The Russian historian, the monarchist Vladimir Lavrov about renunciation of the Sovereign Nicholas II The Monarchist

Whether it is possible to speak about Nicholas II’s renunciation authentically? The monarchist Vladimir Lavrov, the doctor of historical sciences, the chief researcher of Institute of the Russian history of the Russian Academy of Sciences shares the reasons about it.

Whether Nicholas II’s renunciation is lawful?

The Russian historian, the monarchist Vladimir Lavrov about renunciation of the Sovereign Nicholas II The Monarchist   Historian Vladimir Lavrov

Known “The manifesto on renunciation of the emperor Nicholas II of a throne” was published by all in “News of the Central Election Commission of Councils of working deputies” and other newspapers on March 4, 1917. However “original” or “original” of renunciation found only in 1929. Thus it isn’t enough to mention only its detection. It is necessary to speak, under what circumstances and who found “original”. It is found during communistic cleaning of Academy of Sciences of the USSR and used for a fabrication of so-called academic business. On the basis of it suddenly the found document JSPD accused the remarkable historian S.F. Platonov and other academicians in neither more nor less – preparation of overthrow of the Soviet power! Authenticity of the document on renunciation it was entrusted to check the commissions led by P.E. Shchegolev. And the commission declared that the document original and is the original of renunciation. But who such Shchegolev? It and A.N. Were caught by Tolstaya that made and published the fabricated “Vyrubova’s the Diary”, the girlfriend empress Aleksandra Fiodorovna. Also Shchegolev was caught on production false “Rasputin’s Diary”. And the found document is a typewritten text on a simple sheet of paper. There could be the major document not on the imperial form? I couldn’t. There could be the major document without the personal imperial press? I couldn’t. Such document could be signed not with the handle, but a pencil? I couldn’t.

The strict rules established by the law existed on this subject and were followed. To observe them in the imperial train on March 2, 1917 didn’t represent work. Everything was near at hand. Besides, under the existing laws the original of the imperial manifesto had to be handwritten surely. It is also necessary to add that under the pencil signature of the sovereign some podtertost. And at the left and below than this signature – the signature of the minister of the imperial yard of the count V. B. Frederiks who udostoverivat the signature of the emperor. So this signature too is made a pencil that is inadmissible and never happened on important state documents. And the signature of the minister also is led round by a feather, as if it not the document, but a children’s coloring. When comparing by historians of signatures of the emperor Nicholas II under “renunciation” with its signatures on other documents and comparison of the signature of the minister Frederiks on “renunciation” with its other signatures, it becomes clear that signatures of the emperor and the minister on “renunciation” several times coincide with other their signatures. However by criminalistic science it is established that the same person has no two identical signatures, they though a little bit, but differ. If on two documents the same signature, one of them counterfeit.

Manifesto on Nicholas II’s renunciation

The famous monarchist V. V. Shulgin who was participating in overthrow of the tsar and being present at his renunciation in the memoirs testifies “Days” that renunciation was on two or three cable forms. However that we have – on one sheet of simple paper. At last, in all collections of documents, the found document is published in student’s and school anthologies under the heading “The Manifesto about Renunciation of the Emperor Nicholas II of a Throne”. However in the document other heading: To “Chief of Headquarters”. What is it? the Emperor renounced before the chief of headquarters? Such can’t be. Follows from all this that the document found in 1929 and which is stored now in Russian Federation State archive – NOT the ORIGINAL of RENUNCIATION. In it any doubts.

The Russian historian, the monarchist Vladimir Lavrov about renunciation of the Sovereign Nicholas II The Monarchist   Whether follows from told, what renunciation wasn’t? The point of view, popular in the orthodox environment that renunciation wasn’t just it is brought out of that fact that the original of the document isn’t present. Thus I will point at least to such rather recent precedent. Americans in Berlin found the copy of the confidential protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in archive. And the USSR denied decades existence of the confidential protocol of that there is no its original. Only at the time of Gorbachev publicity the original which is stored in Moscow was declassified and shown.

I very much would like that renunciation it wasn’t valid. Also I wish success to those who tries to prove it. In any case, for historical science existence, development and collision of several points of view is useful. Really, the original of renunciation isn’t present, but there are rather authentic certificates that it was!

From March 4 to March 8, 1917 Nicholas II met his mother who arrived to Mogilev, the widow empress Maria Fiodorovna. In the remained diary of the empress there is a record of March 4 in which with dramatic empathy it is told about renunciation for itself and the son, about transfer of a throne to the younger brother according to Nicholas II. In anniversary of renunciation the empress Aleksandra Fiodorovna testifies to it in the diary also. There are also certificates on renunciation transferred according to Aleksandra Fiodorovna. For example, Pierre Giliar’s certificate, faithful tutor of her children. It is necessary to mention and the archpriest Afanasy (Belyaev) who talked to the tsar, I professed it and subsequently I remembered that the tsar spoke to it about renunciation. There are also other authentic certificates that renunciation after all was.

So why there is no original? After all the Provisional government was absolutely interested in saving of the original as, from the legal point of view, there was no other justification of legitimacy, legality of creation and activity of the most Provisional government. To Bolsheviks the original of renunciation was too not superfluous. Could lose so important state document? Everyone happens, however it is very improbable. Therefore I will suggest: The provisional government destroyed the original as it contained something like that that didn’t suit the government. That is the Provisional government went for forgery, having changed the text of renunciation. The document was, but not such.

Renunciation falsification

What could not suit the government? I assume that there was some phrase or phrases in which the sovereign sought to send the events to the lawful course. Basic laws of the Russian Empire of 1906 didn’t provide the possibility of renunciation. Even it wasn’t told about renunciation, on the spirit and an orientation Basic laws didn’t assume renunciation that legal practice allows to consider as renunciation prohibition. Under the same laws the emperor possessed the big power allowing it to publish at first the Manifesto (Decree) to the Senate in which possibility of renunciation for itself and the successor would register, and then to publish the Manifesto on renunciation. If such phrase or phrases were, Nicholas II signed such renunciation which could not mean immediate renunciation. On drawing up the Manifesto it would be required to the Senate though some time, and then again it is necessary to sign already final renunciation, to disclose and approve it in the Senate. That is the tsar could sign such renunciation which from strictly legal point of view was rather an a declaration on intentions.

Obviously, heads of February revolution (equally in heads of the State Duma, its chairman Octobrist M. V. Rodzyanko, the leader of Octobrists A.I. Guchkov, the leader of the constitutional democrats P. N. Milyukov, the socialist-trudovik A.F. Kerensky), Provisional government didn’t want to waste time. It is enough to note that the Chairman of the State Duma misinformed the Rate, the chief of headquarters Supreme Commander general M. V. Alekseev, telling him that events in the capital are controlled that its calm and successful continuation of war require only renunciation of the tsar. Actually events got out of hand or were controlled only partly: Petrograd Council of workers and soldier’s deputies (in it Mensheviks and revolutionary socialists prevailed) had not a smaller or great influence, than the Duma and Provisional government; raspropagandirovanny revolutionary masses seized streets and let out from prisons of all criminals, including murderers, tyrants, thieves and terrorists, and to decent people became unsafe to leave the house, bloody massacres over officers, police officers took place. Some more days – and it would become known in the Rate in Mogilev. And how events then would be developed? After all the destiny of revolution depended on a position of army.

However the highest generals led by Alekseev, without having understood a situation, he hurried to believe the messages coming from the Duma and to support revolution. And leaders of the last realized that serious work should be done quickly. In a word, let the manifesto on renunciation isn’t lawful, but everything can be written off for revolution, after all “after death the doctor”, and here time during revolution can’t be wasted. In favor of a conclusion also that the last order of the emperor of March 8, 1917 is forged testifies to falsification of the document on renunciation. This appeal of the emperor and Supreme Commander Nicholas II to troops is known and is published in the text of the order of the general Alekseev which inserted the imperial order into the order. And in Russian Federation State archive the original of the order of the tsar remained, and it differs from that in Alekseev’s order. Alekseev self-willedally inserted into the imperial order an appeal “to obey Provisional government”.

The Russian historian, the monarchist Vladimir Lavrov about renunciation of the Sovereign Nicholas II The Monarchist   General Alekseev

In this case the falsifier – the general Alekseev seeking to give some legitimacy and continuity to Provisional government. Perhaps, the general thought that will replace the tsar on a post of the Supreme Commander and itself will victoriously finish war in Berlin. Why then the emperor didn’t clear up? It is obvious because business was made. The rate, the highest generals and Front commanders, the State Duma, all parties from Octobrists to Bolsheviks and the Synod of Russian Orthodox Church came over to the side of revolution, and noble and monarchic public organizations as if became extinct, and any aged man, even from Optina Pustyn, didn’t talk some sense fond of a revolutionary reorganization of Russia. February revolution won.

To whom and what you will prove in revolutionary insanity, lies and disorder? To speak about nuances of really signed document? Who would understand it? Would laugh. The emperor could transmit the address to the people through the widow empress Maria Fiodorovna. But to risk the woman, to involve her what will turn back it isn’t known than for her? Besides still there was a hope that the worst won’t be reached. On March 8 the tsar and his family are arrested according to the decision of Provisional government under pressure of Petrosovet of workers and soldier’s deputies. However since March 1 the status of the tsar was de facto limited in Pskov where it arrived to headquarters of the Northern front to the general N. V. Ruzsky. Already met him not just as tsar, as the power of the having.

What do we want from the arrested person whom defame and poison at all intersections of the capital? He could call a press conference? And for certain someone, it is possible even the unfortunate monarchists Guchkov and Shulgin who arrived to accept renunciation, warned the tsar that can’t be charged if something happens for life of his family in Tsarskoye Selo, near revolutionary Petrograd.

The empress Aleksandra Fiodorovna corresponded, including illegal, with loyal friends, first of all with the girlfriends. Addressees of these letters weren’t politicians, and the queen constantly worried about safety of those who dared not only to keep the worthy friendly relations, but also to enter into an illegal correspondence. Only renunciation under the law and voluntary can be considered unconditionally lawful. Renunciation under the law wasn’t. And there is nothing to speak about voluntariness, the tsar compelled to sign renunciation. The last is a sufficient legislative basis to consider renunciation illegal.

Besides, under the laws existing then, the imperial manifesto came into force only after his approval by the Senate and publications by the tsar – the ruling head of state – in the government newspaper. However anything similar wasn’t. That is even the manifesto published then didn’t come into force.

Thus for the sake of objectivity it should be noted that in the history, including in the history of Romanov’ dynasty, laws and traditions weren’t always observed. We will tell, Catherine II illegally seized power as a result of palace revolution. Moreover, it is involved in regicide, at least covered this crime, thereby participating in it. And it didn’t prevent it to become history under a name of Catherine the Great. Only God will judge her.

Results of renunciation of the Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II

However that befell at a boundary of February-March, 1917, isn’t comparable to all precedents in thousand-year history of Russia. Overthrow of the lawful tsar Nicholas II became a starting point, an initial impulse and a push of the subsequent events, including Civil war and red terror, collectivization and Famine-Genocide, GULAG and big terror; including that, as now we with a chipped washing-tub in an environment of idols to Voykov, Dzerzhinsky, Lenin and them to similar revolutionary degenerates.

The event is on March 2, 1917 the drama of universal scale. She is beyond narrow-minded judgments that everyone in the history happens; is beyond also actually legal or legallistic, objectivistic approach.

Eventually, everything rests against conscience, conscience of the historian or conscience of the person of any other profession who is interested in history and thinking of destiny of Russia. And conscience silently prompts – NOT CHARITABLE BUSINESS CAME TRUE on MARCH 2, 1917; it more than illegally, it – AGAINST RUSSIA, the RUSSIAN PEOPLE AND ITS FUTURE.

The Russian historian, the monarchist Vladimir Lavrov about renunciation of the Sovereign Nicholas II The Monarchist   Sovereign Emperor of Nicholas II

The emperor, signing some document on renunciation, he sought to avoid the worst, internal civil war during external war with kayzerovsky aggressors. The emperor wasn’t a prophet: he wouldn’t sign, knowing than business will turn back; he would ascend to an executioner’s block in 1917, but wouldn’t sign; it would ascend with a favourite family …

And we will pay attention: in the events which fell upon the tsar it turned out so that the document signed by him contained renunciation for itself and for the son, but not for the empress! And she didn’t renounce. Communists killed the lawful not renounced empress. And about “original”. It is necessary to pay attention how Nicholas II and Frederiks’s signatures in the bottom of a leaf are restricted. So the school students who didn’t keep within the set volume restrict the text. In the document of the state importance such can be? It isn’t excluded that the emperor and the minister made just in case empty sheets with the signatures. Such sheets could be found, and the text of “renunciation” could be inserted into such leaf. That is the option that signatures real, and the document counterfeit isn’t excluded!

Investigation of our days

In the 1990th years the government Commission on studying of the questions connected with research and a reburial of remains of the Russian emperor Nicholas II and members of his family was created. The commission was headed by the first Deputy Prime Minister B. E. Nemtsov. To participate in work of the commission the prosecutor-criminalist of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation V. N. Solovyov preparing the major examinations was invited.

Meeting Solovyov, I asked him a question: why the commission didn’t make the state, official examination of authenticity of the signature of the emperor under “renunciation”? After all it is one of the major necessary examinations, and such examinations are made, and for millions of believers this examination has special value. The prosecutor-criminalist answered my question: we understood that such examination is necessary, but archivists didn’t want to give the document to experts, and experts didn’t want to go to Russian Federation State archive where the document is now stored. Here such kindergarten, but not the answer. After all the commission was headed by the Deputy Prime Minister, he could dispose, to whom where to go. Also it should go. However it it isn’t made. Why? Perhaps were afraid of that examination will testify: the signature of the tsar is forged?

Besides, the government commission led by Nemtsov didn’t carry out expertize of a font of “renunciation”. Whether there was such font at typewriters of 1917? Whether there was such typewriter, the machine of such brand in the imperial train, in headquarters of the general Ruzsky, in the Rate, in the Duma, at Provisional government? Whether on one machine “renunciation” is printed? Directs close examination of letters in the document at the last question. And if on several machines, what does it mean? That is it was necessary to work, look still. Really the mentioned prosecutor-criminalist of the Prosecutor General’s Office didn’t understand it? Comparison of the text of “renunciation” with certainly original documents, memoirs testifies that in a basis of “original”, obviously, the project of renunciation prepared on March 2, 1917 in diplomatic office of the Rate under the leadership of her director I.A. Bazili by order of and under the general edition of the general Alekseev is put.

The so-called “renunciation” published on March 4, 1917 didn’t declare elimination of a monarchy in Russia at all. And from told above about the legislation existing then follows that neither transfer of a throne “renunciation” of the emperor Nicholas II, nor the manifesto of the grand duke Mikhail Aleksandrovich of March 3, 1917 with refusal of acceptance of a throne (with transfer of a final decision to future Constituent Assembly) aren’t lawful. The manifesto of the grand duke isn’t lawful, signed under pressure, but it not a fake, his author – the cadet V.D. Nabokov, the father of the well-known writer. Now time came to tell that it is impossible to renounce an imperial anointing. It can’t be cancelled. De facto Nicholas II stopped being the tsar after February revolution, however in mystical and especially legal sense he remained the Russian tsar and was lost the tsar. It and his family ascended to the Golgotha so adequately that are canonized by Russian Orthodox Church.