Who killed the Emperor? (Deacon Vladimir Vasilik)

Ninety-seven years ago in Yekaterinburg, the Holy Sovereign Passion-Bearer Nicholas II was shot. Together with him, his entire family was brutally murdered - the Holy Blessed Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, the heir - the Holy Tsarevich Alexy and the Grand Duchesses - Saints Tatiana, Maria, Olga and Anastasia. By the determination of the Council of Bishops in 2000, they were canonized as holy passion-bearers. Unfortunately, this honor was not given to the servants who accompanied the royal martyrs - doctor Sergei Botkin, maid Anna Demidova, cook Sednev. Meanwhile, unlike the Royal Family, they had a choice, they had the opportunity to save themselves by refusing to serve the Tsar. And yet they chose loyalty to death, setting an example of sacrificial service and feat.

Who and why killed the holy King, his Family and servants? It seemed that the answer lay on the surface: they were shot by decision of the Ural Revolutionary Committee. Beloborodov, Goloshchekin, etc. took personal responsibility for this. The official motivation was the approach of the Czechoslovak corps and the possibility of liberating the Sovereign. The sentence was carried out by Voikov, Yurovsky and a team, partly consisting of Austrians and Latvians. Voikov was later killed in Warsaw by the former White Guard Boris Koverda, killed out of revenge for the murder of the Royal Family.

To this day, to our shame, streets and even a metro station are named after Voikov. Yurovsky lived until 1940 and died from a serious illness. They say he suffered greatly before his death. Many of those who signed the verdict on the Royal Family did not survive 1937. Among them were Beloborodov and Goloshchekin. The Soviet government retroactively approved this crime in a Decree of July 18, 1918.

Meanwhile, not everything in the murder of the Royal Family is still clear: all its circumstances and the fate of the remains of the innocently killed. Moreover, the main question remains unclear: who benefited from killing the Tsar and his family, who was ultimately the culprit?

The traditional explanation of communist historians, which is that Emperor Nicholas II could have appeared as the banner of the White movement and therefore was shot, does not stand up to criticism. Politically, the deposed Tsar in 1918 did not pose any danger. There was not a single political party or movement behind him. If during the French Revolution the French nobility at the very least tried to fight for Louis ΧVI, a whole series of conspiracies were organized for his release, then no one lifted a finger to save Sovereign Nicholas ΙΙ. The Academy of the General Staff, evacuated from Petrograd, was located in Yekaterinburg; among the officers were brave people of the First World War, with experience in sabotage work. All the talk among them about the release of the deposed Tsar remained just talk: not a single attempt was made or even movement towards it. And this is no coincidence. For the most part, the White generals, like the Russian officers as a whole, were anti-monarchists, open-minded people who led the White movement to nowhere. The main ideas of the White movement are moderate socialism and military dictatorship, covered by the slogans of “Russia, one and indivisible.” Moreover, white intelligence actively fought against monarchism in their rear, especially in the armies of Wrangel and Denikin. So Sovereign Nicholas II could not be the banner of any opposition. Then why?

The next answer, coming from the emigrant environment, is because of revenge. The Bolsheviks in general and Lenin in particular had a burning anger towards the Tsar and the royal family. Lenin - for personal reasons: because of the execution of his older brother Alexander Ulyanov, who attempted to assassinate Emperor Alexander IΙΙ. And he allegedly vowed to destroy the entire Royal Family. However, such an accusation is more suitable for Hollywood. The Bolsheviks, and above all Lenin, for all their repulsive qualities, were pragmatists and tried to avoid actions that could undermine their power. And the extrajudicial murder of the Emperor, especially with his wife and children, was just such an action. It is no coincidence that the official report spoke about the execution of only the Emperor, and about his family it was reported that they were allegedly “taken to a safe place.”

If the motivation had been revenge and the desire to destroy an old enemy, albeit a harmless one, then, most likely, a trial would have been organized in Moscow with a final death sentence, similar to what was carried out over Louis XVI, with an exemplary death penalty.

Meanwhile, nothing of the kind was carried out or even prepared. As Pyotr Multatuli showed in his works, in the spring of 1918 Lenin demanded in vain that the Romanovs be brought to Moscow, and not at all for their trial. The Soviet leader needed the former Tsar as a hostage and an object of bargaining with the Germans. And Emperor Wilhelm ΙΙ needed his “cousin Niki” to legitimize and sanction the Brest Peace. Under this condition, he agreed to grant him and his family asylum in Germany. Judging by a number of data, the holy Emperor Nicholas rejected such a deal: for him the Brest Peace Treaty was shameful and criminal. This probably contributed to the weakening of interest in him in Berlin and the lack of sanctions on the part of the Germans towards the Bolsheviks for his execution.

Then events occurred that accelerated the martyrdom of the Emperor and his family. On July 6, 1918, the murder of the German ambassador Mirbach and the rebellion of the left Socialist Revolutionaries occurred, which was supported by part of the Bolsheviks, including (albeit rather hidden) Yakov Sverdlov. A number of researchers, not without reason, connect this rebellion with the activities of the British embassy, which was interested in the rupture of Russia and Germany and the denunciation of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty. It is possible that the murder of the holy Tsar and the Royal Family was one of the elements of the anti-German and, ultimately, anti-Russian game aimed at pitting Soviet Russia and Germany against each other. And here we should turn to such a figure as Yakov Sverdlov.

If Lenin was connected with Germany and with the German general staff and arrived in Russia in a sealed German carriage, then Sverdlov was connected by many threads with America and with American financial clans, primarily with Jacob Schiff.

The famous American financier, millionaire Jacob Schiff devoted a significant part of his life and money to the destruction of the Russian Empire. Before the Russo-Japanese War, he financed the creation of the Japanese fleet, and during the war itself he directed cash flows to the needs of the Japanese army and intelligence and blocked Russian loans from Western banks. Schiff was one of the main sponsors of the revolution of 1905-1907, as well as Russian terrorism. Jacob Schiff demanded complete equality in the rights of all subjects of the Russian Empire, and after rejecting this demand, not without success, he organized a financial blockade around Russia. It got to the point that during the First World War, America gave Great Britain, i.e. ally of Russia, loans with one condition: that they do not end up in Russia (!). Jacob Schiff could be interested in the physical destruction of the Tsar-Martyr and the Royal Family. And not only for reasons of revenge on ethnic and religious grounds, but also as a financier closing a big project. The end to the destruction of the Russian Empire could only be the death of its monarch, an indicative one at that and, of course, the suppression of the dynasty. It is no coincidence that the words that were written by the executioners on the wall of the Ipatiev House: “That same night Belshazzar was killed.”

Yakov Sverdlov was to a large extent Schiff's man and, together with Trotsky, represented in the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party the most radical wing, striving for world revolution and for the sake of this global goal, ready to destroy historical Russia.

To destroy it, it was necessary to destroy its symbolism, and Tsar Nicholas II, even deposed, remained its living sacred symbol as the anointed one of God. However, in the context of 1918, there was a more specific reason for the murder of the Royal Family. America fought on the side of the Entente and sent troops to the continent. The assassination of the last Tsar could complicate Russian-German relations and, together with other events, lead to a rupture, denunciation of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty and even to war, that is, to the resumption of a second front against Germany, and therefore to its defeat. Yakov Sverdlov controlled the Ural Revolutionary Committee, which made the decision to execute. Lenin, who had, to put it mildly, not the easiest relationship with Sverdlov, initially, for pragmatic reasons, did not strive for the physical destruction of the Tsar and the Royal Family, however, seeing that he was outplayed, he preferred to legitimize the accomplished fact, that is, a crime with legal and moral points of view. That is, he acted like Pilate, washing his hands in his own way. Other people played the role of Caiaphas.

However, this is only the second or third level of the problem. Emperor Nicholas II would not have been shot if he had not been deposed and imprisoned with his family. And the question must be raised about the indirect culprits in the death of the Yekaterinburg sufferers. Who is responsible for the death of a man tied to a tree in the forest and killed by wolves? Wolves or the one who tied him? Who is responsible for the death of a man thrown into a pool with crocodiles? Crocodiles or the one who dropped him? The answer, I think, is clear. The Savior, turning to Pilate, said: “Therefore he who delivered Me to you has greater sin” (John 18:15).

If we are to begin counting that Judas’ sin, the sin of betrayal, with which Russia was and is suffering, then we must begin in 1916—with the slander of the august salons against the Empress and the Tsar, with the speech of the liberal professor Miliukov (“Stupidity or Treason?”), and then since the February tragedy, for which the generals and the officer corps were to a large extent to blame[1]. In February 1917, the Alekseevs, Krasnovs, Kornilovs and Denikins almost took Russia away from the Russians, because they broke the monarchy - the core on which historical Russia rested. They keep silent about all this as the most terrible state secret, preferring instead to tell heartbreaking legends about how the Emperor loved his family too much and rushed to Petrograd to see her. And how General Alekseev knelt before him, begging him not to leave for Tsarskoe Selo[2]. One involuntarily recalls the lies of Shervinsky, the hero of “Days of the Turbins” by M. Bulgakov, which he uttered with a constant refrain: “And he shed tears!” However, here we see not just touching myths, but an obvious apology for betrayal, albeit a very cursory and inarticulate one: “And when the Emperor did not heed the plea of his chief of staff about the need to remain at Headquarters, General Alekseev turned to the army, and the army in the person of its front commanders called on the Tsar to abdicate, and the Tsar, being the commander-in-chief, chose to submit to his subordinates. What can Alekseev be accused of here? Only that he did not capture the Sovereign in order to force him to stay in Mogilev, but this would also have been by no means an act of loyalty. Therefore, for me, General Alekseev’s indignation at what happened is much more understandable”[3].

You don’t know what’s worse here: the deliberate distortion of reality or the concepts of some publicists about loyalty and honor. Firstly, Alekseev sabotaged all the orders of the Sovereign aimed at preventing and pacifying the unrest: reserve regiments were not withdrawn from Petrograd, the dispatch of troops (guards) was disrupted. As Oldenburg writes: “It is too late to guess whether the Emperor could not have abdicated. Given the position taken by General Alekseev and General Ruzsky, the possibility of resistance was excluded: the Sovereign’s orders were not transmitted.” Worse: they were cancelled. The Emperor ordered six cavalry divisions and six infantry regiments to be sent from the front. The order was thwarted: General Ruzsky, with his authority, ordered not only to stop aid to General Ivanov, but also to return the trains that had already been sent to the Dvinsky region. Headquarters, in the name of the Sovereign, but without his will, prohibited the dispatch of troops from the Southwestern Front “until further notice”[4]. Then General Alekseev puts together a general coalition with his telegrams, and then demands abdication.

But let's assume for a second that we are given the correct information. However, if a subject (especially a chief of staff) sees that the sovereign is mistaken, what should he do? Is it really possible to overthrow your Tsar just because he did not listen to good advice? Isn’t his task to diligently serve the sovereign and unobtrusively, discreetly correct his mistakes and provide all possible assistance in a difficult situation? The Emperor is traveling without troops - so provide reliable escort, a couple of divisions and several railway teams! And if it is not in your power to correct the situation, then go to the end with your Emperor! You took the military oath - so keep it to the end! How can betrayal be regarded only as indignation at unreasonable actions, how can it be understood and accepted in this way?! Such texts only testify to the confusion (to say the least) of moral concepts among some of our publicists.

Even Bishop Agapit of Stuttgart considers it necessary to note: “To understand the White movement, which arose as a reaction to the seizure of power, the Bolsheviks must always remember the following: Russian Orthodox generals agreed to the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II. And this mystically can be understood as an illegal divorce, a violation of marriage. Therefore, it is unfair to place the blame for the abdication only on the Tsar-Martyr, since it was a reaction to the betrayal of the Russian generals personally to him as a monarch. But this is not only the personal tragedy of the Tsar-Martyr as a “bad monarch,” but also the guarantee of the future personal tragedy of his same generals, who later turned out to be powerless in the fight against the Bolsheviks.”[5].

And really, what could the white generals oppose to the Bolsheviks? “All power to the Constituent Assembly!” after “For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland!”? What slogans should the Russian people follow in 1917: the slogans of “non-decision” and “war to a victorious end” or the slogan “Peace to the peoples, land to the peasants!”? The white generals themselves taught a lesson in betrayal and revolution. And the terrible pattern of Russian history was that General Alekseev, whitewashed by our liberals, one of the main organizers of the general’s conspiracy, was “considered as a servant” by temporary workers from the Provisional Government, and General Ruzsky, who called on the Emperor to “surrender to the mercy of the victors,” was hacked to death by the Bolsheviks with sabers. As a result of the activities of the Februaryists, by October 1917, Russia had practically disintegrated, and the front was hopelessly collapsed. Bolshevik propaganda did not play the first role here—the main role went to the famous “Order No. 1.” According to Solzhenitsyn, the Bolsheviks did not have to take power by force: it was practically lying on the road, and they raised it. The Provisional Government had the enormous potential of the Russian Empire, which it squandered in seven months. At times, the white generals also had significant potential: alas, they managed it no better than the Provisional Government.

What is the essence of February 1917? According to a number of historians and publicists, this was a conspiracy and rebellion of the nobility against the Emperor, which only later developed into a popular revolution. Conspiracies were hatched against the Tsar with the goal of elevating Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich to the throne; rumors were spread about Emperor Nicholas as a weak, weak-willed Tsar, a “henpecked” German queen, who tolerated the depraved peasant Rasputin in his home thanks to the suggestion of his exalted wife. This gossip worked one hundred percent on the fateful days of February 1917. And it is no coincidence that Purishkevich, who killed Rasputin, boastfully declared: “We fired the first shot of the revolution.” Let us note that this gossip was developed and spread by the inhabitants of high society salons, those who beat the Tsar in the back, and then, when he left the throne, became confused, became cowardly and either ran away, or obediently went to the Bolshevik slaughter, or intrigued in the rear of the white armies , as they once did in St. Petersburg salons, so that later in exile they could engage in “wit on the stairs,” or rather, in Parisian attics.

February 1917 grows out of the entire Russian history. It was the nobility that from time immemorial opposed the monarchy, fought with all their might against it both in the Time of Troubles and after the death of Peter I. The blood of Ivan Antonovich, Peter ΙΙΙ, Paul Ι is on the hands of the Russian nobles. Not a Russian peasant, but a Russian gentleman came out against the Tsar on December 14, 1825, when “Nicholas the First was saved by a peasant in a guards uniform.” Who killed Alexander II? Noblewoman Sofya Perovskaya, the governor's daughter. The nobility was accustomed to killing their kings.

Let us turn to the fate of Sovereign Nicholas II and his Family.

The abdication of Emperor Nicholas II is understandable from a moral and political point of view: this is the choice of a commander who, by his abdication, wanted to save the front, the army and the country from immediate collapse. Is it his fault that his abdication prolonged the agony for only 7 months, that “the ruling layer had rotted” and no one wanted to save either the country or the army? It was a magnanimous act: the passion-bearer Emperor Nicholas did not demand anything for himself personally. It was a matter of honor and conscience for the Provisional Government to ensure his safety and facilitate his departure with his family either abroad or to Crimea. Unfortunately, the winners did not appreciate this generosity.

Almost immediately after the abdication, Emperor Nicholas II and his Family were arrested and imprisoned in Tsarskoe Selo. Let us note that the Tsar’s family was arrested by the future leader of the White movement, Lavr Kornilov, who died in March 1918, a year after the arrest of the Tsar’s family. After the arrest, a vile farce begins to prepare the trial of the deposed monarch - the creation of an Extraordinary Investigative Commission and the search for incriminating evidence on the former Sovereign. As you know, it ended in nothing: the Extraordinary Commission did not find any crime in the actions of the former emperor. Also indicative was the sending of the Tsar-Martyr to Tobolsk, under the Provisional Government, away from the centers of power, away from the border. This shows that the question of his release was never raised; on the contrary, preparations were being made for his destruction in the wilderness of Russia.

In other words, the Februaryists were objectively those caiaphas who betrayed the Tsar to death. The Bolsheviks, like Pilate and the Roman soldiers, only carried out someone else's sentence. Bishop Vasily (Rodzianko) at one time committed a deeply moral act when he brought repentance for the actions of his grandfather, Mikhail Vasilyevich Rodzianko, who participated in the deposition of the passion-bearer Nicholas II and indirectly prepared his martyrdom.

On the day of the passion-bearing death of the Holy Tsar Nicholas, it is necessary to comprehend both his activity and his martyrdom. Unfortunately, even in the church environment there is an idea of him as a “bad monarch” and “a man of weak will.”

But is it? Was the Tsar, who spent twenty-three years at the gunpoint of terrorists, a man of weak will? Was he the Tsar, who by his own will moved the center of economic and political development from the West of the country to the East, the builder of Port Arthur, Vladivostok and the Trans-Siberian Railway? Was this the Tsar who overcame the difficult revolution of 1905, during which the country rapidly modernized and progressed, despite powerful revolutionary and centrifugal currents?

Was he the Tsar, who took responsibility for the Army in the most difficult days of destruction in 1915 and stopped its collapse, preventing large-scale military defeat and a German breakthrough to Kyiv, Moscow and Petrograd? Finally, what we know about February 1917 also does not give us any reason to consider him a man of weak will. The Emperor did everything to suppress the rebellion. Another thing is that his orders were sabotaged[6].

In spiritual terms, Emperor Nicholas II shows us the image of a Christian Tsar. It is no coincidence that the Venerable Paraskeva of Diveyevo said about him: “He will be higher than all the kings.” In an atmosphere of godlessness, unbelief, thirst for violence and blood, which, alas, overwhelmed not only the upper stratum, but also the entire Russian society, the last Emperor sought to act as a Christian on the throne. Indicative is his desire for peace, for a more humane society, expressed in a number of peaceful initiatives: participation in the creation of the Hague Convention, the desire to maintain peace in Europe and throughout the world. It is not his fault that his good undertakings were thwarted by forces thirsting for profit, war and blood.

Within the country, the Sovereign Emperor strove for the reconciliation of different classes and strata of society, for social harmony. It is no coincidence that the words that he ordered to be conveyed through S.Yu. Witte to Russian industrialists: “Gentlemen! The Sovereign Emperor is not interested in your profits. He is interested in the good of the entire Russian state.” He acted as the owner of the Russian land and in his state activities strove for an honest dialogue with social forces, trying to direct them for the benefit of the state and society. Again, it is not his fault, but the misfortune of all of Russia, that both external and internal forces managed to plunge the country into the bloody chaos of revolution and civil war.

The life of the Tsar and his Family after the abdication, the complacent enduring of insults, betrayals, pain for Russia and preparation for Christian death is not something special and sharply different from their previous life path. On the contrary, this is the crown of that Christian cross-bearing, service to God and the Russian state, which Tsar Nicholas II and his loved ones accomplished all the previous years. And a living example of a truly Christian life for all of us.

_____________

[1] Solonevich I. L. Cannes of Guchkov // Solonevich I. L. The Great Fake of February. M., 2002. pp. 87–96.

[2] Mitrofanov G., prot. The tragedy of Russia: “forbidden” topics. St. Petersburg, 2009. pp. 22–23.

[3] Ibid. P. 23.

[4] Ibid. pp. 90–91.

[5] Ibid. P. 6.

[6] Even his enemies admitted this. See the preface by Mikhail Koltsov to the collection “Renunciation”. L., 1927.

pravoslavie.ru

[edit] Awards

Church

Patriarchal letter (September 5, 1977, “for his hard work and in connection with the successful holding of the World Conference: Religious Leaders for Lasting Peace, Disarmament and Fair Relations Between Nations”[6])
Jubilee medal “10 years of Orthodoxy in Thailand” (December 2009[22])
Order of St. Seraphim of Sarov, III degree (January 22, 2010, in recognition of many years of work for the benefit of the Holy Church and in connection with the fortieth anniversary of service in the priesthood[23])
golden cross ap. Paul III degree (June 3, 2013, Greek Orthodox Church[24])
Order of St. Sava, III degree (November 16, 2014, Serbian Orthodox Church[25])

State

Medal of the Order of Merit for the Fatherland, II degree (August 11, 2000, “For great contribution to strengthening civil peace and reviving spiritual and moral traditions” [26])
Order of Friendship (May 17, 2021, “For great contribution to the development of spiritual culture and strengthening friendship between peoples”)[27][28]

Others

From the “Russian Imperial House” - the so-called. "Order of St. Anna III degree" (October 6, 2009)[29]

[edit] Sources

Academy at the Trinity: memories of Moscow theological schools
Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 2005
Definitions of the Holy Synod [1971.10.19: to appoint Protodeacon V. Nazarkin, DECR employee, as a member of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem] // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. M., 1971. No. 11. p. 6.
[Archimandrite Clement (Tolstikhin) and Protodeacon V. Nazarkin left for Jerusalem] // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. M., 1971. No. 12. p. 14.
Definitions of the Holy Synod [1972.10.11: to appoint a member of the Mission, Protodeacon V. Nazarkin, as secretary of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem] // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. M., 1972. No. 11 (ZhMP). page 4.
Definitions of the Holy Synod [1976.02.16: relieve Protodeacon V. Nazarkin from the post of secretary of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem] // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. M., 1976. No. 4. p. 4.
↑ 6.06.1 “Patriarchal awards.” // ZhMP, No. 11, 1977
Pitirim (Nechaev), archbishop. Volokolamsky, “Enthronement of His Beatitude Patriarch Justin I of Romania” // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1977, No. 11
Russian Orthodox Church. XX century October 12 // Pravoslavie.Ru
https://mospat.ru/archive/page/synod/1998-2/17071998.html
https://www.srcc.msu.su/bib_roc/jmp/02/09-02/05.htm
https://www.pravoslavie.ru/8566.html
https://pravoslavie.ru/21540.html
https://orthodoxy.stnikolas.ru/news/edinstvo.html
https://pravoslavie.ru/24163.html
https://pravoslavie.ru/28584.html
https://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/506730.html
https://www.sobor09.ru/participants/282/
https://mospat.ru/archive/2009/01/43988/
https://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/1258001.html
https://mospat.ru/ru/2015/08/26/news122048/
https://zrnwww.pravoslavie.ru/87251.html
[1] see news from December 20, 2009 “Anniversary medals were awarded on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of Orthodoxy in Thailand”
On the day of remembrance of St. Philip, the Primate of the Russian Church celebrated the Divine Liturgy in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin
https://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/3016930.html
At the end of the visit of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill to Serbia, a reception was held in Belgrade in honor of His Holiness, official website of the Russian Orthodox Church, November 16, 2014
https://mospat.ru/archive/2001/04/nr104112/
https://kremlin.ru/acts/bank/40796
https://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4470955.html
https://www.saintanna.ru/?lang=rus&id=62