Nicholas 2 renounced. Emperor Nicholas II abdicated the throne. Act of abdication of the throne of Emperor Nicholas II

On March 15, 1917, Emperor Nicholas II signed his abdication from the throne. The document, designed to bring peace and tranquility to the country, in fact brought bloody civil unrest.

Colonel Romanov

According to the “official” version disseminated by the ministers of the Provisional Government, the abdication happened like this: on February 28, the tsar left the Supreme Commander-in-Chief Headquarters, which was located in Mogilev, for Tsarskoye Selo, but was stopped on his way by reports of unrest in Lyuban and Tosno. Having turned the train around, the sovereign ordered it to bypass the rioting section through the Dno and Pskov stations to Tsarskoye. But in Pskov, Nicholas II was given telegrams from the commanders with pleas for renunciation, after which the Tsar renounced, signing two manifestos - for himself, and then for his son. According to the stories of the two main defendants, Shulgin and Guchkov, they brought the tsar a manifesto of renunciation, the tsar rejected it as “pathetic” and, going out somewhere, composed his own version, which he typed with his own hand or dictated to an unknown typist “in those amazing words that everyone now knows ", then signed it. The Tsar left Pskov as Colonel Romanov

Fake?

The version that the renunciation document is a fake today has more supporters than the ranks of those who consider it genuine. Firstly, the signature in the manifesto was made in pencil, although Nikolai always signed documents in ink. Secondly, it raises suspicion that the text of the renunciation was typed; a pencil signature is quite easy to forge; if the text were written entirely by hand, there would be an order of magnitude fewer claims. Thirdly, the document itself was printed on telegraph forms, although it was quite possible to find official forms and ink on the royal train.

Already today, the text of the document has been compared with other official documents, and interesting facts have been revealed. The text of the manifesto is written in the same words as the telegram of General Alekseev, sent by him to Pskov addressed to Nicholas II on March 1. As is known, General Alekseev took an active part in the conspiracy against the Tsar. Eyewitnesses also preserved the name of the authors of the document, as historian S.P. writes. Melgunov, the text of the manifesto was compiled at Headquarters, on behalf of Alekseev, by Chamberlain Basili with the direct participation of the chief of staff himself and Lukomsky. Basili was the director of the political office under the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. So the stories that the king himself composed the text are, apparently, nothing more than fiction.

The king's view

Nicholas II reflected his feelings about the abdication in his diary: “In the morning Ruzsky came and read his long conversation on the device with Rodzianko. According to him, the situation in Petrograd is such that now the ministry from the Duma is powerless to do anything, since the Social Democrats are fighting it. the party represented by the working committee. My renunciation is needed. Ruzsky conveyed this conversation to headquarters, and Alekseev to all commanders in chief. By 2½ o'clock answers came from everyone. The point is that in the name of saving Russia and keeping the army at the front calm, you need to decide to take this step. I agreed. A draft manifesto was sent from Headquarters. In the evening, Guchkov and Shulgin arrived from Petrograd, with whom I talked and gave them the signed and revised manifesto. At one o'clock in the morning I left Pskov with a heavy feeling of what I had experienced. There is treason, cowardice, and deceit all around!” However, the authenticity of Nicholas II’s diaries today is also disputed, but the last phrase of this entry is an absolute treasure of history.

Position of the Church

To our surprise, the official Church reacted calmly to the abdication of God’s Anointed One. The official synod issued an appeal to the children of the Orthodox Church, recognizing the new government. Almost immediately, prayerful commemoration of the royal family ceased; words mentioning the Tsar and the Royal House were removed from the prayers. Letters from believers were sent to the Synod asking whether the Church's support of the new government was not a crime of perjury, since Nicholas II did not abdicate voluntarily, but was actually overthrown. But in the revolutionary turmoil, no one received an answer to this question. To be fair, it should be said that the newly elected Patriarch Tikhon subsequently decided to hold memorial services everywhere commemorating Nicholas II as Emperor.

The poet's view

One way or another, the renunciation took place; the most interesting thing is to find out what was going on in the minds of his contemporaries. The poet Alexander Blok found his abdication at the front. Returning to Petrograd, he greeted the coup as “something supernatural, amazing.” The Provisional Government organized an Extraordinary Commission of Inquiry, which was supposed to conduct an investigation into the affairs of the former tsarist ministers. Blok was asked to become the literary editor of the commission, i.e. literary correct shorthand recordings of interrogations. The result of this was Blok’s book “The Last Days of Imperial Power,” so, in fact, the poet became the author of the official version with all its myths and cliches.

Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II / Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov. Photo from 1903 from net.lib.byu.edu

Mystery document

In the afternoon of March 2, 1917, two documents signed by Nicholas II appeared in Pskov, several hours apart. In the first text, signed from 14.45 to 15.00 and handed over to General N. Ruzsky and his entourage, the last Russian emperor abdicated the throne in favor of his son Alexei.

At 4 p.m., Nicholas II sends a telegram to the chief of staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, General M. Alekseev: “In the name of the good, peace and salvation of beloved Russia, I am ready to abdicate the throne in favor of my son. I ask everyone to serve him faithfully and without hypocrisy. NICHOLAY."

However, this telegram was not destined to become a historical document about the abdication of the last Russian Tsar. On March 2 at 23.40, representatives of the State Duma A. I. Guchkov and V. V. Shulgin received the final text of Nicholas II’s abdication of the throne for himself and his heir Alexei, known in history as the Abdication Manifesto. Power passed to Mikhail Alexandrovich Romanov, who the next day abdicated the throne until the convening of the Constituent Assembly.

The carriage of the royal train in which the Emperor abdicated the throne. Photo from chrontime.com

The manifesto on the abdication of Nicholas II is one of the key and mysterious documents of Russian history of the twentieth century. Until now, historians cannot come to a consensus regarding the reasons that caused its appearance.

The range of versions is unusually wide: from attempts to prove that there was no abdication, and Nicholas II deliberately signed a text that could not be legal, to the idea that the fall of the monarchy in Russia was the result of a well-organized conspiracy of military officers, deputies and dignitaries who They believed that to save the country it was necessary to remove the last autocrat from power.

Most likely, we will never be able to fully find out what exactly happened on the royal train, which was traveling from Mogilev to Tsarskoe Selo, but ended up in Pskov.

A significant number of memoirs have reached us, but their value as historical sources is unequal. Some memoirs were written much later than March 2, taking into account the political situation in Russia and the position that the author took in relation to the events of February or October 1917.

One thing is obvious: the emperor had to make a decision in a critical, constantly changing situation and in a very short time (this explains several telegrams from the sovereign).

Neither Nicholas II nor Alexandra Feodorovna could calmly communicate with each other at that moment, or get a more or less complete understanding of what was happening. What on February 25 seemed to the empress to be a revolt of “boys and girls” turned into a revolution in two days, when the troops refused to obey orders, and front commanders asked Nicholas to abdicate the throne.

Almost all sources reporting on the reasons that guided Nicholas II on March 2 talk about his reluctance to shed blood, his desire to stay with his family and live as a “private person” without leaving his homeland. Nicholas II made the decision to abdicate under strong pressure from the military and deputies and in circumstances of exceptional complexity.

Until the very last moment, the emperor hoped to save the dynasty: only on the night of March 1 to 2, he agreed to reforms in the government of the country, which were demanded by representatives of the Duma and which limited the autocratic power of the monarch, but the situation was changing too quickly. This measure, as Nicholas II was assured, was no longer enough to stop the unrest in St. Petersburg and Moscow.

“Did the king have the right” to abdicate?

A photograph of Nikolai Romanov taken after his abdication. 1917 Photo from wikiversity.org

At the same time, the tsar himself believed that abdication of the throne gave rise to accusations of violating his oath. Historian S.P. Melgunov in his book gives one of the versions of how the act of abdication was signed: “If it is necessary for me to step aside for the good of Russia, I am ready for this,” said the Emperor: “but I am afraid that people will not understand this. The Old Believers will not forgive me that I betrayed my oath on the day of the sacred coronation.”

However, despite the fears of Nicholas II, “attempts to discover the elements of a certain church-canonical crime in the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II from power seem untenable,” notes the Act on the glorification of the family of the last Russian emperor. The canonical status of the Orthodox sovereign anointed to the Kingdom was not defined in the church canons.”

Anointing to the kingdom has never been a church sacrament. There are also no sufficient theological and historical grounds to consider royal power as a type of priesthood. In Byzantine and Old Russian texts we can find many pompous expressions describing the power of the king, who is responsible only to Christ and himself represents a certain image of Christ on Earth.

E.P. Samokish-Sudkovskaya, “Coronation of Nicholas II” (1899). Book engraving. Photo from gettyimages.fr

But these magnificent metaphors did not protect the rulers either from political conspiracies, or from forced monastic vows, or from violent death.

It is enough to recall the fate of some Byzantine emperors, as well as Paul I, Alexander II and other Russian rulers. Of course, in the Middle Ages the figure of the monarch was sacred. In France and England, there was a belief that the king’s hand healed scrofula, and rulers periodically performed a certain ritual of healing and giving alms.

In Rus', the position of the kings was also special: disputes between Patriarch Nikon and Archpriest Avvakum ended in tragedy for both after Alexei Mikhailovich supported Nikon’s reforms, but then took a personal part in condemning the patriarch.

The tragic conflict between Ivan the Terrible and Saint Philip also showed that the tsar felt the right to interfere in the affairs of the Church, but the latter opposed this even during the synodal period.

The Church looked at the monarch not as a priest, but as a person who had received the blessing to rule the state.

The king differed from other people in his origin and ministry, but he remained a layman. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish loyal praise of the king from his canonical status in the Church.

The Church took note of the renunciation

1912, after the prayer service: The royal couple in Smolensk; visiting the city during the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the victory in the War of 1812. Photo from the site smolcity.ru

On March 9, 1917, the Holy Synod expressed its attitude towards renunciation. The working documents stated that it was necessary to “take note of the abdication of Nicholas II and his brother Mikhail.” In the published appeal “To the faithful children of the Russian Orthodox Church regarding the events currently being experienced” it was written:

“The Holy Synod earnestly prays to the All-Merciful Lord, may He bless the works and undertakings of the Provisional Government, may He give it strength, strength and wisdom, and may He guide the sons of the great Russian state subordinate to Him on the path of brotherly love.” According to one version, this reaction of the Synod could be explained by the fact that the Synod followed the logic of the sovereign, also trying to avoid bloodshed and stop the unrest.

Almost immediately, prayerful commemoration of the royal family ceased.

The Synod received letters from believers asking whether the Church's support of the new government was not a crime of perjury, since Nicholas II did not abdicate voluntarily, but was actually overthrown?

Therefore, they tried to raise the question of the abdication of Nicholas II at the Council of 1917-1918. It was discussed on the sidelines and in special commissions of the Council, but was not put on the agenda: the situation in the country was changing rapidly, the Provisional Government was losing power, which passed to the Bolsheviks, and as a result the Council was forced to interrupt its work.

Patriarch Tikhon at the Moscow Diocesan House, 1918. Photo from egliserusse.eu

It is worth noting that Saint Tikhon of Moscow, having learned in July 1918 about the execution of the royal family, when discussing the issue of commemorating her at the Council Council of the Local Council, decided to hold memorial services everywhere to commemorate Nicholas II as emperor.

And this meant that the Church understood at what tragic moment the tsar abdicated the throne, and refused to consider him a “citizen Romanov.” By canonizing the royal family as royal martyrs, and not simply as Nikolai Alexandrovich and Alexandra Feodorovna, the Russian Church recognizes the fact of the abdication of the sovereign, but also recognizes that this step was forced and not voluntary.

Sacrifice for pacification

Soldiers and officers rallying on Liteiny Prospekt, Petrograd, 1917, February. Photo from emaze.com

The tragedy of Nicholas II and his family was that the emperor, who perceived the absolute monarchy as a shrine for which he was responsible before God, was forced to abdicate. Almost all stories about the family of the last Russian emperor note their genuine religiosity and willingness to give their lives for Russia.

Alexandra Feodorovna, on the eve and after her husband’s abdication, writes to him that the people love him, that the army supports him, and that God will return the Russian throne to him for the suffering they endured in February 1917. These hopes were not destined to come true, but the family of the last Russian emperor considered abdication as a sacrifice that they had to make to pacify Russia.

After renunciation. Nikolai Alexandrovich with the Tsarevich and the Grand Duchesses. Tsarskoe Selo, 1917, March. Photo from gettyimages.fr

These motives became one of the reasons why the abdication of the throne did not become an insurmountable obstacle to the glorification of the family of Nicholas II in the rank of passion-bearers, as is directly stated in the act of canonization: “Spiritual motives for which the last Russian Sovereign, who did not want to shed blood subjects, decided to abdicate the Throne in the name of internal peace in Russia, gives his action a truly moral character.”

In Soviet (and by inertia, in current) textbooks, this was presented as an immutable fact. True, without serious evidence. “But there is evidence that the Renunciation Manifesto is a fake of the century,” says historian Peter Multatuli.

Train hijacking

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

"AiF": - What really happened?

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

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

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

Cross for Russia

“AiF”: — But there are diaries of Nicholas II, in which he admits that he abdicated the throne.

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

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

P.M.:— Nicholas II was an Orthodox man. When he, who refused to sign any papers with renunciation, learned that, despite this, the manifesto was published in his name, he took this as the will of God and did not fight for power. He and his family bore their cross of martyrdom for Russia.

The story of the abdication of Nicholas 2 from the throne is one of the most tragic and bloody moments of the twentieth century. This fateful decision predetermined the course of development of Russia for many decades, as well as the very decline of the monarchical dynasty. It is difficult to say what events would have occurred in our country if, on that very significant date of Nicholas 2’s abdication from the throne, the emperor would have made a different decision. It is surprising that historians are still arguing over whether this renunciation actually took place or whether the document presented to the people was a real forgery, which served as the starting point for everything that Russia experienced over the next century. Let's try to understand exactly how the events unfolded that led to the birth of citizen Nikolai Romanov instead of the Russian Emperor Nicholas II.

The reign of the last emperor of Russia: features

In order to understand what exactly led to the abdication of Nicholas 2 from the throne (we will indicate the date of this event a little later), it is necessary to give a brief description of the entire period of his reign.

The young emperor ascended the throne after the death of his father Alexander III. Many historians believe that the autocrat was not morally prepared for the events that Russia was approaching with leaps and bounds. Emperor Nicholas II was confident that in order to save the country it was necessary to strictly adhere to the monarchical foundations that were formed by his predecessors. He had difficulty accepting any reform ideas and underestimated the revolutionary movement that swept many European powers during this period.

In Russia, from the moment Nicholas 2 ascended the throne (on October 20, 1894), revolutionary sentiments gradually grew. The people demanded from the emperor reforms that would satisfy the interests of all sectors of society. After lengthy deliberation, the autocrat signed several decrees granting freedom of speech and conscience, and editing laws on the division of legislative power in the country.

For some time, these actions extinguished the flaring revolutionary fire. However, in 1914, the Russian Empire was drawn into the war and the situation changed dramatically.

The First World War: impact on the internal political situation in Russia

Many scientists believe that the date of Nicholas 2’s abdication from the throne simply would not have existed in Russian history if not for military actions, which turned out to be disastrous primarily for the economy of the empire.

Three years of war with Germany and Austria became a real test for the people. Each new defeat at the front caused discontent among ordinary people. The economy was in a deplorable state, which was accompanied by devastation and impoverishment of most of the country's population.

More than once, workers' uprisings arose in cities, paralyzing the activities of factories and factories for several days. However, the emperor himself treated such speeches and manifestations of popular despair as temporary and fleeting discontent. Many historians believe that it was this carelessness that subsequently led to events that culminated on March 2, 1917.

Mogilev: the beginning of the end of the Russian Empire

For many scientists, it still remains strange that the Russian monarchy collapsed overnight - in almost a week. This time was enough to lead the people to revolution, and the emperor to sign the document of abdication.

The beginning of the bloody events was the departure of Nicholas 2 to Headquarters, located in the city of Mogilev. The reason to leave Tsarskoye Selo, where the entire imperial family was located, was a telegram from General Alekseev. In it, he reported on the need for a personal visit by the emperor, and the general did not explain what caused such urgency. Surprisingly, historians have not yet figured out the fact that forced Nicholas 2 to leave Tsarskoe Selo and head to Mogilev.

However, on February 22, the imperial train departed under guard for Headquarters; before the trip, the autocrat talked with the Minister of Internal Affairs, who described the situation in Petrograd as calm.

A day after leaving Tsarskoe Selo, Nicholas II arrived in Mogilev. From this moment began the second act of the bloody historical drama that destroyed the Russian Empire.

February unrest

The morning of February twenty-third was marked by workers' strikes in Petrograd. About one hundred thousand people took to the streets of the city; the next day their number already exceeded two hundred thousand workers and members of their families.

It is interesting that for the first two days none of the ministers informed the emperor about the atrocities that were happening. Only on February 25, two telegrams flew to Headquarters, which, however, did not reveal the true state of affairs. Nicholas 2 reacted to them quite calmly and ordered to immediately resolve the issue with the help of law enforcement forces and weapons.

Every day the wave of popular discontent grew and by the twenty-sixth of February the State Duma was dissolved in Petrograd. A message was sent to the emperor, which described in detail the horror of the situation in the city. However, Nicholas 2 took this as an exaggeration and did not even respond to the telegram.

Armed clashes between workers and military began in Petrograd. The number of wounded and killed quickly grew, the city was completely paralyzed. But even this did not force the emperor to react somehow. Slogans about the overthrow of the monarch began to be heard on the streets.

Revolt of military units

Historians believe that on February 27 the unrest became irreversible. It was no longer possible to solve the problem and calm people down peacefully.

In the morning, military garrisons began to join the striking workers. All obstacles were swept away on the way of the crowd, the rebels seized weapons depots, opened the doors of prisons and burned government institutions.

The emperor was fully aware of what was happening, but did not issue a single intelligible order. Time was quickly running out, but at Headquarters they were still waiting for the autocrat’s decision, which would satisfy the rebels.

The emperor's brother informed him of the need to publish a manifesto on the change of power and publish several programmatic theses that would calm the people. However, Nicholas 2 announced that he plans to postpone making an important decision until he arrives in Tsarskoe Selo. On February 28, the imperial train departed from Headquarters.

Pskov: a fatal stop on the way to Tsarskoe Selo

Due to the fact that the uprising began to grow beyond Petrograd, the imperial train was unable to reach its destination and, turning around halfway, was forced to stop in Pskov.

On March 1, it was finally clear that the uprising in Petrograd was successful and all infrastructure facilities came under the control of the rebels. Telegrams were sent to Russian cities describing the events that took place. The new government took control of the railway communication, carefully guarding the approaches to Petrograd.

Strikes and armed clashes swept Moscow and Kronstadt; the emperor was fairly well informed about what was happening, but could not decide to take drastic actions that could correct the situation. The autocrat constantly held meetings with ministers and generals, consulting and considering various options for solving the problem.

By the second of March, the emperor was firmly convinced of the idea of ​​abdicating the throne in favor of his son Alexei.

"We, Nicholas II": renunciation

Historians claim that the emperor was primarily concerned about the safety of the royal dynasty. He already understood that he would not be able to retain power in his hands, especially since his comrades saw the only way out of the current situation in abdication.

It is worth noting that during this period, Nicholas 2 still hoped to calm the rebels with some reforms, but the necessary time was missed, and the empire could only be saved by a voluntary renunciation of power in favor of others.

“We, Nicholas II” - this is how the document that predetermined the fate of Russia began. However, even here historians cannot agree, because many read that the manifesto had no legal force.

Manifesto of Nicholas 2 on the abdication of the throne: versions

It is known that the document of renunciation was signed twice. The first contained information that the emperor was renouncing his power in favor of Tsarevich Alexei. Since he could not independently govern the country due to his age, Michael, the emperor’s brother, was to become his regent. The manifesto was signed at approximately four o'clock in the afternoon, and at the same time a telegram was sent to General Alekseev informing about the event.

However, at almost twelve o'clock at night, Nicholas II changed the text of the document and abdicated the throne for himself and his son. Power was given to Mikhail Romanovich, who, however, the very next day signed another document of renunciation, deciding not to put his life in danger in the face of growing revolutionary sentiments.

Nicholas II: reasons for relinquishing power

The reasons for the abdication of Nicholas 2 are still being discussed, but this topic is included in all history textbooks and even appears when taking the Unified State Exam. It is officially believed that the following factors prompted the emperor to sign the document:

• reluctance to shed blood and fear of plunging the country into another war;
• the inability to receive reliable information about the uprising in Petrograd on time;
• trust in their commanders-in-chief, who actively advise publishing the abdication as soon as possible;
• desire to preserve the Romanov dynasty.

In general, any of the above reasons in itself and all together could have contributed to the fact that the autocrat made an important and difficult decision for himself. Be that as it may, the date of Nicholas 2’s abdication from the throne marked the beginning of the most difficult period in the history of Russia.

The Empire after the Emperor's Manifesto: a brief description

The consequences of Nicholas 2's abdication from the throne were catastrophic for Russia. They are difficult to describe in a nutshell, but we can say that the country, which was considered a great power, ceased to exist.

Over the following years, it was plunged into numerous internal conflicts, devastation and attempts to build a new branch of government. Ultimately, this is what led to the rule of the Bolsheviks, who managed to keep a huge country in their hands.

But for the emperor himself and his family, the abdication of the throne became fatal - in July 1918, the Romanovs were brutally murdered in the dark and damp basement of a house in Yekaterinburg. The empire ceased to exist.

Nicholas II ascended the throne after the death of his father Emperor AlexanderIII October 20 (November 2), 1894