed the idea of ​​the desirability of reaching an agreement on disarmament or the limitation of new weapons. This initiative was also supported by Minister of War A.N. Kuropatkin, but for the sole reason that the suspension of armaments would be beneficial to Russia, which is far behind technically from many European countries. Thus, the 1899 conference in The Hague was not a generous gesture of the "peace-loving" Russian Empire - it was, to a certain extent, a forced step. Moreover, in the conditions of the militarization of most of the great powers, the call of Nicholas II for disarmament - if such was actually thrown - should be considered inappropriate, if not criminal manilovism.

It only remains to add that the goals set for Russian diplomacy at this conference were by and large not achieved - it was not possible to prevent a slide into a world war, nor to avoid local wars and armed conflicts. However, one could not expect a different result, even if one of the members of the Russian delegation, lawyer F.F. Martens, sadly wrote in his diary that members of foreign delegations "notice the constant discord between representatives of the imperial Russian government," while among the delegates of other governments "nothing of the kind is noticed." Despite this, the myth about the exceptional, almost pacifist initiative of Nicholas II turned out to be tenacious, which Mr. Multatuli willingly took advantage of. However, his commentary on the materials of the trial of true pacifists - "Tolstoyans" - justified solely by the efforts of the defense and public opinion, would be interesting; how could this happen in the reign of a convinced opponent of wars? ..

Meanwhile, viewers' attention is once again fixed on the economy; “The first years of the 20th century became a period of rapid development of Russian industry,” he says. Does this correspond to reality? The correct answer would be negative, because in 1900 an industrial crisis arose, which turned into a long depression in 1901-1908. The gross output of Russian industry from 1900 to 1908 grew only by 44.9%, which in no way falls under the definition of "rapid development". Mr. Verkhovykh goes on to report on Russia's claims to the title of "global energy power." Indeed, in the pre-war period, Russia's only competitor in the oil industry was the United States of North America, together these states produced 80% of all oil. However, let's take a look at the dynamics of oil production in Russia in 1900-1911 in millions of tons:

The presented dynamics shows that in the first decade of the twentieth century. the position of the oil enterprises as a whole was not brilliant, the crisis obviously dragged on, and in the aforementioned years, production was still going through hard times; it can also be seen that in 1904-1907. the level of production in the oil industry was significantly lower than in previous years and oil production was significantly reduced, the fall of 1905 stands out in this series.

As for the stock market, at the beginning of the twentieth century. the stock exchange was still reeling from the crisis that began at the end of 1899; it "was dominated by stagnation." According to the Ministry of Finance, "many securities that were already allowed to be issued were left in the portfolio, since they did not dare to put them into circulation." Only during 1903 did the prices of papers begin to rise. But in the autumn of this year, "with the first alarming news about the state of affairs in the Far East, some weakening of the rates began to be observed again." The way out of the crisis, outlined at the end of 1903, was stopped by the Russo-Japanese War and the revolutionary events of 1905–1907. Under the influence of the protracted economic crisis, the Russo-Japanese War and the Revolution of 1905-1907. The St. Petersburg Stock Exchange was in a depressed state, and only from the end of 1907 did the situation on the stock market begin to slowly improve.

In addition, almost all oil production and refining was concentrated in Baku (83%) and Grozny (13.3%), and, secondly, it was dominated by foreign capital. In addition, the concentration of the industry was high: three firms - “Br. Nobel, Shell and Co., Oil and Co. - produced and processed more than 50% of the oil. However, the creators of "Thwarted Triumph" are prudently silent about all this, insuring the concept they are constructing of the brilliant economic development of Russia during the reign of Nicholas II from doubts about its indisputability.

The presentation proceeds from the plane of economics to an overview of the historical and geographical aspect. The viewer hears: “At the beginning of the twentieth century, Russia increasingly confidently spread its influence to the East. Nicholas II was the first of the highest statesmen realized the strategic importance of this region. For a viewer more or less knowledgeable in the history of the Fatherland, this remark should have caused at least severe bewilderment - after all, it formally follows that until 1894 Russia had no diplomatic and trade ties with Asian states! Meanwhile, the announcer does not dwell on the disavowal of the Aigun Treaty of 1858, the Tianjin Treaty of 1858 and the Beijing Treaty of 1860, stating that “thus, Nicholas II was ahead of his time by at least 50 (!) years.”

Being still far from the idea of ​​complete ignorance of Messrs. Verkhovykh and Multatuli of the history of Asian countries in the 19th century. and in particular the "opium wars", I, however, do not presume to explain such a statement by anything else. How far ahead of its time can we talk about if in the same year 1900, along with Russia, all the leading world powers sent troops to suppress the Yihetuan uprising that broke out in China?! Meanwhile, the screenwriter's thought develops further: "The East did not see Russia as an enemy." This argument, obviously, was to play in favor of the image of the last Russian autocrat. In this regard, it is reasonable to ask the question: how did the tsar himself and Russia, who was under his scepter, relate to this very East? ..

According to contemporaries, the king, even in the highest signatures to ministerial reports, rarely referred to the Japanese as other than "macaques." To match the tact of the emperor were especially popular during the years of the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905. cartoons, according to the writer V.V. Veresaeva,

“surprisingly boorish content. On one, a huge Cossack with a savagely grinning face whipped a small, frightened, screaming Japanese with his leg; another picture depicted “how a Russian sailor broke a Japanese’s nose”: blood flowed down the crying face of the Japanese, teeth rained down into blue waves. Little “macaques” wriggled under the boots of a shaggy monster with a bloodthirsty mug, and this monster personified Russia.

And, by the way, isn't the very fact of unleashing the Russian-Japanese war the most obvious refutation of the words voiced by Mr. Verkhovy?! However, looking ahead, let's say that the cause of this armed conflict (according to Mr. Multatuli & Co) was nothing more than the dissatisfaction of the Western powers with the pace of Russia's economic development - as they say, without comment ... Unless the reader should be reminded of the source of the Far Eastern confrontation - the so-called. "Amnokkan" concession of the East Asian Industrial Company in Korea. Its leader, retired captain A.M. Bezobrazov, close to the throne, lobbied for the development of timber production in the territories of the Tumangan and Amnokkan river basins bordering Russia. As conceived by the industrialist, the well-being of his undertaking was to be guaranteed by ... Russian regular troops, which naturally provoked protests from a number of Asian powers. The presence of Russian military forces in the region was negligible (moreover, parts of the Separate Border Guard Corps on the Russian-Korean cordon were not even familiar with the elementary documentation issued to diplomats by decree of His Imperial Majesty), but it was quite enough to escalate the conflict.

From describing the very warm and unusually friendly relations between Russia and its eastern neighbors, the filmmakers turn to the national question in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. As Mr. Verkhovykh reports: "The Sovereign's special concern was the preservation of religious and national peace in Russia." The hope begins to glimmer in the audience that these words behind the scenes can be trusted - after all, they are supported by the authority of the heads of religious denominations of modern Russia appearing on the screen - for example, the chairman of the Central Spiritual Board of Muslims of Russia, Sheikh-ul-Islam Talgat Tajuddin. However, in this case we are dealing with a maximum of half-truths; how else to explain the fact that in 1923, Mufti R. Fakhretdinov, who held the same post, complained to the chairman of the Central Executive Committee M.I. Kalinin on the complete absence of the history and biographies of prominent personalities among the Muslims of Russia and Siberia? Or the decision shortly before the First World War to free from military service up to 2.5 million Kyrgyz, who, as well as Uzbeks, Tajiks and Karakalpaks, were considered potential opponents of the empire due to ... their annual mass pilgrimages to Mecca? ..

The following words of the Supreme Mufti of Russia also do not correspond to reality: "... in every village, in every city there was a madrasah ... among Muslims there was a very high percentage of literacy." Documents indicate that at the beginning of 1914 the percentage of students educational institutions Ministry of Public Education professing Islam, was inferior to the number of adherents of other faiths, except, perhaps, the traditional cults of a number of peoples of the empire (for example, shamanism in the Uryankhai region), placed in the column "other non-Christian". In terms of the number of national-religious educational institutions, Mohammedan schools barely surpassed Jewish schools:

Educational districts	Jewish educational institutions			Mohammedan educational institutions
	Total	Number of students in Jewish schools		Mektebe	Madrasah
		M	F
Saint Petersburg	17	234	38	1	-
Moscow	24	421	139	102	-
Kharkov	42	909	301	114	12
Odessa	1029	21148	15161	406	24
Kyiv	2450	45989	8182	-	-
vilensky	2474	15377	8522	-	-
Kazansky	-	-	-	1938	150
Orenburg	4	101	21	1129	424
Caucasian	12	801	490	2	4
Riga	157	3792	1531	-	-
Warsaw	2905	61014	13133	-	-
West Siberian	3	156	23	-	-
Irkutsk gene. lips	8	369	151	9	2
Turkestan gene. lips	23	-	-	6022	445
Amur gene-lip. in	-	-	-	-	2
Total:	9248	150311	47692	9723	1064

The screenwriter's thought, and with it the speaker's presentation of events, freely moves from one area of ​​problematics to another; from the level of literacy of Muslims in Russia, bypassing the malicious instigators of the Russo-Japanese war from the West, the viewer's attention is drawn to one of the most tragic events of the reign of Nicholas II - "Bloody Sunday" on January 9 (22), 1905.

Anticipating the announcer's message about this tragedy, V.M. Lavrov authoritatively declares from the screen that “the petition prepared by Gapon with the participation of the socialist parties - this petition was ... a provocation. It required both land and parliament, and all at once and instantly. If a viewer unfamiliar with the text of the petition itself trusts the words of the historian, then he will be deeply mistaken. After all, the “demand for land immediately and instantly” mentioned by Mr. Lavrov and the necessary, according to Gapon, “GRADUAL transfer of land to the people” are, as they say in Odessa, two big differences, as well as the demand of the parliament with the participation of representatives indicated in the petition working classes in drafting a bill on state insurance for workers. It is hard to believe that such a knowledgeable specialist is not familiar with such a trivial historical source - why does he allow himself to falsify its content on television?!

In the same spirit, the presentation of events “voice-over” continues: he claims that the Minister of the Interior, Prince P.D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky, who arrived on the evening of January 8 at the Alexander Palace in Tsarskoye Selo, where the emperor was at that time, "did not say a word to him about the scale of the impending catastrophe." However, this is not true. The minister, without thinking of anything better than to decide on the delivery of additional troops to the capital, reported to Nicholas II on the situation in St. Petersburg. At the same time, the autocrat wrote in his diary: "Troops were called from the surrounding area to reinforce the garrison ... Mirsky came in the evening to report on the measures taken." Thus, the authors of "Bloody Triumph," speaking of "Bloody Sunday," allowed themselves to falsify the most important sources of personal origin on this topic. This could be expected from the writer Multatuli, but not from the professional historian V.M. Lavrov. In a word, as the announcer correctly noted this time, “one can only guess about the reasons for this disinformation.”

Mr. Verkhovykh also reports that allegedly "contrary to popular belief, the first shots were fired from the crowd of demonstrators at the troops." Due to the lack of confirmation of these words in the scientific literature and documentary sources, they have to be recognized as fiction.

However, on that really “Bloody Sunday”, a lot of people died - not fictional, but quite real, moreover, driven by loyal feelings. The filmmakers of volens-nolens have to mention this as well. It is logical to assume that issues relating to human lives should be free from speculation on them, which obviously runs counter to at least the concept of morality.

Doctor of Historical Sciences A.N. Bokhanov, on the other hand, declares from the screen about only 93 victims of this absurd and senseless bloodshed, underestimating at least half the actual number of those killed alone, although there are reports in the literature about 5,000 dead. At the same time, earlier, in one of his apologetic books about Nicholas II, he completely preferred to remain silent about the number of those killed and wounded on January 9, 1905. It is difficult to say what explains such an approach to the problem, but it definitely has nothing to do with science.

Along with this, it is argued that the main financier of the first Russian revolution, which began with Bloody Sunday, was Japanese intelligence. This assumption to this day is one of the persistent myths from the history of the Russo-Japanese War. The authors of the film did not bother with any justification for this message, including no comments from specialists in the history of special services. Meanwhile, the points of view of the leading researchers of this problem - D.B. Pavlova, S. Petrova - agree that subsidizing the activities of Russian revolutionary and opposition parties by Japan did not affect the outcome of the Russian-Japanese war in any way, and all undertakings richly flavored with Japanese gold did not have a serious impact on the course of the Russian revolution. Reports about them by the “agents” of the official for special assignments under the Minister of Internal Affairs I.F. Manasevich-Manuilov at least did not quite correspond to reality.

In addition, in this case, Mr. Verkhovykh clearly did not finish the phrase he had begun and did not focus the attention of the audience on the only important conclusion from his message - the condition for free contacts between representatives of Russian opposition parties with military intelligence Japan can only be the unsatisfactory work of domestic counterintelligence. In this case, such a verdict regarding the latter is considered fair by the recognized expert in this field of historical knowledge I.V. Derevianko.

Concluding the conversation about Bloody Sunday, Mr. Verkhovykh voices another half-truth: “The tsar allocated 50 thousand rubles from personal funds to each of the affected families. That was a huge sum for those times." In fact, this money was allocated, as they say, "for everyone", which cannot be considered an auction of unprecedented generosity on the part of Nicholas II - after all, his personal annual income was about 20 million rubles.

Then, for several minutes, the film tells about the terrible scope of revolutionary terror in 1905-1907, which culminated in the Moscow armed uprising in December 1905. The viewer is told in traditionally general terms about the feat of the Life Guards of the Semyonovsky regiment, "which cleared the capital from the revolutionary squads ". Let us turn to the revelations of his officers, Russian nobles - those to whom Multatuli literally applauds:

“... The entire 3rd battalion with a punitive expedition, upon arrival in Moscow, was sent along the line of the Kazan railway [road]. My company left and occupied the Golutvino station. At this station, we shot about 30 people, of whom one railway worker arrested with a weapon was shot by me personally ...

For the suppression of the 1905 revolution, all officers received awards. They gave me Anna of the 3rd degree. Upon the return of the regiment to St. Petersburg, later, on a specially arranged holiday, as a sign of the highest mercy, Nicholas II came to us.

“...Captain Tsvetsinsky ordered his subordinates to shoot one worker. The execution took place under the following conditions: Tsvetsinsky brought one worker, suspected of shooting at soldiers. He kept him beside him for some time, shouted: “Well, go away!” As a sign of carrying out the given order, the arrested worker ran. Before he had time to run away, Tsvetsinsky ordered the soldiers to shoot at him, the escaping man was shot down by the last shot, after which he crawled into the yard ... The officers received various awards for the brutal reprisal against the rebels ... "

“... Upon arrival at the Perovo station, our company was given the task: to clear Perovo of revolutionaries, to shoot people who had weapons found, etc. At the command of Zykov’s company commander, then on my at the Perovo station, fire was opened on the peasants. As a result of firing by the soldiers of our company, 10 peasants were killed ... ".

Undoubtedly, for screenwriter P. Multatuli and his colleagues, these ruined lives of ordinary people are of no value, which in itself is very significant. However, I believe that readers will draw their own conclusions from the facts presented.

In the film, the viewer is quite predictably informed about the gift of a manifesto by Nicholas II on October 17, 1905, and none other than the vice-speaker of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation B.V. Gryzlov, declares from the screen that the tsar has chosen "a democratic path for the development of the country, a democratic path for the development of Russia."

Let's check this statement with the facts. According to the Minister of War, in 1905 more than 4,000 troops were sent out to "assist the civil authorities". For the war with its own people, the Ministry of War was forced to allocate (taking into account repeated calls) 3398361 people. Consequently, the number of soldiers involved in the fight against the revolution was more than 3 times the size of the entire tsarist army by the beginning of 1905 (about 1 million people). In total in 1906–1907. courts-martial executed 1,102 people; 2694 hanged in 1906–1909 by the verdict of the military district courts; 23,000 were sent to hard labor and prisons, 39,000 were sent without trial; hundreds and hundreds of thousands were subjected to searches, arrests and drives to the police stations ... It is difficult to say how this correlates with the already 2 times democratic path of the country's development.

However, Mr. Verkhovykh continues, not only military massacres stopped the revolution - one of the main reasons for its defeat allegedly was the agrarian reform; "November 9, 1906, the tsar's manifesto came out, encouraging the peasants to create strong individual farms." Let us clarify right away that on November 9, 1906, it was not the “Tsar's Manifesto” that was issued, but a personal imperial decree to the Senate “On supplementing some provisions of the current law concerning peasant land ownership and land use”, which was adopted as a law on June 10, 1910. to the wording may seem scholastic, however, at the level of the problem under consideration, a free and not quite competent disposal of definitions is unacceptable.

The main goal of the reform initiated by this decree was the elimination of the peasant community with its inherent system of land ownership and land use and the creation of a wide layer of personal peasant owners leading an entrepreneurial market economy. As you know, it was not achieved. According to the information of the governors, who were far from being interested in downplaying the successes in carrying out the reform and had the most extensive data on the state of affairs in the provinces, by January 1, 1916, 2.5 million householders (27% of all communal households), which had 15.9 million dess. (14% of all communal lands). The most active exit from the community was in 1908–1910. (More than half of all the detached households left), and since 1911 the exit from the community has sharply decreased.

The policy of resettlement of peasants outside the borders did not justify itself. European Russia. The results of this process are well known. We only recall that in 1880-1895. 461.7 thousand people moved to the eastern regions of the country, in 1896-1905. - 1075.9 thousand and in 1906–1911. - 3078.9 thousand About a fifth (18.6%) of those who moved in 1896–1916 returned back. At the same time, the resettlement movement reached its maximum in 1907–1909, after which it began to decline.

Thus, the results of the Stolypin agrarian reform testify to the fact that it failed even before the First World War, and all sorts of statements that peacetime was not enough for the success of the reform (which N.A. Narochnitskaya will later mention in the film) follow recognize as unfounded.

The assertion that "Stolypin was noticed, appreciated and appointed head of government by Emperor Nicholas II" is also doubtful. P.A. Stolypin could not be seated in the ministerial chair by anyone other than the tsar. In addition, the appointment of the Saratov governor to the post of Minister of the Interior, which became the first step for Stolypin in ascending the Russian political Olympus, was made by Nicholas II, according to a number of testimonies, at the suggestion of the then Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, Prince Obolensky.

Moving in the narrative from the political to the socio-economic sphere, the filmmakers report that under Nicholas II

“The largest railways were built in the east of the country, including the famous CER. The Baikal-Amur Mainline - BAM was designed, a plan for the electrification of the entire country was developed. These great plans will subsequently be implemented by the Bolsheviks and presented as their own.”

It would seem that it is just right to applaud the merits of Nicholas II! However, it would be good to know that:

According to such qualitative indicators as the length of railways per 100 sq. km., Russian imperial indicators (0.3) approached only those of France (0.4) and the British Empire (0.1), but were 6 times less than those of the United States, 20-50 times less than the metropolitan structures of European states. In terms of the length of railways per 10 thousand inhabitants (4.2?5.2), the Russian Empire was ahead only of the traditional maritime powers - the Japanese and British empires, but compared to the United States, this figure was 8 times less;

on the eve of the First World War, out of 1231 cities of the empire, only 162 settlements were provided with electric lighting.

In this regard, it would be more appropriate to give honor and praise to the Bolsheviks for the implementation of such important state projects. which would hardly have taken place during the blessed reign of Nicholas II. However, one should not expect this from the "non-party monarchist" © Multatuli.

Meanwhile, “show must go on” - Mr. Verkhovykh argues: “The word “first” is the best fit for the era of Nicholas II. The following is a list of innovations in the social and technical spheres of life in Russian society. How do they fit with the facts?

"... the first tram..." - this information is incorrect. The first on the territory of the Russian Empire electric tram was put into operation in 1892, before the accession of Nikolai Aleksandrovich Romanov. At the same time in Moscow, the first steam tram line was built from Butyrskaya Zastava to Petrovsko-Razumovskoye. Of course, he was a contemporary of these events, but had nothing to do with them;

"... the first submarine ..." - indeed, in 1903 the first Dolphin submarine was accepted into the combat structure of the Russian fleet, and three years later the submarines were separated into an independent class of warships. However, Mr. Multatuli, of course, is silent that by the beginning of the First World War, with its 22 submarines, the Russian Empire was ahead of only Japan (8) in their number, while the German submarine fleet numbered 25, Italian - 49, American - 51, French - 69, and the British - 105 ships.

At the same time, state funds were actively invested in such crazy projects as, for example, the famous Lebedenko tank - for its manufacture, the Union of Zemstvo Cities, by order of the tsar, allocated a huge amount of 210,000 rubles, and this was in 1916, during the most difficult war period, despite the fact that even in the midst of the “July crisis” of 1914, the Main Directorate of the General Staff promised 10 times less money for the extraction of information, crucial for the country, about the military plans of Germany! However, even these episodes pale before the order by the Highest order of the War Ministry from the inventor A.A. Bratolyubov of a combustible liquid invented by him - a kind of napalm - in the amount of ... 7 million rubles, which was to be paid in US dollars with a guarantee of additional payments, if necessary. However, this is only one single item in the list of orders addressed to Bratolyubov, the implementation of which required a total of 100 (!!!) million rubles.

Against the background of examples of such a highly approved waste of crazy money, it is not surprising that by the eve of the February Revolution, the army was extremely poorly provided with such important equipment. However, it is not clear why the authors of the film keep silent about this, ranting about the first plane and car, and about Russia on the verge of victory.

Indeed, by the end of the war in all the warring countries there were more than 11 thousand aircraft, including in Russia (at the beginning of 1917) - only 1039; in the pre-war period, this lag was more modest in size - air Force The empire then consisted of only 150 airplanes, of which there were 2 in Germany, and 3.5 times more in France. In general, during the First World War, the Russian aircraft industry satisfied the army's need for aircraft by only 9%, and even less for aircraft engines, by 5%; aircraft engines were practically not produced in the Russian Empire, they had to be purchased from abroad - as a result, 15 different types of engines were installed on 80 Ilya Muromets machines. The automobile fleet of the Russian army by 1917 consisted of only 9930 cars, while in total there were about 200 thousand cars in the armies of the Entente countries, and about 70 thousand in the German army. Is there any need to comment on these figures, which testify to the hopeless lag of the Russian industry in these sectors? ..

Meanwhile, Mr. Verkhovykh continues: “Each technical innovation did not go unnoticed by the sovereign ... Here we see how the emperor is testing a plow of a new design” - it is not clear why the announcer calls the test of the plow a light touch of the monarch’s hand on it, and the image of interest by standing around dignitaries in frock coats and top hats? The photograph below from the same “tests” shows that it is by no means an autocrat who manages a double-horse (by the way, English) plow and horses harnessed to it ...

“And here he boarded a giant plane and listens to the report of its creator, the aircraft designer Igor Sikorsky” - on the several newsreel frames shown, the tsar is depicted in a winter overcoat, while the mentioned aircraft “Russian Knight” was presented to Nicholas II in July 1913 .. There is discrepancy between facts and video.

Further, apparently trying to demonstrate the rapid development of sports in Russia during the reign of Nicholas II, the filmmakers report on the participation of the national team in the 1912 Olympic Games held in Stockholm. Mr. Verkhovykh calls them the first for Russia, which allegedly took the most active part in the Olympics. However, this statement is incorrect. The 1912 Games were the third in a row for Russian athletes - before that they participated in the second Olympics, held in 1900 in Paris (3 representatives of the Russian Empire competed there: 2 cavalrymen and a shooter), and at the fourth, held in 1908, in London, Russian figure skater N. Panin-Kolomenkin won gold medal, wrestlers N. Orlov and O. Petrov - silver. Russian athletes were forced to miss the first and third Olympics due to ... lack of financial resources; the screenwriter tactfully kept silent about this shameful nuance for the "leading economy of the world" - for him and for gullible TV viewers, the Olympic era began in Russia only in 1912.

Well, perhaps, at least speaking about the most active participation of the Russian team in the Games, the creators of the "Thwarted Triumph" were not deceitful? It would be logical to judge this by the success of the athletes, but alas, there is no need to talk about them. Of the entire large team (178 athletes, half of them are specially selected combat officers), only civilian athletes showed themselves to any noticeable extent, having won only 2 silver and 2 bronze medals. In the unofficial team standings, the Russian team shared 15th and 16th places out of 18 with Austria, ahead of only the teams of Greece and the Netherlands. It only remains for me to add here that there is no personal merit or guilt of Nicholas II himself in such modest results of the performance of the Russian team - he simply ignored the process of recruiting the national team and organizing the Russian Olympic Committee, entrusting this to his uncle, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich Jr.

From sports, the narration moves into the area of ​​demography - V.M. Lavrov speaks of a "population explosion" during the reign of Nicholas II. The fact that in terms of the mortality rate of the population of that time Russia among the largest states was second only to Mexico, is logically silent.

“If we take the calculations made by scientists of that time, then by the middle of the twentieth century we should have had 2 times more population than we have now,” continues Mr. Lavrov. It is strange that the venerable historian did not indicate the true author of this demographic forecast - the great Russian chemist D.I. Mendeleev, and the scientist’s confidence in his conclusions is doubly surprising - after all, demographers in practice have long abandoned the method used by Mendeleev - mathematical extrapolation into the future of data on natural population growth for some period of time in the past. Such a primitive calculation of compound interest for any lengthy period has shown its complete failure, because it does not take into account the forthcoming changes in the sex and age structure of the population, in the ratio of the urban and rural population, and many other factors that determine the birth rate.

“There are different estimates of the population of the empire by the beginning of the First World War,” V.A. Nikonov. - "They are from 170 to 180 million people." In theory, a doctor of historical sciences should not get confused in such key information, but in this case, Mr. Nikonov's statement needs to be corrected - the population of the Russian Empire on the eve of the First World War totaled 185.2 million people, which was not 14% of the global population , as V.A. Nikonov, but 10%, and this is not a trifle even on a planetary scale to neglect it. In addition, the "population explosion" was observed rather in 1861-1865, after the abolition of serfdom; birth rates in the specified period in most provinces exceed the vaunted data "for 1913":

provinces	fertility
	1861-1865	1911-1913
Arkhangelsk	41,1	43,5
Astrakhan	50,3	54,1
vilenskaya	50,2	30,6
Vitebsk	48	33,3
Vladimirskaya	52	40,2
Vologda	46	47
Volyn	46,9	39,5
Voronezh	46,3	48,8
Vyatskaya	54,9	51,3
Grodno	50,2	32,8
Yekaterinoslavskaya	55,5	43,7
Lands of the Don Cossacks	48, 9	50,5
Kazanskaya	48	42,8
Kaluga	50	46,5
Kyiv	46,7	37,5
Kovno	42,3	27,3
Kostroma	48	45,1
Courland	36, 2	24,6
Kursk	53,5	46,4
Livonian	40,6	22,6
Minsk	53	37,5
Mogilevskaya	50,8	36,8
Nizhny Novgorod	52,7	46
Novgorod	45,7	42
Olonetskaya	48,5	45,8
Orenburg	55,3	53,7
Orlovskaya	58,1	44,8
Penza	51,3	43,7
Perm	55,2	55,2
Podolskaya	45,7	36,7
Poltava	53,8	36,5
Pkovskaya	51,1	39,1
Ryazan	52,7	40,6
Samara	58, 2	55
Saratov	54	47,2
Simbirskaya	52,4	49,5
Smolensk	54,1	44,9
Tauride	49	42,8
Tambov	51,6	47,2
Tverskaya	48,7	40,1
Tula	55,9	40,4
Kharkiv	53,1	43,9
Kherson	53,5	43,8
Chernihiv	54,9	39,7
Estonian	39,1	24,6
Yaroslavskaya	45,4	36,4

Further in the film, we are talking about the prosperity of the multinational people of the Russian Empire, and the viewer is invited to talk about "specific numbers." Well, gentlemen, if you please, but - "note that I did not propose this!" ©.

“A worker of the lowest category received 130 kopecks a day” - even laborers in the capital who were content with 1 ruble 10 kopecks did not receive such high daily wages. At the same time, for example, in the Kazan province this figure was 60 kopecks, and in Tambov - even less, 54 kopecks. In general, on the eve of the First World War, only a third of all workers in the country received daily wages in the amount of more than 1 ruble, while earnings from 50 kopecks to 1 ruble - half of their total number.

“... an elementary school teacher - up to 2,500 rubles a year ...” - according to official data from the Ministry of Public Education, more than 1/3 of elementary school teachers received less than 200 rubles a year, ? teachers - less than 100 rubles, a fairly significant number of teachers received less than 50 rubles, and there were those who received no money at all (they were paid in kind);

"... a doctor - 900 rubles a year ..." - the earnings of a paramedic of a district zemstvo hospital amounted to a maximum of 500 rubles a year.

As we can see, the "concrete figures" in the indication of the wages of the population of the then Russia do not agree with the reality of the authors of "Thwarted Triumph"; Is it not because they are taken from the ceiling? ..

To test this assumption, let's look at the food prices given in the film:

"... a chicken cost 40 kopecks ..." - the average prices on the eve of the First World War: in St. Petersburg - 97 kopecks, in Moscow - no less than 93;

"... a loaf of rye bread - 3 kopecks ..." - in fact, this is the average price of just a pound of rye bread. In addition, by the end of 1914, food prices had risen by 25%, and by the end of 1915 they had risen by 122% over their pre-war levels;

"... a bottle of vodka - 17 kopecks ..." - a measured bottle of vodka was 1/16 of a government bucket. Even in Podolsk province, remote from the capital with its biting prices, a bucket of vodka cost 8 rubles. 40 kopecks, which in terms of bottles exceeds the price indicated in the film by 3 times;

“... renting a good apartment cost 155 rubles a year” - this definition is very streamlined, but if we take a five-room apartment with heating, lighting and furnishings as such, then renting it cost 718 rubles 80 kopecks, and by no means in St. Petersburg , but in Kyiv. For 155 rubles in the same place, one could only die of hunger in a very good, but maximum one-room apartment.

Thus, instead of “specific figures”, no less specific lies appear to the attention of the audience.

From it, the announcer turns to the golden Russian ruble - during the reign of Nicholas II, one of the hardest currencies in the world. And perhaps for the first time in the entire film, the exact data on the international exchange rate of the ruble against the German and French currencies turn out to be reliable! Unless the creators of "Thwarted Triumph" are silent about the fact that in addition to the British pound sterling and the US dollar, the ruble was ahead of the Portuguese krone, Egyptian and Turkish lira, and the Japanese yen was literally stepping on its heels.

In addition, the summary data on national income and per capita income in the great powers in 1914 are very expressive.

It is symbolic that from the field of finance the attention of the audience is switched to the Church during the reign of Nicholas II. Another invited expert, Archbishop of Yekaterinburg and Verkhoturye Vincent, voiced the following figures: “During his [Nicholas II] reign, about 7,000 churches were built ... again, about ... 19 monasteries were built.” These data are given without comparison with any other period in the history of Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church. Meanwhile, according to the head of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, General of the NKVD Karpov V.M. Molotov dated January 19, 1944, during the Great Patriotic War, as many as 75 Orthodox monasteries and 9400 churches were opened on the former territory of the USSR under occupation. I made this correlation only in order to show the senselessness of the categorical announcement of exact data, supposedly self-valuable, which, unfortunately, is typical for the authors of "Thwarted Triumph".

However, I am not quite right - Mr. Multatuli knows the concept comparative analysis. The screenwriter of the film resorts to it - or rather, tries to resort to it, comparing the religiosity of the tsar with the spiritual atmosphere in contemporary Russian society; the latter changes the Orthodox religion into "various surrogates, bizarre mixtures of mysticism and the occult." And now it becomes curious - is the author's team of the film in question aware of the concept of the "silver age" of Russian culture? Indeed, during this very period, the rulers of the thoughts of the intelligentsia, convicted by Mr. Multatuli in Satanism, were the religious philosophers S.N. Bulgakov, Vl. Solovyov, V.F. Ern, V.P. Sventsitsky, P.B. Struve, S.L. Frank... The creators of "Thwarted Triumph" simply do not remember these now half-forgotten names. They also keep silent about the fact that a number of mystics, mediums and occultists were close to the throne of Nicholas II, and in reality - ordinary rogues, to whom the imperial couple paid exceptional attention.

For example, since the early 1900s a certain Monsieur Philippe, a Frenchman who became the court oracle, becomes very close to Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna. This false doctor, who had no education, but was engaged in medical practice and was repeatedly convicted for this, was constantly engaged in mystical sessions with the royal couple. He "summoned" to Nicholas II spirits (mainly the shadow of his father, Alexander III), who allegedly dictated orders to the autocrat regarding the administration of the country. Having first met with Philip on March 26, 1901, the emperor and his wife from July 9 to 21, 1901 see him daily, and often several times a day. By the autumn of the same year, Nicholas II obtained a diploma for the title of doctor from the military medical academy for Philip. In the future, his “holy” place will not be allowed to be empty by the magician Papus, the holy fool, or rather, the holy fool Mitya Kozelsky, Pasha the perspicacious, Matryona the sandal ... And this is the pinnacle of Orthodox spirituality ?!

Moreover, for example, Dzhamsaran (P.A.) Badmaev, being just a court homeopathic doctor, included in the orbit of his activities such key sectors of management and infrastructure as the construction of railways - at the height of the First World War, he was in concession with the general Lieutenant P.G. Kurlov and G.A. Mantashev draws up the “Project for the construction of a railway to the border of Mongolia and within it”, and despite the fact that a year earlier, the transport collapse on the western borders of the empire caused the enemy to leave vast territories and threatened to defeat the entire Russian army!

This example is very indicative - after all, even before the start of the First World War, when the western regions of the empire, in particular, the Warsaw Fortified Region, required the development of not only road infrastructure, but also surface communications, their construction was hampered by the development of river communications in Central Asia a project was considered for the use of bridge-building material intended for work on the Vistula in building bridges across the Amu Darya.

Speaking about the spiritual fragmentation of Russian society, Mr. Verkhovyh smoothly leads the viewer to the story of the "terrible disaster" that befell the empire - the First World War. The conversation about it begins with the statement of V.M. Lavrov that "Russia did everything to prevent the First World War." As an example of this, the expert mentions the meeting of Nicholas II and Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1912, at which the emperor allegedly renounced all geopolitical claims of Russia in order to preserve peace. However, how was it in reality?

Firstly, an authoritative historian kept silent about the creation, not without pressure from Russia, in the same 1912 of the Balkan Union, which included Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria and Greece and was directed against the Ottoman Empire and, in fact, Austria-Hungary - therefore, against the interests of Germany's allies and its herself. This fact alone puts an end to the concepts of Russia's anti-war foreign policy in the period under review, invented by the screenwriters of "Thwarted Triumph"; in comparison with him, the participation of Russian pilots in the first Balkan war as part of the Bulgarian army is an insignificant trifle. Secondly, Lavrov ignored the fact that in 1912 new directives for the strategic deployment of troops were approved, which were fundamentally different from the plan of 1910, which pursued only defensive goals. There are no words, this is a very original form of manifestation of the peacefulness of the empire ...

However, the multifactorial and very difficult issue of international relations in Europe on the eve of the First World War can be considered for a very, very long time, since a huge amount of research has been published on it in Russia and abroad; in this case, we are only interested in the meeting of the "admirals of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans."

Kaiser Wilhelm II in his memoirs mentions the hospitality of the Russian Tsar, the excellent training of the 85th Vyborg Infantry Regiment sponsored by him, and ... nothing more! Unless, in conclusion, he is justly indignant about the complete silence of cousin Nika about the Balkan Union. Minister of Foreign Affairs S.D. Sazonov tells in detail about the persistent attempts of Wilhelm II to convince him of the need to reorient Russian foreign policy from Europe to the Far East - well, the German emperor was true to himself, adhering to this point of view even before the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905. But where can we find at least a small mention of what the doctor of historical sciences Lavrov told from the television screen? The answer is simple and categorical: nowhere. This conversation just didn't happen.

Also very interesting in this regard is the mention in the memoirs of the head of the St. Petersburg security department V.A. Gerasimov about the intentions of Nicholas II to declare war on Austria-Hungary back in October 1908, after its occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, when P.A. Stolypin dissuaded the tsar from this step with great difficulty. Mr. Lavrov either does not know about him (which is unlikely), or deliberately does not remember.

In the end, the war was declared anyway, its millstones set in motion, and very soon the main ally of Russia, the French Republic, was on the verge of defeat. Another expert appears on the screen - as indicated in the subtitles, "Andrey Rachinsky, Doctor of History." Standing on the bridge laid by "Emperor Alec... Nicholas II" (?), he utters some beautiful, but frankly chaotic phrases about how Russia saved France. And then Mr. Verkhovykh immediately starts talking about 1915.

The question arises: why was not a word said either about the circumstances of the outbreak of the war, or about the notorious salvation of France by Russia? Indeed, even Marshal Foch was not cited as an authority, whose expression “The fact that France was not wiped off the face of the earth, it owes only to Russia” is so fond of recalling in such cases. The answer to these reasonable questions is simple: the war for Russia began with the tragic defeat of the 2 armies in East Prussia, which lost a total of 250 thousand soldiers killed, wounded, captured and missing. This invasion was not carried out by a third of the army mobilized, it was not properly prepared; the creators of the film are silent about this “price” of saving France, which looks at least hypocritical.

However, let us return to 1915, which was marked for Russia by the “Great Retreat” of its army along the entire length of the front and the abandonment of most of the country’s western territories to the enemy. Mr. Verkhovykh reports this honor by honor, but the reasons for such grave military failures are not voiced. And one can try to understand the screenwriter - could he, telling about the great Sovereign Nicholas II, say that due to the poor functioning of his military department, the soldiers lacked banal boots? That the army was sorely lacking shells, and sometimes even food? That the vaunted western fortresses were defended by militias with one rifle for three, and field artillery by crews with axes at the ready?!

Of course not. After all, such information would make the viewer think about the validity of the following statement from the lips of V.M. Lavrova: “In this very difficult situation in 1915, Emperor Nicholas II himself assumed responsibility for the situation on the fronts as supreme commander in chief.” This information is reliable, although information about the true motives of this act of the autocrat is silent. This is followed by statements that are rare in terms of the degree of absurdity, revealing either Mr. Lavrov's complete ignorance of the history of the Great War, or his complete disrespect for himself and for television viewers - since the doctor of historical sciences without hesitation voices the next one from the screenwriter's pen Multatuli is nonsense: "He was able to consolidate the leadership of the Russian army ...".

In fact, the opinion of the army elite about the replacement of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich by the emperor as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief is clearly seen in the reaction of one of its representatives - cavalry general A.A. Brusilov, who later recalled:

“The impression in the troops from this replacement was the most difficult, one might say - depressing. The whole army, and indeed the whole of Russia, certainly believed Nikolai Nikolaevich. It was common knowledge that the Tsar knew absolutely nothing about military matters and that the title he had taken upon himself would only be nominal.

In this case, the memoirist, in contrast to Messrs. Multatuli and Lavrov, did not cheat - the epistolary evidence of contemporaries of those events preserved in the archives very eloquently confirm this. A soldier who was in the active army told his correspondent in February 1915: “Don't be surprised that everything is so well arranged. This is all the Grand Duke, who became our second Suvorov. We trust Him and hand our lives boldly into His hands...”. Another soldier wrote from the front in March: "Nikolai Nikolaevich is almost adored." “All our victories only went to us thanks to the sobering of the country and the appointment of Nikolai Nikolayevich as Supreme Commander-in-Chief, whom we, soldiers, all love for his truth and steadfastness” - this is how, and not otherwise, the role of the Grand Duke in the fate of the army was determined by its lower ranks. He was extraordinarily popular in the rear as well; a certain resident of Petrograd wrote in a private letter in January 1915: “Having such a talented, serious and strict Commander-in-Chief and such valiant assistants as Ivanov, Ruzsky, Brusilov, Radko Dmitriev, Lechitsky, etc. - we cannot help but win.” These few testimonies make it clear that the measure taken by Nicholas II not only did not consolidate, but rather unpleasantly impressed both the leadership of the army and society as a whole.

Meanwhile, V.M. Lavrov continues:

“... the panic stopped, the retreat stopped ...” - in fact, the front did not stabilize immediately, as Lavrov imagines, but only 2 months later, after the next retreat of the Russian army to the line of the river. Western Dvina - Dvinsk - Vileyka - Baranovichi - Pinsk. The panic that had ceased in the imagination of the screenwriter of the film continued in the vast masses of the population of the front line, who during the entire campaign were evacuated inland, which almost put railway communications in the west of the country at risk of collapse, and in the army in 1915, the facts were first recorded fraternization with enemy soldiers.

And now - a few words about the probable reasons for the dismissal of his uncle by Nicholas II from the post of Supreme Commander-in-Chief. From the beginning of the war, and especially - in the difficult year of 1915 - opinions about the commander in chief as a suitable candidate for the role of "good king" were gaining weight in society. Describing the mood of the participants in the anti-German pogrom in Moscow in May 1915, the French ambassador wrote in his diary: “On the famous Red Square, the crowd scolded the royal people, demanding the abdication of the emperor, the transfer of the throne to Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich ...”. According to the testimony of Protopresbyter of the Russian army and fleet G. Shavelsky, in court circles at that time they even pointedly talked about the portrait of the Grand Duke with the inscription "Nicholas III" that went from hand to hand. This trend worried the empress more and more, she was annoyed by the participation of the Grand Duke in the meetings of the Council of Ministers; “It seems that Nikolay Nikolayevich controls everything, he has the right to choose, and he makes the necessary changes. This state of affairs makes me extremely indignant,” the queen wrote to her husband. But not only a certain special policy of the Headquarters, but also a peculiar sovereign style cultivated by the Supreme, increasingly worried the tsar, the tsarina, some other members of the imperial family, as well as Rasputin. Official documents, appeals coming from the Headquarters increasingly imitated the style of the tsar's manifestos. The emperor did not share all the queen's concerns about the grand duke's ambitions, but in this case he apparently considered the situation serious enough to intervene. The consequences, unlike the speculations of the royal couple, were quite real and very deplorable for the army and the state as a whole.

Meanwhile, the "Thwarted Triumph" continues to delight viewers - they are informed that in the spring of 1916 the Russian army carried out the largest offensive of the First World War, which was forever included in the annals of history under the name "Brusilovsky Breakthrough". Further, the operation is referred to as "victorious". Should we trust these far-reaching claims? Once again, the answer is in the negative. First, the scale of this military operation- undoubtedly, grandiose - in terms of losses in manpower, we can compare it with the battle on the Somme that broke out on the Western Front in the summer of 1916, or rather, with its first day, July 1. If by August 1916 the losses of the parties in the "Brusilovsky breakthrough" looked like this:

then only on July 1, 1916, troops on both sides of the Western Front lost 57,470 people, which is no less impressive, especially if we take into account the difference in the population of the Russian Empire and, for example, France or the British Isles. As for the victoriousness of the Brusilov breakthrough, the researcher S.G. Nelipovich, relying on an array of archival sources, reasonably doubted the acceptability of such formulations. After all, A.A. Brusilov did not fulfill any of the tasks facing him: the enemy was not defeated, his losses were less than those of the Russians (only according to rough estimates according to the statements of the Stavka, Brusilov's Southwestern Front lost from May 22 (June 4) to 14 (27 ) October 1916 1.65 million people), success for the attacks of the Western Front was also not prepared by this large-scale distraction operation.

Of course, there was not even a hint of this in the film. On the contrary, the off-screen reader spoke enthusiastically about Russia, which was on the verge of victory, which was supposed to bring an offensive operation in the spring of the next, 1917. In fairness, we note that it took place - the so-called. The Mitav operation to break through the enemy's fortified positions on the Northern Front developed successfully, but already on January 12, offensive operations were stopped. Being the last of the successfully carried out by the Russian army in the campaign of 1917 and in the war in general, even with the optimal development of events, due to its locality, it could hardly visibly bring Russia's victory closer. And can such a situation in the country be considered a “threshold of victory” in which the government is forced to introduce a surplus appraisal?!

Yes, for the first time this emergency measure was introduced back in tsarist Russia, although the opinion of the surplus appraisal as a Bolshevik "know-how" is much more common. By the way, in general, the experiment gave rather modest results: instead of the planned volume of grain products, according to various estimates, only 100-130 million pounds were received from peasant farms and about 40 million from landowners. It is unlikely that readers will be surprised by the fact that the creators of "Thwarted Triumph" keep silent about the food crisis in the country - in the context of the entire film, this is rather the norm. However, wishing or not wishing it, Mr. Verkhovykh is forced to move on to talking about the revolutionary events of February 1917. It would be logical for the viewer to be puzzled - how, why did shocks overtake the empire at the peak of military power? .. The authors of the film have a ready answer to this question ... traditionally having practically nothing to do with the truth.

For the first time, the ominous word "conspiracy" is woven into the outline of the narrative, localized at the address "USA, New York, Broadway, 120". In this case, P. Multatuli relies on the frankly anti-scientific conspiracy theories of the American writer Anthony Sutton, who “registered” a certain “Order” at the indicated address, allegedly organizing both the Russian revolution of 1917 and the rise of A. Hitler to power in Germany in 1933. , etc. The comments of such “experts”, as already known to us A. Rachinsky and a certain Nicolas Tandler, corresponding to this version, are logical and should not be taken seriously, but the tolerance of domestic professional scientists commenting on the film to this unscientific fiction.

In enumerating the representatives of the Duma opposition, Mr. Verkhovykh once again disagrees with common sense: in rejecting A.F. Kerensky has a central role in the "conspiracy", he does not explain why he initially took the post of Minister of Justice in the Provisional Government?!

Once again appearing on television, political scientist V.A. Nikonov voices, perhaps, the most sensible idea throughout the film - he talks about the support of the revolution by large financial circles, but at the same time operates with modernized terms like "oligarchy". Indeed, some of the major Russian entrepreneurs found in military orders a source of superprofits and did not stop at financial and political machinations to achieve their goals. Their activities to create a management structure parallel to the state bodies; discrediting the state as incapable of solving the pressing problems of a belligerent country; propaganda of their “achievements”, quite skillful and quite modern in terms of methods, was successful, which was clearly shown by the events of February 1917. In an effort to give political changes the most apex character, to control the army through the generals, the labor movement through part of the social democracy, they, however , were unable to maintain control over the masses that had set in motion. However, to bring a conspiracy base under these events means to simplify the history of the revolution at times, and mislead a huge number of viewers. This, apparently, did not bother the creators of "Thwarted Triumph".

Here, in the context of the preparation of the "anti-monarchist conspiracy", for the first time in the entire film, the name of Grigory Rasputin is pronounced. Of course, talking about him would be more appropriate when discussing the swindlers - "mystics" close to the emperor, but Mr. Multatuli has his own peculiar opinion on this matter. One way or another, this figure has been preserved in history as one of the most expressive and vile symbols of the reign of Nicholas II, the devaluation of the monarchy as an institution of power in Russia, dressed in the omophorion of Orthodoxy. In this regard, it is not surprising that a priest speaks about Rasputin - Fr. Tikhon (Shevkunov). “This is undoubtedly a mysterious figure and, probably, it is not our business to admire the trial of him,” the viewer hears. I, in turn, want to remind you that this person, the closest to the king and queen, was known to the whole society for countless orgies with the participation of representatives of high society - “in the baths ... Rasputin delivered long sermons, and on the other hand forced his admirers to wash their sexual organs." While still living in Siberia, he was repeatedly sentenced to punishment for rape and theft; agents of the St. Petersburg "okhrana" reported to A.V. Gerasimov about Rasputin's stay in brothels. The “holy devil” was extremely negative towards the official clergy; “They think about ribbons, about worldly things, but they don’t have Christ in their hearts,” he said about bishops, but Fr. Tikhon doesn't seem to care. It was clear to any sane person then that Rasputin could not even be brought closer to the royal palace by a cannon shot. But he was close to him... And, what is especially terrible, he controlled the fate of millions and the levers of power; at the behest of this illiterate muzhik, ministerial portfolios were passed from one mediocrity to another, even in the most difficult years of the war. The assassination of Rasputin, if it had been more timely, might have played a much more significant and beneficial role in the fate of the crumbling monarchy. However, according to P. Multatuli, it only brought its inevitable collapse closer.

The further plot of the film is a retelling of the plot of Mr. Multatuli's book "Emperor Nicholas II at the Head of the Army and the Conspiracy of Generals" published several years ago. It is widely represented on the Internet and everyone can get acquainted with this essay and the image in it of the same imaginary "conspiracy".

In the context of this, Mr. Verkhovykh mentions the assurances of Nicholas II by the Minister of Internal Affairs A.D. Protopopov regarding the calm mood in the capital and at the same time adds: “If the sovereign knew that at the end of 1916 Protopopov had already stopped close contact with one of the secrets of the organizers of the revolution ... Felix Warburg.”

The announcer no longer traditionally introduces specifics into his passage, apparently believing his remark to be valuable in itself and explaining everything. In fact, it has to be recognized as false. Firstly, the meeting of Protopopov, then Chairman of the State Duma, with the banker Fritz Warburg, who during the war years carried out special assignments of the German Foreign Ministry in Stockholm, took place on July 6, 1916, and this date can be called the end of the year, only without knowing it. It is also difficult to call a single meeting a relationship, at which a member of the State Council D.V. was also present. Olsufiev.

During this meeting, Warburg tried to convince his interlocutors of the senselessness of continuing the war, which was beneficial only to England, and as compensation for the losses suffered by Russia during the war years, he offered part of Galicia, thus offering to make peace at the expense of an ally. However, Warburg's efforts were in vain - after reading Warburg's report, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs G. von Jagow disappointedly wrote in its margins: "These Russians milked Warburg, and in fact they themselves did not say anything." In view of the fact that this report is practically the only source on the content of the negotiations between Warburg, Protopopov and Olsufiev, the allegations of the organization of an international conspiracy with the participation of these persons have to be classified as fabrications, due to their unprovability. And, finally, Mr. Verkhovykh vainly believes that Nicholas II was in the dark about this meeting - Protopopov, upon returning to St. Petersburg, asked for a personal audience with the tsar and told him about a meeting with Warburg.

The creators of the film do not give a description of the abdication of Nicholas II - in their opinion, it is "covered with a veil of darkness." On the screen, photographs of the tsar replace one another, and among them is a reproduction from a painting by V.R. Alekseev "Nicholas II on the eve of abdication".

It should be said that on this canvas there are a number of flaws in the reproduction by the artist of the military costume and awards of the king (a blue beshmet, while it should have been white or red; the order of St. George of the IV category on the chest of the emperor, similar in size rather to the neck cross of the order II degree), which the filmmakers already habitually neglected, or which they did not know about.

Without paying much attention to the screenwriter's groundless doubts about the authenticity of the manifesto about the abdication of Nicholas II, we note only a few more frankly falsified moments. For example, according to Mr. Verkhovykh, British Prime Minister Lloyd George, having learned about the February Revolution in Russia, exclaimed: “One of the goals of the war for England has been achieved! ..”

In fact, the British Prime Minister, in a speech before Parliament, said: "The British Government is confident that these events begin a new era in the history of the world, being the first victory of the principles over which we started the war." Of course, armed with a “conspiracy theory”, one can, on the basis of this remark, accuse Lloyd George of organizing the February Revolution in Russia - however, this accusation will have nothing to do with either reality or common sense.

What follows is the speaker's startling statement: "More than 40 million Russians have died since the revolution." After sustaining a theatrical pause, Mr. Verkhovyh begins to list the series of hardships brought down by Providence on Russia, and sums up this mournful list with nothing more than 1945! And I don’t know how the audience and readers of this article will react to this passage, but in my opinion, including among the victims of the February Revolution and the “dark forces” (?!) that gave rise to it ... those who died in the Great Patriotic War is almost mockery of their sacred memory and elementary ignorance.

Then taking the floor about the canonization of the royal family shot in 1918, Archbishop Vikenty asserts that "the Emperor was a saint in life." As following this, B.V. Gryzlov, his murder was "a crime of Bolshevism." But - as the historian E.S. Radzig, can this serve as a basis for now justifying all the crimes committed by Nicholas II? ..

So, the analysis of the film "Thwarted Triumph" showed that instead of telling the truth about the last Russian tsar, its creators shot a pseudo-documentary film-tale. The lion's share of the information contained in it is completely untrue. Relatively truthful nuances are literally drowning in heaps of half-truth, and outright lies. Particularly - and extremely unpleasant - is the participation in the film of a number of prominent scientists, religious and political figures of modern Russia, who, instead of objective expert assessments, made statements that overwhelmingly disagree with historical reality.

It is quite obvious that this film was designed for a certain segment of the audience that adheres to monarchical or political views close to them. The leafy image of the last Russian tsar, dear to their hearts, could not be shown in any way reliably - otherwise the illusory ideas of the mourners for "Russia that we lost" would inevitably be destroyed. However, the documentary film genre a priori implies the reliability of the information reflected in it. The fundamental basis for such television projects should be only historical analysis, which the creators of "Thwarted Triumph" preferred to neglect. I would like to believe that in the future such low-grade "historical" programs will be broadcast on television as rarely as possible.

Read also on this topic:

Notes

Oldenburg S.S. Reign of Nicholas II. M., 2003. S. 87.

Neither the voice-over reader nor the invited experts will return to this remark more than once during the film, even speaking about 1918 itself. It is obvious that this rather naive trick - a banal posturing with a claim to mysticism - was designed to interest the category of viewers who are trusting in the realm of the supernatural in all its manifestations. The beginning of this kind for a documentary historical television film looks, to put it mildly, doubtful.

Witte S.Yu. Memories. M., 1960. V.2. S. 280.

Bogdanovich A.V. The last three autocrats. M., 1990. S. 371.

Izvolsky A.P. Memories. Mn., 2003. S. 214.

Dyakonova I.A. Oil and coal in the energy sector of tsarist Russia in international comparisons. M., 1999. S. 166.

Konovalova A.V. Shares of oil companies in the early twentieth century on the St. Petersburg Stock Exchange. Economic history. Review. Ed. L.I. Borodkin. Issue. Moscow, 2005, pp. 33–34.

Shirshov G.M. "We must not allow the oil industry ... to remain in the hands of a handful of persons on the rights of private, unrestricted property." "Military Historical Journal". 2004. No. 8. S. 20.

See: Collection of treaties between Russia and other states. 1856–1917 Moscow, 1952, pp. 47–48, 49–55, 74–84.

Witte S.Yu. Memories. T.1. pp. 438–439.

Cit. by: Ryzhenkov M.R. "Patriotic newspapers and magazines wrote ... about the beginning of the great struggle of George the Victorious with the dragon." "Military Historical Journal". 2001. No. 9. P. 64.

Chirkin S.V. Twenty years of service in the Far East. Notes of the tsarist diplomat. M., 2006. S. 231.

See: "Muslims ... are full of hope that they will fully enjoy and enjoy the rights ... granted by the RSFSR." "National Archives". 2006. No. 5. P. 99–114.

Podpryatov N.V. National Minorities in the Struggle for "Honor, Dignity and Integrity of Russia...". "Military Historical Journal". 1997. No. 1. S. 55; Hagen, von M. The Limits of Reform: Nationalism and the Russian Imperial Army in 1874–1917. " National history". 2004. No. 5. P. 41.

The Most Submissive Report of the Ministry of National Education for 1913. Pg., 1916. Supplement. pp. 186–191, 238. . Alekseev M.A. Fake maps of Wilhelm II. "Military Historical Journal". 1995. No. 6. P. 53. Obedkov I.V. Russian officers at the V Olympic Games. "Military Historical Journal". 1990. No. 1. S. 89. . Cit. by: Foch F. Memoires pour servir a l "histoire de la guerre de 1914–1918. Paris, 1931. P. 178.

Soviet military encyclopedia. M., 1976. V.2. S. 379.

An elementary example - from the beginning of the 1915 campaign, 76-mm field artillery guns - the famous Russian "death scythes" - required up to 1,750,000 shells per month, while the Main Artillery Directorate by May 1915 was able to provide troops with a maximum of 530,000 shells. The logical outcome of this state of affairs was a military tragedy. befell the Russian army in the summer of that year. See: Manikovsky A.A. Combat supply of the Russian army in the world war. M., 1937. S. 581–582.

In March 1915, the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief demanded that the rear be supplied daily with 15,000 heads of cattle. In turn, the Council of Ministers recognized that it was possible to satisfy the front with deliveries of no more than 5,000 heads daily and, as a temporary measure, suggested that the Headquarters make purchases in the areas closest to the theater of operations. This act laid the foundation for army arbitrariness - the military authorities considered themselves entitled to apply requisitions in the front-line territories. See: Oskin M.V. Army and food supply. "Military Historical Journal". 2006. No. 3. S. 52.

Bazanov S.N. "German soldiers began ... to crawl to the Russian comrades and fraternize with them." "Military Historical Journal". 2002. No. 6. P. 43. Nelipovich S.G. Brusilovsky breakthrough as an object of mythology. World War I: Prologue to the 20th century. M., 1998. S. 634.

Zayonchkovsky A.M. World War I. SPb., 2002. S. 626.

In October 1916, 49 million poods of grain were purchased, which was only 35% of the planned amount of grain, in November - 39 million poods (38%). The government realized that the bread itself would no longer come to the market and that urgent measures must be taken. 29th of November new minister agriculture A.A. Rittich signed a decree on the introduction of surplus appropriation. For each province, the volume of state purchases was set at fixed prices, then it was distributed among the counties and within 35 days had to be brought to the producers - landowners and peasants. Within 6 months, the unwrapped amount of bread had to be handed over to the state commissioners. In total, it was planned to purchase 772 million poods of grain to supply the army, the defense industry and large cities. See: Kitanina T.M. War, bread, revolution. Food issue in Russia. 1914-October 1917. L., 1985. S. 217, 255–259.

Gerasimov A.V. On the edge with terrorists. S. 341.

It has long been noted that history in different periods repeats. Especially Russian history. Always, over the centuries, there were those who, without expecting any preferences, were ready to lay down their lives for their homeland, and those who were ready to crap any mistake of the state. Both Dostoevsky and Grigory Klimov wrote about the latter in more than detail. Tsushima is just such a marker. And it was like that.

Tsushima is an excuse for demons to rock the imperial boat

In the last days of May 1905, perhaps the most painful defeat of the Russian Empire in Russo-Japanese War. Port Arthur and Mukden have already become a shock for Russian society, but after them there were still expectations that the wheel of war could be turned in the other direction. After Tsushima, there was a complete social depression, despite the fact that militarily the situation could be somewhat corrected. By and large, in the long term, the Japanese had no chance against the Russian Empire. There were no Facebooks then, but poems were written and read.

Our king is Mukden, our king is Tsushima,
Our king is a bloodstain
The stench of gunpowder and smoke
In which the mind is dark ...
Our king is blind squalor,
Prison and whip, jurisdiction, execution,
Tsar hangman, the low twice,
What he promised, but did not dare to give.
He's a coward, he feels stuttering
But it will be, the hour of reckoning awaits.
Who began to reign - Khodynka,
He will finish - standing on the scaffold.

These lines were then written in the hearts of one of the poetic gurus of the Silver Age, Konstantin Balmont. The Russian intelligentsia has always been characterized by a desire for neurotic reactions, but much also depended on the ability of the authorities to correctly present their intentions and actions to society. In the time of Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov, this was not very good.

The poet, of course, can be understood. Fine mental organization. Not only Balmont was shocked by the nightmarish results of the war with some kind of Japs. The most severe defeat in the Battle of Tsushima that happened in the last May days of 1905 became a cold shower for Russian society and the leadership of the Russian Empire. Of course, such a fiasco became an occasion for the gloating of demons of various stripes. The disaster in the war with Japan was the signal for the revolutionaries to try to rock the imperial boat. In this regard, nothing has changed in a century. The heirs of the then demons are ready to use any pretext for anti-Russian activities even today.

Tsushima was predestined

In general, the disaster at Tsushima was quite expected, if you look at the alignment objectively. The Japanese squadron consisted of more modern ships, and Port Arthur and the First Squadron had already been taken out of the game by this point. By the summer of 1905, the situation on the fronts of the Russo-Japanese War was developing in such a way that sending the 2nd squadron to the Far East seemed quite risky. In those days, our hitherto God-saving power did not yet have a nuclear shield capable of turning into a punitive sword with the transformation of a significant part of the old woman - the Earth into continuous radioactive ashes. Therefore, the second squadron had only one way - to overcome thousands of kilometers and arrive at the Far Eastern front of hostilities in order to release Port Arthur and make a turning point in the war.

Russia lost the propaganda war

To this moment Russian society no longer believed any official optimistic statements and victorious reports, any "general brilliant" plans and projects. The idea of ​​the need to continue the war owned only a part of the Far East, and then only because peace with Japan threatened the loss of Sakhalin, Primorye and the Ussuri Territory. The paradox of the situation lies in the fact that by September 1905, an army of 788,000 (130 battalions) was concentrated in Manchuria - but it no longer wanted to fight.

Then for the first time the state information support of the coming war was involved. And it was the ideologists of this campaign who failed to properly cover the events. Initially filtering the information, not bringing the sad news from the war fronts in full, the semi-official media gave way to the information battlefield to liberal opponents.

I will not mention the enthusiastic telegrams of the Russian so-called liberals to the Japanese emperor. I didn’t have a chance to hold the telegrams in my hands, and therefore, God bless them. Nevertheless, the love of censorship, practiced in the press for all previous decades, played a cruel joke on the performers of the information support of this war.

“The correspondent was forced to either not write at all, or write about the exploits of lieutenants and second lieutenants, praise the deeds of individuals, shout about undoubted success in the future, call for war, popularize war.” This was written by Nemirovich-Danchenko, who covered this war from the front line. With its conservatism, the information policy of the times of the Russo-Japanese War gave trump cards both to its liberal opponents-publicists and revolutionaries of all stripes. It was from that moment that the probability of both the first Russian revolution and the second became almost inevitable. The current Russian authorities would also do well to remember the lessons of 1905.

Tsushima is not a shame, but an example of the military prowess of Russian sailors

The result of the battle is as follows. The Russian squadron lost 209 officers, 75 conductors, 4761 lower ranks, killed and drowned, a total of 5045 people. 172 officers, 13 conductors and 178 lower ranks were wounded. 7282 people were taken prisoner, including two admirals. 2110 people remained on the interned ships. The total personnel of the squadron before the battle was 16,170 people, of which 870 broke through to Vladivostok.

Despite the catastrophic results of both the battle itself and the entire war, for normal modern Russian people, the Tsushima disaster, first of all, is another example of the courage of Russian sailors who continued to follow their oath even in a completely hopeless situation. History does not consist of only victories, And defeats can sometimes be proud of. Glory to Russia!

Mass stampede during the celebrations on the occasion of the coronation of Emperor Nicholas II, in which 1389 people died and more than 900 were maimed.

The coronation festivities continued in the evening at the Kremlin Palace, and then with a ball at the reception of the French ambassador. Many expected that if the ball was not canceled, then at least it would take place without the sovereign.

According to Sergei Alexandrovich, when Nicholas II was advised not to come to the ball, the tsar spoke out that although the Khodynka disaster was the greatest misfortune, however should not overshadow holiday coronation. Nicholas II opened the ball with Countess Montebello (the wife of the envoy), and Alexandra Feodorovna danced with the count.

Khodynka. Watercolor by Vladimir Makovsky. 1899

The only article about Khodynka that appeared the other day was article by Vladimir Gilyarovsky (1855-1935) in Russkiye Vedomosti. Its title was typed in large letters: "Khodynskaya catastrophe." She jumped out just in time: other newspapers were immediately banned from writing about these events ....

***

Gilyarovsky "Catastrophe on the Khodynka field" (1896):

"P The cause of the catastrophe will be clarified by the investigation, which has already begun and is underway. For now, I will confine myself to a description of everything I saw and the reliable information that I managed to get from eyewitnesses.

I begin by describing the area where the disaster occurred. The unfortunate location of cupboards for distributing mugs and treats certainly increased the number of victims. They are built like this: a hundred paces from the highway, in the direction of the Vagankovsky cemetery, their chain stretches, from time to time torn apart by more or less long intervals.

Dozens of buffets are connected by one roof, having between them a yard and a half narrowing passage in the middle, since it was supposed to let the people go to the festivities from Moscow through these passages, handing each of the walkers a bundle with refreshments.

Parallel to the buffets, from the side of Moscow, i.e. from where the people were expected, at first stretches from the highway a deep ditch, with steep edges and a yard-long shaft, passing against the first sideboards into a wide ditch, up to 30 sazhens, - a former quarry where sand and clay were taken. The ditch, in places about two sazhens deep, has steep, precipitous banks and is pitted with a mass of sometimes very deep pits. It stretches for more than half a verst, just along the sideboards, and in front of the sideboards has a platform for its entire length, from 20 to 30 paces wide.

On it, it was supposed, apparently, to install the people for handing them bundles and for passing inside the field. However, it didn't work out that way: a mass of people gathered, and a thousandth of them did not fit on the site.

The distribution was supposed to be carried out from 10 am on May 18, and the people began to gather the day before, on the 17th, almost from noon, but at night it was pulled from everywhere, from Moscow, from factories and from villages, positively damming the streets adjacent to the outposts of Tverskaya, Presnenskaya and Butyrskaya.

By midnight, the huge square, pitted in many places, starting from buffets, along their entire length, to the water pump building and the surviving exhibition pavilion, was not a bivouac, not a fair. In smoother places, away from the festivities, there were carts from villagers and carts of vendors with snacks and kvass. In some places fires were lit. With the dawn, the bivouac began to come to life, to move. Crowds of people all arrived in droves.

Coronation glasses

Everyone tried to take seats closer to the buffets. A few managed to occupy a narrow, smooth strip near the buffet tents themselves, and the rest overflowed a huge 30-sazhen ditch, which seemed to be a living, swaying sea, as well as the bank of the ditch closest to Moscow and a high rampart. By three o'clock everyone was standing in the places they had occupied, more and more constrained by the incoming masses of the people.

By five o'clock the gathering of the people had reached an extreme degree - I believe that not less than several hundred thousand people. The mass was shackled. You couldn't move your hand, you couldn't move. Pressed in the ditch to both high banks, they did not have the opportunity to move. The ditch was packed, and the heads of the people, merged into a continuous mass, did not represent a flat surface, but deepened and rose, according to the bottom of the ditch, dotted with pits.

The pressure was terrible. Many were treated badly, some lost consciousness, unable to get out or even fall: senseless, with their eyes closed, squeezed as if in a vise, they swayed along with the mass. This went on for about an hour. Cries for help were heard, groans of the strangled. Children - teenagers, the crowd somehow landed up and allowed them to crawl over their heads in one direction or another, and some managed to get out into the open, although not always unharmed. Guard soldiers carried two such teenagers to the big theater No. 1, where Mr. Forkatti and doctors Anrikov and Ramm were located.

So, at 12 o'clock in the morning, a girl of 16 years old was brought in an insensible state, and at about three o'clock they brought a boy who, thanks to the care of the doctors, came to his senses only by noon on the second day and said that he had been crushed in the crowd and then thrown out. He didn't remember anything after that.

Because of such gingerbread people choked on Khodynka

Rare managed to escape from the crowd on the field. After five o'clock already very many in the crowd lost their senses, squeezed from all sides. And above the crowd of millions, steam began to rise, like a swamp fog. It was evaporation from this mass, and soon the crowd was enveloped in a white haze, especially below in the ditch, so strongly that from above, from the rampart, only this haze was visible in places, hiding people.

At about 6 o'clock in the crowd moans and cries for salvation began to be heard more and more often. Finally, a commotion began to be seen near several medium-sized tents. It was the crowd that demanded refreshments from those in charge of the canteens. In two or three medium booths, the artel workers really began to distribute bundles, while in the rest no distribution was made. At the first tents they shouted "distributing", and a huge crowd rushed to the left, to those buffets where they were distributing. Terrible, soul-rending groans and cries filled the air...

The crowd coming from behind brought down thousands of people into the ditch, those standing in the pits were trampled... Several dozen Cossacks and guards guarding the sideboards were opposite side they climbed for the bundles, not letting those who came in from outside, and the pushing crowd pressed people to the cupboards and crushed them. This lasted no more than ten most agonizing minutes... The groans were audible and aroused horror even on the racing circle, where work was still going on at that time.

The crowd quickly retreated, and from six o'clock the majority was already walking towards the houses, and people were moving from Khodynskoye Pole, damming the streets of Moscow, all day long. At the walk itself, not even one-fifth of what was left in the morning was left.

Many, however, returned to search for their dead relatives. The authorities have arrived. The piles of bodies began to be dismantled, separating the dead from the living. More than 500 wounded were taken to hospitals and emergency rooms; the corpses were taken out of the pits and laid out in a circle of tents in a vast space.

Mutilated, blue, in a dress torn and soaked through, they were terrible. The groans and lamentations of relatives who had found their relatives defied description... According to Russian custom, people threw money on the chest of the dead for burial... Meanwhile, military and fire trucks drove up and took dozens of corpses to the city.

The emergency rooms and hospitals overflowed with the wounded. Chapels at police houses and hospitals and barns - with corpses. Cleaning went on all day. By the way, 28 bodies were found in a well, which turned out to be in a moat, opposite the middle cupboards. This deep well, made by an overturned funnel, lined with wood inside, was covered with boards that could not withstand the pressure of the crowd. Among those who fell into the well, one was saved alive. In addition, the corpses were found on the field, quite far from the crash site. These were the wounded, who managed to leave in a rush, fell and died.

All night on Sunday they carried bodies from everywhere to the Vagankodskoye cemetery. More than a thousand lay there, in the meadow in the sixth category of the cemetery. I was there around 6 o'clock in the morning. Towards, along the highway, they were carrying white coffins with the dead. These are bodies released to relatives for burial. Lots of people in the cemetery ..."

("Russian Vedomosti". 1896. No. 137).

Our king is Mukden, our king is Tsushima,

Our king is a bloodstain

The stench of gunpowder and smoke

In which the mind is dark ...

Our king is blind squalor,

Prison and whip, jurisdiction, execution,

Tsar hangman, the low twice,

What he promised, but did not dare to give.

He's a coward, he feels stuttering

But it will be, the hour of reckoning awaits.

Who began to reign - Khodynka,

He will finish - standing on the scaffold.

K. Balmont "Our Tsar". 1906

Today is the 100th anniversary of the abdication of Nicholas II.

Nicholas II was born in 1868 and as a teenager was present at the death of his grandfather, Alexander the Liberator. In 1894, after the death of his father, he came to the throne. In 1917 he was overthrown from the throne, and in 1918 he was shot without trial together with his family in Yekaterinburg.

In Soviet times, there was such an anecdote. With the introduction of the title of Hero of Socialist Labor in 1938, one of the first to receive this title was Nikolai Aleksandrovich Romanov (posthumously). With the wording "For the creation of a revolutionary situation in Russia."

This anecdote reflected the sad historical reality. Nicholas II inherited from his father a rather powerful country and an excellent assistant - the outstanding Russian reformer S. Yu. Witte. Witte was dismissed because he opposed Russia's involvement in the war with Japan. The defeat in the Russo-Japanese War accelerated the revolutionary processes - the first Russian revolution took place. Witte was replaced by the strong-willed and decisive P. A. Stolypin. He began reforms that were supposed to turn Russia into a decent bourgeois-monarchical state. Stolypin categorically objected to any action that could drag Russia into a new war. Stolypin died. A new big war led Russia to a new, big revolution in 1917. It turns out that Nicholas II, with his own hands, contributed to the emergence of two revolutionary situations in Russia.

Nevertheless, in 2000, he and his family were canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church as saints. The attitude towards the personality of Nicholas II in Russian society is polar, although the official media did everything to portray the last Russian Tsar as "white and fluffy." During the reign of Boris N. Yeltsin, the found remains of the royal family were buried in the aisle of the Peter and Paul Cathedral.

They say that Nicholas II shot quite a few people - just a couple of thousand people, not like, they say, he is "the bloody tyrant Stalin." But how he shot them! Peaceful, unarmed people came to the king with banners, with icons and portraits of the monarch, with church hymns; they sincerely believed that the father-king loved them, that he would intercede for them, listen and solve their problems. And in them - a hail of bullets.

I think that already on that day, January 9, 1905 (Bloody Sunday), the tsar signed his own death warrant.

Well, okay, the Bolsheviks shot innocent children - this can be condemned. Although, again, did the tsar feel sorry for the children shot by soldiers in 1905, as well as orphans whose fathers did not return home from the demonstration?

But, in any case, Nicholas himself was by no means "innocent victim" and those who made him holy are well aware of this. Therefore, the canonization of Nicholas the Bloody and all this chanting and glorification of his "spiritual and moral exploits" is hypocrisy, is a purely political game that goes far beyond religion.

Now the "patriotic intelligentsia" is fanning the myth about Nicholas II and Nicholas Russia, about the wise and far-sighted monarch and the prosperity of his country and people. Allegedly, the Russian Empire developed so dynamically that - if not for the "damned Bolsheviks" - in a couple of decades it would have become the first world power. However, all these tales do not stand up to scrutiny.

Yes, Russian industry was then developing at a rather rapid pace, but despite this, Russia remained a backward agrarian-industrial country. It was 20 times inferior to the United States in coal production, smelted 11 times less iron and steel per capita than the States. Russia almost did not produce electric generators, tractors, combines, excavators, optical instruments and many other important types of machinery and equipment - and this despite the presence of outstanding scientists and designers in the country.

During the First World War, Russia built 3.5 thousand aircraft - against 47.3 thousand German, 47.8 thousand British and 52.1 thousand French. Even the equally backward and rotten Austro-Hungarian Empire was able to produce 5.4 thousand airplanes!

The backwardness of the then Russia is clearly visible from the structure of its exports. In 1909-1913, 41.7% of exports were grain. The following lines in the list of main export items were occupied by timber, cow butter and eggs, yarn, flour and bran, sugar, cake and oil products. And no cars for you, no "high-tech products"! Their country imported, and at the same time imported coal and coke (having Donbass) and cotton (having Central Asia).

Russia was the world's largest exporter of grain (26% of world exports) - anti-Soviet "patriots" are so fond of talking about this! But its peasants were malnourished and regularly starved. Moreover, according to Leo Tolstoy, the famine in Russia came not when the bread was not born, but when the quinoa was not born!

Today it is believed that Nicholas II was a fiery patriot of Russia. But then how did it happen that during his reign the country fell into complete economic and political dependence on the West?

The key sectors of heavy industry—coal, metallurgical, oil, platinum, locomotive and shipbuilding, electrical engineering—were completely controlled by Western capital.

Thus, 70% of coal production in the Donbass was controlled by Franco-Belgian capitalists; even the governing body of the Russian syndicate "Produgol" was located abroad (the so-called "Paris Committee"). Foreigners owned 34% of the share capital of Russian banks.

In addition, the tsarist government got into colossal debts. The state budget deficit sometimes reached 1/4 of revenues and was covered by loans - mostly external. Therefore, one should not be surprised that, as a result, the West dragged Russia - as a supplier of "cannon fodder" - into its showdown, into the imperialist slaughter, which, in fact, brought the autocracy to the final collapse.

then to be surprised that in the end the West dragged Russia - as a supplier of "cannon fodder" - into its showdown, into the imperialist slaughter, which, in fact, brought the autocracy to the final collapse.

The country was clearly not ready for war. The weakness of its army was revealed as early as 1904-05, and in 1914-17 it manifested itself with even greater force - and this fundamental weakness of the army, due to the general backwardness of the country and the rottenness of its top, could not be compensated for by the courage of Russian soldiers and the military skill of individual generals.

He was even more unprepared for a new type of war - for a large-scale and protracted war, requiring the full mobilization of the forces of the whole country - the rear.

Russia outright lost to Germany in the production of rifles (for all the years of the war - 3.85 million units against 8.55), easel machine guns (28 thousand units against 280), artillery pieces (11.7 thousand against 64 thousand units). ) and shells for them (67 million vs. 306). Only in the production of cartridges did we take first place among all the warring countries.

The authorities of Russia, "skillfully" headed by Nicholas II, were unable to overcome the speculation and sabotage of the capitalists, who disrupted the supplies necessary for the front and rear. And when the tsarist government had not yet coped with the task of supplying industrial cities (and, above all, Petrograd) with food (the announced surplus appraisal failed miserably), then it was swept away by a wave of popular indignation!

Most contemporaries and historians note that Nicholas had an average level of intelligence and knowledge (although he was not stupid), that he combined weak will and stubbornness, that he was subject to foreign influence, and that managing a huge empire was a “heavy burden” for him. In short, he was a statesman. The last Russian emperor does not in any way draw on an outstanding historical figure!

Yes, and the champion of "democratic rights and freedoms" is not very drawn. He dispersed two State Dumas, and signed the liberal Manifesto of October 17, 1905, when the revolution had already driven him into a corner. And here it would be useful to remember that during his reign, and, probably, with his knowledge, our great writer Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy was anathematized by the church. The old count - "the conscience of the Russian people" - was attacked for raising his voice in defense of the downtrodden and oppressed peasant.

Nevertheless, in 2000, he and his family were canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church as saints. The attitude towards the personality of Nicholas II in Russian society is polar, although the official media did everything to portray the last Russian Tsar as "white and fluffy."

Under the Law of Succession, one of the most important laws of the Russian Empire, none of the remaining Romanovs have legal rights to the throne. Does Russia need a new dynasty? This is another question.

based on materials a_gor2

P.S. Duck, all the same, who was Tsar Nicholas 2, a far-sighted monarch, a "tsar-father", a "saint", as it is now customary to call him, or a weak-willed ruler, a rag, a king who earned the nickname "bloody", by the fact that he shot a peaceful demonstration that brought his the state to decline and death, and only thanks to the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, who saved the country at that difficult time. The answer is obvious to me.

*Extremist and terrorist organizations banned in Russian Federation: Jehovah's Witnesses, National Bolshevik Party, Right Sector, Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), Islamic State (IS, ISIS, Daesh), Jabhat Fatah ash-Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra ”, “Al-Qaeda”, “UNA-UNSO”, “Taliban”, “Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people”, “Misanthropic Division”, “Brotherhood” Korchinsky, “Trident them. Stepan Bandera", "Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists" (OUN), "Azov"

Now on main

Related Articles

• 

  Alexey Volynets

  How the 1917 revolution affected the ruble

  ©Oleksandr Pakhay / Zoonar / Vostock By the February Revolution of 1917, the financial system of the Russian Empire was far from in the best condition. The World War not only destroyed the "gold standard", silver and copper also did not survive the upheavals of the conflict that dragged on for years. If in 1914 536 thousand silver coins with a face value of 1 ruble were minted in Russia, then in the next ...

  3.02.2020 15:44 102

• 

  Yuri Gavrilov

  Why Germany was so eager for Stalingrad

  Two Stalingrad operations - defensive from July 17, 1942 to November 18, 1942 and offensive from November 19, 1942 to February 2, 1943, carried out by Soviet troops to defend the city and defeat the enemy, became decisive in turning the Great Patriotic War. At different times, the troops of the Stalingrad, South-Eastern, South-Western, Don, left wing of the Voronezh fronts, the Volga military participated in the Battle of Stalingrad ...

  2.02.2020 12:19 47

• 

  Alexey Volynets

  The continent of "hard ice": 200 years ago, Russian sailors discovered Antarctica

  ©World History Archive / Vostock Photo At 7 pm on January 28, 1820, the usual snow suddenly stopped - it was still the height of summer in the Southern Hemisphere, and half an hour of good weather made it possible to see something. “We met hardened ice of extreme height, and on that beautiful evening, looking from the saleng, it stretched as far as it could only reach ...

  31.01.2020 14:38 23

• 

  Alexey Volynets

  "Profile" continues the story about the first bread cards in the history of Russia

  ©AKG-Images / Vostock Photo (Start here) In the autumn of 1817, for the first time in its history, many people in Russia felt the power of the world market in their stomachs and wallets. His invisible hand, due to the extraordinary increase in grain prices in the West, literally pulled the stocks of grain and flour from the capital Petersburg. On the eve of winter, when the ice blocked the system of the Volga-Baltic canals, the basis of the cargo logistics of that…

  30.01.2020 15:16 17

• 

  Alexey Volynets

  When did the first bread cards appear in Russia?

  ©World History Archive / Vostock Photo In our past, there were enough famine and crisis periods, some of them are not yet history, but literally yesterday's memories - many have not forgotten how, following the results of Gorbachev's perestroika, they held coupons for sugar and other products in their hands. Fortunately, then it didn’t come to coupons for bread: bread cards for Russia ...

  30.01.2020 15:00 17

• 

  Alexey Volynets

  How Russian bankers profited from the war

  ©RIA Novosti In the spring of 1916, 11 months before the collapse of the monarchy, the last tsarist finance minister Peter Bark warned the government about the possible danger from ... private banks. “The bankers acquire such a financial power that gives them complete dominance and can make the banks the arbiters of business in industry and commerce. The strength of their capital is such that its influence can go beyond the boundaries of purely economic life and acquire weight in political relations as well,” he argued…

  29.01.2020 17:01 22

• 

  Alexey Volynets

  How the Brusilovsky breakthrough affected the international financial market

  General Alexei Brusilov. ©WHA / Vostock Photo The offensive of General Brusilov is considered the most famous operation of the Russian troops during the First World War. Less well known is the economic echo of those events in the international financial markets. Meanwhile, the Brusilovsky breakthrough clearly demonstrated that not only gold holdings, but also victorious bayonets can become the backing of the ruble. Started in June 1916 ...

  28.01.2020 18:18 25

• 

  Red Muscovite

  Ordinary "amateurism"

  As we already know, the upcoming 2020 was solemnly declared the year of memory and glory in commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the victory. However, the "preparation" for it began ahead of time. Back in October of the 19th, on the shelves of bookshops and kiosks of the Russian Federation, the magazine of the editor-in-chief of ECHA of Moscow Alexei Venediktov, Diletant, dedicated to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, where its founder interprets this historical document in his own way, appeared. Then, in support of the number in…

  23.01.2020 23:28 92

• 

  Kremlin Project 2.0

  The results of the Cold War: why the “winners” live worse than the “vanquished”

  Surely you have heard the phrase “Why do the winners live worse than the losers?”. As a rule, our compatriots say it when they see the full life of the decaying West. Under the winners, of course, they mean us - the Soviet people, the defeated - the Germans and their coalition. Unfortunately, the history of Russia is not limited to the glorious and heroic victory of 1945. Victory in World War II. When…

  13.01.2020 17:01 45

• 

  Svetlana Tsygankova

  Red Storm: 75 years ago the Vistula-Oder operation began

  Photo: Wikimedia.org January 12, 2020 marks the 75th anniversary of the beginning of the Vistula-Oder operation. It lasted a little over 20 days, until February 3, 1945. During this time, the territory of Poland west of the Vistula was liberated and a bridgehead was captured on the left bank of the Oder River. It was later used to attack Berlin. By early 1945...

  12.01.2020 16:35 35

• 

  Alexey Volynets

  How French champagne conquered our country and became the most Russian drink

  © Lori's photo bank Our New Year's table can be the most diverse, even the notorious Olivier may not be on it, but there will always be a glass of fizzy champagne. Along with the chimes and the decorated Christmas tree, it is the symbol of the New Year. "Profile" will tell you how the wine born in French Champagne took root and changed in Russia for three centuries - from Peter I to Stalin, ...

  9.01.2020 13:25 49

• 

  Mikhail Kuntsev

  JANUARY 9 AS "GROUNDGROUND DAY"

  Today is a significant day of memory and sorrow, but they will try not to remember it “on TV”. Not one of those that paint the current way of life in the Russian Federation! On January 9, 1905, Bloody Sunday took place. This is the execution of a peaceful demonstration of St. Petersburg workers who were on their way on January 9, 1905 with a petition to the tsar. The number of victims of the tragic events of this day amounted to ...

  9.01.2020 13:05 67

• 

  Natalia Yachmennikova

  Designer Gleb Lozino-Lozinsky was born 110 years ago

  Photo: Albert Pushkarev/TASS The world knows Gleb Lozino-Lozinsky as the chief designer of the legendary Buran. But in his last interview, shortly before his death, he admitted that the implementation of Buran allowed him to "carry out important tests of another space system." Gleb Evgenievich spoke about the main project of his life - "Spirals". Experts are unanimous in their opinion: Lozino-Lozinsky is an outstanding designer and talented organizer, ...

  7.01.2020 12:17 27

• 

  from blogs

  Transnistria. How it was

  MILITARY CONFLICT IN TRANSNISTRIUM. 1989-1992 1989 Rally in Transnistria 1989. MOLDOVAN NATIONALISM. Representatives of the Popular Front of Moldova (PFM) formed the leadership of the republic, which pursued a policy of priority of the national interests of the Moldovan nation, which led to facts of discrimination against national minorities and ethnic clashes. 1989 PRO-ROMANIAN SEPARATISM. In the country, significant popularity has received ...

  4.01.2020 21:33 89

• 

  Zinnur Latypov

  How KAMAZ was saved from the "hard" version according to the Chubais scheme

  Photo: "BUSINESS Online" A detective from the history of the Chelny auto giant: a secret order from Moscow, a "Japanese strike" in response and the intervention of the Kazan Kremlin Zinnur Latypov, director of the republican agency for insolvency (bankruptcy) of the Republic of Tatarstan in the 90s. In a material written specifically for BUSINESS Online, he reveals the history of the order marked "Not subject to disclosure" - about the immediate ...

  4.01.2020 17:32 56

• 

  January 1 is a national holiday in Cuba - Liberation Day

  On this day, the armed struggle for the freedom of Cuba won. The rebel army led by Fidel Castro triumphantly entered Santiago de Cuba, met by jubilant crowds of people, and the rebel detachments under the command of Che Guevara and Camilo Cienfuegos advanced to Havana, no longer encountering any resistance on their way. The Cuban Revolution is an outstanding event that opened new page in the history of Cuba. She paved the way for the Cuban people...

  1.01.2020 12:18 44

• 
  

  97 years ago the USSR was formed

  Collage © KM.RU It is no coincidence that the most popular politician in Russia is Stalin. A significant part of the citizens dream of its return, having gorged themselves on the “charms” of capitalism and the “era of stability” On December 30, 1922, the first socialist state in the history of mankind was formed, disputes about which will not subside for a very long time. As you know, after the collapse of the USSR in ...

  30.12.2019 23:14 47

• 

  Alexey Volynets

  What made the banker with the habits of a spy Ignatius Manus famous for

  ©WHA / Vostock Photo On March 1, 1916, military counterintelligence officers in Petrograd accused a major banker of working for the German intelligence services. The World War gave rise to a lot of accusations of espionage, but this case was unique. Despite the severity of the alleged crime - treason and work for an open enemy - the banker was not taken into custody. Army counterintelligence limited itself to a subscription ...

  25.12.2019 15:07 33

• 

  Red Muscovite

  "Switchmen"

  Not paying due attention to itself, in the face of the general public - the “incident with arrows” (only), but I remind you: on December 12, the official website for celebrating the anniversary of the Victory was opened, where dubious arrows, more precisely, their unambiguous direction from west to east, were repeated in the illustrations, it seems to me, it very accurately diagnoses the current stalemate-deplorable situation in which the Russian Federation finds itself. But the content and...

  22.12.2019 0:51 163

• 

  Alexey Volynets

  American loans for World War

  Bank J.P. Morgan & Co. ©Library of Congress The United States remained the largest economy in the world until 1917, not involved in the First World War. Even then, the economic potential of the States inspired respect even for the most developed powers of Europe. It is not surprising that with the outbreak of the conflict, a wave of military orders went across the Atlantic. Tsarist Russia did not stand aside either - over the two years of the war, the share ...

  16.12.2019 12:01 46

• 

  The editors of the "People's Journalist"

  "And we'll hit the "Smuglyanka"

  Photo: frame from the film “Only “old men” go into battle, dir. L. Bykov, 1974 On this day, December 12, our noble countryman, the illustrious son of Donbass, honor, beauty and pride of the region, Leonid Bykov (December 12, 1928 - April 11, 1979) was born - Soviet director, screenwriter, actor. Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1965). People's Artist of the Ukrainian SSR (1974). Leonid Fedorovich Bykov ...

  12.12.2019 22:17 96

• 

  Channel "Sulakshina Center"

  HISTORIOSOPHY OF THE 45th * Vardan Baghdasaryan. Global Process #124

  The geopolitical meanings of the Second World War and the revision of its results are analyzed by Professor, Doctor of Historical Sciences Vardan Ernestovich Baghdasaryan. Broadcast "Global Process" No. 124 #Sulakshin's program #SaveRussia #RebuildRussia #MoralState #SulakshinRight OUR RESOURCES ➤Sulakshin Center: http://rusrand.ru/ 🔬🔭 ➤New Type Party: http://rusrand..yandex.ru/narzur 📰 https://www.youtube.com/c/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%96%D1%83%D1%80%D0%A2%D0%92?sub_confirmation=1

In the photo, 1896 is the year when its last emperor, Nicholas II, ascended the throne of the Russian Empire. Under the cut is a photo of those who became the first victim of his reign ...

Original taken from humus

1.



2.

“Nicholas II was also characterized by such a quality as indifference to the fate of the people around him. This can be traced throughout his life. First of all, we must recall the events associated with the coronation of Nicholas II. This is a well-known disaster on Khodynka field on May 18, 1896 when about 1,300 people died and many thousands were injured.What was the reaction of Nicholas II?

The festivities were not canceled, the performances of clowns, the work of booths continued. Moreover, in the evening of the same day, the French ambassador Montebello was to host a ball in honor of Nicholas II and his wife. According to the Moscow Governor-General, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, Uncle Nikolai, “many advised the sovereign to ask the ambassador to cancel the ball and in any case not to come to this ball, but the sovereign completely disagrees with this opinion. In his opinion, this catastrophe is the greatest misfortune , which should not overshadow the coronation holiday; the Khodyn disaster should be ignored in this sense.". The ball was opened by Nikolai and Alexandra Fedorovna.

“Today a great sin happened,” Nicholas II wrote in his diary on May 18, “... trampled about 1300 people! A disgusting impression left from this news. At 12 1/2 we had breakfast, and then Alix and I went to Khodynka to be present at this sad "folk holiday". Actually there was nothing... Let's go to Montebello's ball. It was very nicely set up.".

Other events have not been cancelled. The next day, he wrote: "At 2 o'clock, Alix and I went to the Staro-Ekaterininsky hospital, where we went around all the barracks and tents in which the unfortunate victims lay yesterday ... At 7 o'clock, a banquet began for class representatives in the Alexander Hall." And on May 21, it is written in the diary: "At 10 3/4 we went to the ball at the Nobility Assembly."

This is how the emperor reacted to the Khodynka disaster. It is no coincidence that after that he was dubbed "bloody". Those responsible for the disaster, primarily the Governor-General of Moscow, were not punished."

Source: E.S. Radzig "Nicholas II in the memoirs of those close"

3.

4.

5.

"Our king is Mukden, our king is Tsushima,
Our king is a bloodstain
The stench of gunpowder and smoke
In which the mind is dark.

Our king is blind squalor,
Prison and whip, jurisdiction, execution,
The king is a hangman, the lower is twice,
What he promised, but did not dare to give.

He's a coward, he feels stuttering
But it will be, the hour of reckoning awaits.
Who began to reign - Khodynka,
He will finish - standing on the scaffold".

K.D. Balmont, 1906, 12 years before the scaffold.