Harmful than the cult of Nicholas II?

4

Why I’m against the attempts of glorification of Nicholas II? First, all these attempts in the depths of a very insincere, and secondly, antihistamine and, thirdly, in fact anti-Soviet – with all the consequences.

Чем вреден культ Николая Второго?

What’s the Sovietism?

If we abstract from everything and just look into the formula of the exaltation of Nicholas II as the last Tsar, this is what happens. If it’s so great and beautiful, the focus of all conceivable virtues and all the Holy , all his opponents – villains and almost Satanists. It is obvious that the Bolsheviks among them – in the first place, although not they overthrew the king. Consequently, any exaltation of Nicholas II, any lamentation about “Russia which we lost” are anti-Soviet in its essence.

And after all, we’ve all seen these images and myths that have been beaten by the USSR during perestroika and after it. So our purely logical reasoning is more than the practice is confirmed. And by the way, no matter how we respect the Church and Orthodoxy, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the canonization of the Royal family was initiated in the early 90’s and finally adopted in 2000. And that Synod Commission “sought to take into account the fact of the canonization of the Royal Family of the Russian Church Abroad in 1981”. And that ROCOR is fanatically anti-Soviet organization, which impose on the Bolsheviks anathema in 1970, call Vlasov a traitor, as “a symbol of resistance to godless Bolshevism”…

Pay attention to such detail. Often Nicholas II praised modern adherents of “White matter”. Although these whites (for example, Kolchak) were basically “finaliste”, supporters of the Interim government which overthrew the king. What makes today the “white” to combine in my head like sympathy? Only one – Sovietism! Monarchists and fevralisty hate of the Bolsheviks, against this background, for them, everything pales.

So the main current “white guard” – Shooters of Nicholas II calls “one of the greatest of the Russian tsars”. His former political leader and fanatical anti-Soviet Igor Ivanov on the one hand sheds tears at the same Kolchak, and on the other side sympathetic to the idea of monarchy. On the same positions there is a fanatical anti-Soviet Egor Prosvirnin, who was also behind the “White matter”, and thus claims that “the invalidity of the abdication of Nicholas II” is “one of pillars” preached “the ideology of Russian national revival”.

Of course, someone will object, that you can love at the same time and monarch Nicholas II and the anti-monarchist movement of Lenin and Stalin. What you can (and should) be proud of them all at once. That they say that this will be a commitment to the idea of the continuity of Russian history.

But it’s not. The idea of the continuity of history does not mean indiscriminate praise of all public figures. No one in their right mind would praise Yeltsin as a statesman of modern Russia. Or Gorbachev as a statesman of the USSR. Moreover, it will not be doing this at the same time praising Stalin and Lenin.

Do not confuse arbitrarily harsh criticism of specific historical figures with curses in address of an era. Only cursing the whole epoch, we create the very “black hole” that grows to fill the whole of national history. The claim that Nicholas II was a lousy ruler, does not mean that the other kings and the whole history of the Russian Empire were disgusting. But curses against Stalin and Lenin on the part of liberals is always a curse to the Soviet era as a whole, and behind her, and the Russian people, who chose such a fate, and history. None of these liberals who would say that the Soviet Union was perfect, the ideas embedded in its base were gorgeous, and only Stalin, Lenin disappoint.

What’s antihistoricism?

There is a very informative article by doctor of historical Sciences Andrei anfimova “the reign of the Emperor Nicholas II in facts and figures”, which shows that the rapid growth of some of the absolute indicators under Nicholas II in per capita terms and in comparison with the dynamics of other countries is really lagging.

Despite the growth of copper production, the share of consumption in Russia has dropped from 4% of the world in 1899 to 3.08% in 1908. Similarly, despite the increase in iron and steel production, the share of consumption fell from 6.1% of the world in 1903 to 5.6% in 1911. Oil, like rose from 338 million in 1895 to 560 million pounds. in 1914, but in fact the peak was in the 1901 706 million pounds., but then – decline.

Slightly better was the situation, for example, with the yield – the rate of growth was higher than in Europe, although in absolute terms, the gap continued to grow. Per capita of bread in Russia were made in times less than in developed countries, and it also was exported. Besides actively exported feed, resulting in decreased animal. But exports of meat from Russia also grew.

It would seem that the export is good because it means inflow of foreign currency. However, during the 1900-1913 biennium. external public debt increased from 4 to 5.4 billion. “Foreign trade is not coated payment for the estimated balance for the period 1908-1913 for the huge sum of 1212 million rubles.”, – writes Anfimov.

The most eloquent indicators – demographic always. Especially the mortality rate – under Nicholas II it was constantly growing and in 1910 was ahead of Europe about 5 times!

The level of literacy (28-30%), as the degree of urbanization, the Russian Empire in 1913 was at the last place in Europe.

About the revolution of 1917

How many times the West tried to overthrow Lukashenko – and all to no avail! But Yanukovych flew off as soon as it lightly hit from the side. Large-scale coups don’t work when the power is strong and is supported by most. And Nicholas II was a political nonentity – and because it was able to overthrow. Here is what is says for this reason Vladimir Solovyov, investigator of especially important cases of the Investigative Committee under the Russian Prosecutor involved in the criminal case on the murder of Nicholas II and his family since 1993:

“The rumors about the impending departure of the king abroad somehow went beyond the narrow circle and caused a storm of indignation in many public organizations… many organizations with locations representing the various parties (the so-called democratic, which is especially necessary to emphasize!), bombarded the Provisional government telegrams and letters with a categorical demand to immediately and without any court to liquidate the Tsar and his family.”

Someone might not know, but the Interim government prepares the trial of Nicholas, but he also considered the possibility to send it abroad – to England. That’s just king George V, with whom Nicholas II so sweet friends, changed his original decision and refused to accept the Royal family.

And here’s what else Solovyov writes:

“Monarchists in Russia then, perhaps, it was much less than now. All Democrats! Kolchak – Democrat, red – Democrat, Denikin, too… Because it is so easy and the February revolution. Almost everyone from the king abdicated, even the Church.

Can add a very significant fact. When the question arises about moving the Royal family to Tobolsk, no priest does not want to go along with it. Including Tsarskoye Selo priest and Confessor of the family of Archpriest Alexander Vasilyev. He refuses to go, as well as other priests. Therefore, in Tobolsk to care for the king and his family have a local priest father Alexei…”

A good politician! By the way he himself wrote: “Around treason and cowardice and deceit!” What are you for a ruler like this, if you surrounded yourself with traitors, cowards and liars, or has made them so during his reign?

1905

And because February 1917 is not the first revolution that caught Nicholas II in their own country. Many historians called the events of 1905-1907″First Russian revolution” because it resulted in a significant change of the political system in Russia.

On 9 January 1905 (Bloody Sunday) in St. Petersburg gathered 140-strong March of workers exposed to shooting. According to official data, after the “bloody Sunday” was 130 killed and 299 wounded. Many believe these figures are understated. In January-апрель1905 G. the strike movement spread 810 thousand workers from about 15 million of the entire working class of the country.

In 1905-1907 was destroyed over 6 thousand estates. On the suppression of peasant uprisings were sent punitive troops, in some areas state of emergency was declared.

In October-декабре1905, there was a 89 appearances in the army and Navy. The largest of these was the uprising of sailors and soldiers of the black sea fleet under the leadership of Lieutenant L. L. Schmidt. 2 декабря1905 in Moscow rose 2nd Rostov Grenadier regiment and made an appeal to all troops of the Moscow garrison to bolster his claims. Established the Council of soldiers ‘ deputies of the representatives of Rostov, Ekaterinoslav and some other regiments of the Moscow garrison. On 14 June a rebellion broke out on the battleship “Potemkin”…

The reason for the February revolution of 1917 was that worthless king with his inept officials failed to solve a single question of extended unrest of 1905-07.

So how do you assess role of Nicholas II and his team in the history of the country?

To rate better in comparison. Nicholas II ruled an Empire from 1894 to 1917, to prepare for the First world war he was 20 years old. Stalin was appointed General Secretary in 1922, and he had to prepare for the Second world war 19 years. The result is known to all. Under Stalin, the Soviet Union became a powerful industrial, scientific and technological power, won the most terrible war the United fascist Europe, and returned a lost land. The reign of Nicholas II ended with his overthrow, the collapse of the country, loss of territory and economic collapse.

What is artificiality?

Here we come to the answer to the question, what is the artificiality of the ongoing construction of the cult of Nicholas II. The greatness of Ivan the terrible or Peter the great – is undeniable, no matter how we evaluated some aspects of their rule. They have successfully solved strategic problems. No need to be a monarchist to be treated with respect to these rulers. Nicholas II was a strategic problem not solved. So for what its like?

In view of the above it is clear that the cult of Nicholas II and Russia which we lost”, stories about “the stolen triumph” in the First world, this whole “crunch French bread”, “Lieutenant Golitsyn” and other nonsense is an artificially constructed myth.

But this artificiality means having a hidden agenda. The objectives are clear, it’s political goals. In the first place – Sovietism, and as we said at the beginning.

Perestroika (then and now) were required not simply to denigrate the Soviet Union, but also to impress upon the people the idea of meaninglessness and illegitimacy of the regime change in 1917. After all, if in reality the “choice” existed only between completely impotent Interim government and growing Tips, whatever the Soviet government, it becomes clear that the choice of some, in fact, was not. In this sense we do not need news about the Revolution, but the “postcatastrophic the Assembly” – i.e., on restoring the state from scratch after the rotten and collapsed Imperial power first, and then the power of “time-servers”.

However, if you suggest that the Russian Empire was a “beautiful Valinor were destroyed in the treacherous traitors, the existence of the Bolshevik “Mordor” loses all sorts of excuses. Incidentally, I have met a lot of people, the victims of the post-Soviet education and that this propaganda, which is generally thought that “the king was overthrown by the Bolsheviks”. Indeed, in this picture, the Interim government is somehow unnecessary and uncomfortable element…

And finally, it is necessary to remind that the anti-Soviet (especially, in conditions when the majority of Russians are configured Pro-Soviet means anti-people. Consistent anti-Soviet, always a Russophobe. First, it turns out that the Russian people made enormous betrayal, destroying your “wonderful Valinor”, and that after such a betrayal in Russia did not left the real Russian, real Russian remained only in the “other Russia” – white emigre. Then it turns out that the reasons for this betrayal are rooted in certain cultural peculiarities of our people, that his whole story is poisoned, that he has turned off the right path even under Alexander Nevsky… And then concludes that this cultural need – to change, to destroy. And it’s not some of my umopostroeniya. About changing the “cultural core” began in the early 90-ies of the scientist and presidential Advisor of Boris Yeltsin, Anatoly Rakitov…

Here, I work (voluntarily or involuntarily) those who construct the cult of Nicholas II.

Oles Gonchar

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here