Exactly 100 years ago, Russia turned over the beginning of one of the most tragic chapters of its history. Since then, the period of the end of February, the beginning of March 1917 began to be referred to only as the February Revolution. According to the definition given in Ozhegov's explanatory dictionary, a revolution means "a radical change in the life of society, which leads to the elimination of the previous social and political system and the establishment of a new government." In contrast to the revolution, there is the concept of evolution - "gradual quantitative and qualitative changes, in which each new state of an object has a higher level of organization and differentiation of functions compared to the previous one."

Of course, one of the reasons for any revolution is, first of all, a split in the minds and hearts of the people of the country. There are always people who want to move forward in an evolutionary way. A hundred years ago, it was precisely this path of development of society that was defended by Emperor Nicholas II, the closest members of his family and those few people from the top leadership of the country who remained faithful to the Sovereign, the Fatherland and the oath. This path requires the manifestation of such qualities as constancy, a sense of duty, diligence, courage, etc.

However, there are always people who call to take the seemingly easier path. This path does not require the manifestation of these virtues. This path does not require work on oneself, overcoming personal shortcomings. This path boils down to blaming some external factors, such as the monarch, for the difficulties faced by the people. And instead of rolling up their sleeves and working harder to make life better in their beloved Fatherland, representatives of the revolutionary path tempt people: “Let’s overthrow the autocrat and life will immediately improve.”

As everyone is well aware, a hundred years ago, the supporters of the revolution won in Russia. The tragic consequences of this event are also known. However, it is alarming that even after a hundred years, the split in the minds and hearts of people has not disappeared. Even in relation to the event we are talking about: someone looks at the revolution exclusively positively, someone condemns it.

We will try to remind you of the sequence of events that led to the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II.

February Revolution of 1917

While the tsar, together with the army, fought for the independence of Russia on the battlefields, he was betrayed from all sides: both the metropolitan aristocracy and the lower classes.

Taking advantage of the absence of the king in the capital during the hostilities, the opposition aristocracy intensified its activities. There was talk at court about the expediency of a palace coup. Oppositionists, including relatives of the royal family, argued that the tsar and tsarina stood in the way of Russia's victory in the war.

Events directly related to the abdication of Nicholas II began on February 14, 1917, when crowds dissatisfied with the poverty of wartime life took to the streets of Petrograd with the slogans “Down with the war!”, “Long live the republic!”. The people demanded bread, which, through criminal intent, was not brought to the city and deliberately not sold in shops. Robbery of shops began, pogroms of bread shops, policemen were beaten and killed. The police were unable to stop the riots on their own. A popular uprising began.

Even before that, Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich could not be blamed for indecision, and in those rebellious days, the severity of his orders to suppress the treacherous rebellion in the capital was truly dictatorial. He gives orders to send troops withdrawn from the front to Petrograd to suppress the rebellion, signs a Decree on the suspension of the work of the State Duma and the State Council. According to the plan of Nicholas II, power is concentrated in his hands and the hands of his government, relying on the army loyal to the tsar.

But events developed against the will of the king. His orders were not carried out. The generals did not bring the troops to St. Petersburg, the soldiers of the St. Petersburg reserve regiments, propagandized by the rebels, refused to obey the officers.

The Duma opposed the Sovereign's decree and organized the Provisional Government.

New documentary data, which until recently were kept under the headings “Secret” and “Top Secret”, were made public in November 2015 at the exhibition “My History: 1914-1945. From Great Upheavals to Great Victory" show that the events of February 1917 were more of a coup d'etat as a result of a conspiracy of elites than a revolution.

Proof of this are the irrefutable testimonies of the participants in the coup themselves, which Bishop Tikhon (Shevkunov), one of the organizers of the exhibition, cited in an interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta:

“This is what P.N., one of the main instigators of the February coup, wrote. Milyukov:

“We knew that in the spring (meaning the spring of 1917) the victories of the Russian army were coming. In such a case, the prestige and charm of the tsar among the people would again become so strong and tenacious that all our efforts to undermine and topple the throne of the autocrat would be in vain. That is why it was necessary to resort to the speediest revolutionary explosion.

Milyukov is echoed by another figure who can safely be called the main engine of February - N.I. Guchkov:

“In the autumn of 1916, an idea was born for a palace coup, as a result of which the sovereign would be forced to sign an abdication with the transfer of the throne to the rightful heir.”

And here is the testimony of Prince Vladimir Obolensky:

“Guchkov suddenly began to let me in on all the details of the conspiracy and name its main participants. I realized that I was in the very nest of a conspiracy. England was with the conspirators. The British Ambassador Buchanan took part in this movement, many meetings were held with him.

However, no foreign intervention would have had power and influence if there were no traitors within the country.”

The conspiracy was supported by generals from the Headquarters and the high command of the fronts, who turned to the commander-in-chief "with persistent advice for the good of Russia and victory over the enemy to renounce the Throne." The imperial train was forcibly sent instead of Mogilev to the Pskov station with the symbolic name Dno. In fact, from February 28, the Emperor was blocked by the conspirators in his train.

Some deliberately cheated, others cowardly submitted to the traitors, although they showed sympathy for the Emperor, others, pulling the Emperor's abdication, lied to him that this was done in favor of the heir, in fact, striving to overthrow the monarchy in Russia.

The transition of his personal convoy to the side of the rebel troops made a particularly strong impression on the king.

On March 1, 1917, the sovereign was left alone, practically captured on the train, betrayed and abandoned by his subjects, separated from his family, who were waiting and praying for him in Tsarskoe Selo. “There is treason, cowardice and deceit all around,” Nikolai Alexandrovich wrote in his diary.

Historian O.A. Platonov notes in the book “The Conspiracy of the Regicides”: “The Emperor was a man of conscience and soul (you can see this many times when reading his correspondence and diaries). Those moral principles that guided him in his activities made him defenseless against the intrigues that were woven in his environment. Many of his entourage pursued their own interests, hoping to receive certain benefits, bargained with the opponents of the king about the price of betrayal. Around the king, the circle of betrayal and betrayal was shrinking more and more, which turned into a kind of trap by March 2, 1917.

There were no people nearby who were loyal to the oath and the king. Everyone acted as traitors - from ordinary soldiers of the St. Petersburg reserve regiments to the commanders-in-chief of the fronts, to the closest relatives - the Grand Dukes. No one wanted to bear the burden of power with him in order to keep Russia on the edge of the gaping abyss.

All eyewitnesses noted in those days that the tsar was unusually calm. He was calm, because he knew what he was doing, because he was sure that the duty he was performing was right. The most important thing for him was to leave so that his departure would not turn into suffering for the whole people.

Everyone assured the tsar that only his abdication from the throne would save Russia. And the sovereign sacrificed himself, heeding these voices. After a night of fervent prayer in front of the icon, he abdicated. It happened on March 2nd.

“There is no sacrifice that I would not make in the name of a real good and for the salvation of Russia. Therefore, I am ready to abdicate the throne, ”he gave such a telegram to the chairman of the Duma.

It was in such conditions that a document arose that was falsely called the "Manifesto of the abdication of Nicholas II" and in the March newspapers of 1917 it was published with this false name. In fact, it was a telegram from the sovereign to the Headquarters, to the chief of staff Alekseev, moreover, signed by the emperor in pencil. The telegram said:

"Bid. Chief of Staff.

In the days of the great struggle with the external enemy, who had been striving to enslave our Motherland for almost three years, the Lord God was pleased to send Russia a new ordeal. The outbreak of internal popular unrest threatens to have a disastrous effect on the further conduct of the stubborn war. The fate of Russia, the honor of our heroic army, the good of the people, the whole future of our dear Fatherland demand that the war be brought to a victorious end at all costs. The cruel enemy is straining his last strength, and the hour is near when our valiant army, together with our glorious allies, will finally be able to break the enemy. In these decisive days in the life of Russia, WE considered it a duty of conscience to facilitate for OUR people the close unity and rallying of all the forces of the people in order to achieve victory as soon as possible, and, in agreement with the State Duma, we recognized it as a blessing to abdicate the Throne of the Russian State and lay down the Supreme Power from OURSELVES. Not wanting to part with Our beloved Son, WE pass on OUR heritage to OUR Brother Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich and bless Him to ascend the Throne of the Russian State. We command OUR Brother to govern the affairs of state in complete and inviolable unity with the representatives of the people and legislative institutions, on the basis that they will establish, taking an inviolable oath to that. In the name of our dearly beloved Motherland, we call on all the faithful sons of the Fatherland to fulfill their sacred duty to Him, to obey the Tsar in a difficult moment of national trials and to help Him, together with representatives of the people, lead the Russian State onto the path of victory, prosperity and glory. May the Lord God help Russia.

The Sovereign's telegram to Headquarters was his last call to the army. Only a few of the commanders, such as General Count Fyodor Arturovich Keller, General Huseyn Khan Nakhichevansky, took it as a call for help to the sovereign and were ready to rush to his rescue.

Some scholars consider the question of renunciation to be highly ambiguous. So, Doctor of Historical Sciences A.N. Bokhanov said in an interview that “Russian legislation did not provide for the possibility of the emperor's renunciation of power ... so from a legal point of view, from the standpoint of the basic laws of the Russian Empire, this renunciation was illegal. The Sovereign… gave power, but at the same time he did not change the form of government… Let’s put it this way, this is not a manifesto on renunciation, this is a declaration on the resignation of imperial powers…

But he remained the anointed king, and this cannot be canceled by any acts. And this chrismation has not been abolished anywhere. And he stayed, and they killed the tsar in Yekaterinburg, who laid down his power prerogative.

Emperor Nicholas II forever preserved in his soul the most important thing - faith in God's providence and devotion to the Fatherland. “I have a firm and complete confidence,” he said, “that the fate of Russia, just like the fate of me and my family, is in the hands of God, who put me in my place. Whatever happens, I bow before His will, believing that I never had any other thought than to serve the country, the management of which He entrusted to me.

It's not the king who abdicated. It was Russia who renounced the tsar.

Great Russian Revolution- a radical turning point in national history. The process that has affected all spheres of public life has not yet acquired an unambiguous assessment in the historical consciousness of modern Russia, which is undergoing a period of social, cultural and political transformation. Many aspects of this period of Russian history remain undisclosed or disclosed biased and politically biased.

2017 is the centenary of the 1917 Revolution. The centennial milestone is a landmark for historical memory. Right now, it is necessary to support the trend of reconciliation of society with the events of 1917 and to promote the popularization of high-quality historical knowledge in order to draw lessons from them.

Russian Historical Society takes an active part in the preparation and holding of events dedicated to the Great Russian Revolution, guided by the values ​​of science, verifiability and civic solidarity, expressed in a delicate and objective approach to historical events.

“We approached the subject of the Revolution of 1917 prepared. Its broad discussion took place at various venues, as part of the development of the concept of teaching Russian history at school. Even then, it was proposed to consider the Great Russian Revolution as a complex and dramatic process, including interrelated stages. The events of February and October 1917, the fall of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic, the elections to the Constituent Assembly and the Kornilov revolt, the establishment of Soviet power and a bloody civil war.

- Chairman of the Russian Historical Society Sergey Naryshkin.

Project news:

The study of the causes and consequences of the Great Russian Revolution will be continued - such a statement was made by the Chairman of the Russian Historical Society Sergey Naryshkin at the final meeting of the organizing committee for the preparation and holding of events dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the 1917 revolution in Russia.

An exhibition opened at the All-Russian Museum of Decorative, Applied and Folk Art "The Porcelain Revolution. Dream of a New World. Soviet porcelain". The exposition presents hundreds of decorative plates, cups, saucers, sculptures produced in the first twenty years of the Soviet state, which are traditionally called propaganda porcelain.

In the concert hall of the Academic Song and Dance Ensemble of the Russian Army named after A.V. Alexandrov, the International Historical and Musical Festival of Children's and Youth Creativity "Russian Revolution of 1917: the musical memory of generations" was held.

A modular exhibition "The 1917 Revolution on the Streets of Moscow in Archival Documents and Photographs" has opened on Nikolskaya Street. The exposition was prepared by the Russian Society of Historians and Archivists and the Historical and Archival Institute of the Russian State Humanitarian University with the support of the Russian Historical Society and the History of the Fatherland Foundation.

A concert at the Mariinsky Theatre, a demonstration of unique documents from the archives of the Navy and the laying of a stone at the Admiralty Shipyards in memory of the shipbuilders of the era of the revolution and the Civil War: events dedicated to the centenary of the revolutionary upheaval in Russia were held in St. Petersburg.

On the eve of the centenary of the Great Russian Revolution Sergei Naryshkin gave an exclusive interview to TASS First Deputy General Director Mikhail Gusman, in which he spoke about the significance of this historic event for the citizens of Russia, its assessment in modern Russian society, as well as about the events held throughout the country on the eve of this date.

In Russia, a memorial to all those who died during the revolution and the Civil War may soon appear. This proposal was made by deputies of the State Duma at parliamentary hearings "Centenary of the 1917 Revolution in Russia: International Aspects".

The State Historical Museum is preparing to open the Energy of Dreams exhibition. It will be the final and largest event in the calendar of events dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the Great Russian Revolution.

The International Scientific Conference "Russian Revolution and Constitution" was held in the House of the Russian Historical Society. It brought together dozens of experts from different countries - historians, lawyers, political scientists, economists, culture experts.

The “week of the Russian revolution” has started in Paris: in the coming days, several major scientific forums and other events dedicated to the events of 1917 and their impact on the world will be held in the French capital in the coming days.

There are many myths around the events of February 1917. How was it really? Was there a conspiracy of the elites, why were the reforms of Nicholas II late, and what contributed to the ripening of the revolution?

Georgy Bovt. Photo: Mikhail Fomichev / TASS

These days we will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the February Revolution of 1917. Historians are still arguing about what was the reason for her, and whether it could have been avoided. We heard a lot about what preceded the Great October Socialist Revolution, especially every step of the Bolsheviks preparing that coup. But the eve of February was undeservedly forgotten for a long time. At the same time, the February Revolution, if we keep in mind the Julian calendar then in force in Russia, in fact, is exactly the same “February” as the socialist “October” that followed in the fall. After all, we always celebrated the anniversary of the latter on November 7th.

Around the events of February 1917, a lot of myths have already grown moldy. According to one of them, for example, the reason for the outbreak of riots in Petrograd was the lack of bread and food in general. This is not true. Severe snowstorms, which temporarily interrupted the supply of food to the city, became an occasion only for rumors about the impending famine. In fact, the reserves were for three weeks of autonomous existence. However, the public, which by that time had fallen into a real hysteria from complete distrust of the monarchy, was ready to believe in the most fantastic rumors. And when these rumors were superimposed on the lockout of 30,000 workers at the Putilov plant, and for no particular reason, the trigger mechanism for chaos was set in motion.

And at that moment the emperor leaves Tsarskoye Selo near the capital to headquarter in Mogilev. Some believe that he was lured there, and this was part of the conspiracy. Others attribute everything to Nikolai's cowardice and inability to understand the situation. Still others believe that he could not but respond to reproaches that he was away from the army in the field. And there is another version: he went to headquarters in order to cope with the conspiracy that was brewing there. And the reason was, in particular, that, contrary to his instructions, they did not send faithful units to Petrograd to suppress the unrest, but sent sailors who immediately "sang" with the rebellious workers. Nikolai rode for the units loyal to him.

Was there an elite conspiracy? There is a lot of evidence that he was - both in the State Duma, and not only. Just like there were attempts to mobilize the right for retaliatory forceful actions. It is interesting that Nicholas himself in the winter had already begun to lean towards some constitutional reforms, which could be timed to coincide with the early dissolution of the Duma. But reforms in Russia, as you know, are always late. The emperor planned his actions for the beginning of April in order to coincide with Easter, which fell on April 2, and for the spring offensive at the front. That is, when they say that he did not feel the impending catastrophe at all, this is not entirely true. Rather, he wanted to delay the decisive clash with the very “public” that had rallied against him, place the right people in key positions, and also have power structures behind him ready to suppress the riots. And then to announce the liberalization of the state system, including the creation of the very “responsible government to the Duma”, which the oppositionists sought. Of course, he was very late with his actions, and they were inadequate to the situation. Particularly eloquent, of course, is his resolution in one of his reports, which called for a tougher regime in wartime conditions and the repression of the most rabid radicals: “During the war, public organizations cannot be touched,” Nikolai wrote. It was at the end of January.

No one organized the February Revolution organizationally. But it was brewing in the minds, it was ripening in society and the ruling class, as the moral decay of this ruling class, which suddenly, as if collectively, went crazy from its own fantasies on the topic of freedom and irresponsibility at the same time. February 1917 is, first of all, the moral collapse of the country's elite, and only then the intrigues of British and German intelligence, the ambitious and arrogant actions of the Duma members and the banal betrayal of the Petrograd garrison. Then Bulgakov in "The Heart of a Dog" will formulate this classic - "devastation is not in the closets, it is in the heads." The experience of February is that when such a moment of total devastation comes in the minds, it is already useless to hope for sensible ministers who will save from the crisis, withdraw loyal units from the front or from somewhere else, try to agree on something with the opposition that has entered into a destructive rage. Because it won't help. Although, it would seem, just a month before February 1917, nothing foreshadowed the fall of the Empire.

Presentations were made by: Director of the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexander Chubaryan; Director of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences Yury Petrov; Director of the State Archive of the Russian Federation, Professor Sergei Mironenko; Sergei Kara-Murza, Chief Researcher at the Institute of Social and Political Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Viktor Malkov, Chief Researcher at the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Mikhail Voeikov, Head of the Political Economy Sector at the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Vladimir Lavrov, Chief Researcher at the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences; and other scientists and experts.

Opening the discussion about the meaning and place in the world history of the Russian revolution, Vladimir Medinsky noted that "for all the divergence of views on the events of almost a century ago, we cannot deny the fact that the very attempt to build a just society on earth decisively changed the path of historical development not only of Russia, but had a huge impact on the progress of the peoples of the entire planet."

Vladimir Medinsky stressed that the difference of opinion that exists and should exist in the scientific community is just a reason for dialogue, a basis for compromise, not for conflict:

- An objective study of the period of the revolution allows us today to realize the tragedy of the split of society into opposing sides. It is impossible to divide the ancestors into unambiguously right and wrong, each of the parties understood in its own way how to achieve the prosperity of the motherland. Both Reds and Whites were driven by what we now call patriotism.

You can't start a war with memory. Unconsciousness is a terrible diagnosis.

1. Recognition of the continuity of the historical development of Russia from the Russian Empire, through the USSR to modern Russia.
2. Awareness of the tragedy of the social split caused by the events of 1917 and the subsequent Civil War
3. Respect for the memory of the heroes of both sides - red, white, other parties that were involved in civil confrontation. they all defended their ideals and those who are not guilty of mass repressions and war crimes should enter the single pantheon of eternal memory.
4. Condemnation of the ideology of revolutionary terror
5. Understanding the fallacy of betting on the help of foreign allies.

At the end of his speech, Vladimir Medinsky spoke about the idea of ​​​​creating and installing in Crimea on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Russian revolution the "Monument of Reconciliation", which will prove that "the civil war has finally ended":

- After the Crimea returned, figuratively speaking, "to its native harbor", from there we received an initiative - to establish a monument of reconciliation in Crimea. This idea is in the air. A symbol planted where a civil war ended can indeed be proof that that war is finally over.

Academician Alexander Chubaryan identified several topics for discussion regarding the impact of the Russian Revolution on history:

- Put the revolution in a global context, since as a result of the First World War, four empires disappeared from the world map - Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, German and Russian. The First World War was one of the main events that determined the face of the 20th century. The famous American political scientist George Kenneth said that everything that happened in Europe in the 20th century came out of the First World War.

The theme of the interaction of revolution and reform. The study of the problem of terror and violence in the revolution. The theme of the impact of the revolution on world development. In Soviet times, the theme that the revolution was the cause of social change was very popular. Of course, one cannot exaggerate, but it was with the revolution that theories of the welfare state appeared, and social experiments began in many countries.

Another topic is the relationship between revolution and Leninism with subsequent development. We need to look at the relationship between the Leninist theories of the first years and the system of Stalinist socialism. Is there continuity, what lines did it follow? It is also necessary to return to the problem of the danger of a split of nations. Since the main negative feature of the revolution is a split and an attempt by the opposing sides to assert their point of view by destroying the other side.

Sergey Kara-Murza proposed to consider the Russian revolution as a dialogue and conflict of civilizational projects:

– Both the Russian revolution and perestroika at the end of the 20th century with the subsequent reform showed that in reality civilization is an arena of competition (or struggle, even up to civil war) of several cultural and historical types offering different civilizational projects. One of these types (in coalition with allies) becomes dominant in a particular period and "represents" civilization.

Peter's reforms, despite all the trauma they inflicted on Russia, were not pseudomorphoses, they relied on the will of the cultural and historical type that had developed in the bosom of Russian civilization and was beginning to dominate the public scene. The modernization and development of capitalism in the second half of the 19th century caused a crisis of this cultural-historical type and the strengthening of another, growing on the matrix of modern bourgeois-liberal values. It was a new generation of Russian Westernizers, but not a clone of Western liberals at all.

For a short time, it was this cultural-historical type that led the social processes in Russia and even carried out the bloodless February Revolution of 1917. But it was swept away by a much more powerful wave of the Soviet revolution. Its driving force was the cultural and historical type, which began to take shape long before 1917, but took shape and received a name already as a "Soviet man" after the Civil War.

Russia went through the difficult 20th century, guided by a cultural and historical type that received the name "Soviet man". The Soviet school, army, culture helped to give this cultural-historical type a number of exceptional qualities. When the Soviet type began to experience an identity crisis, the cultural-historical type burst forward, showing the greatest ability to adapt. It can be called philistinism - a product of the crisis of Soviet society.

Viktor Malkov, considering the period of 1914-1918, he noted that Russia, “having passed through a period of dishonestly executed “great reforms” of Alexander II and counter-reforms associated with the name of his son Alexander III, could not fit into the world tide of reformism, conceived with an eye on the future that immediately preceded 1914 and partially captured the war, especially in the field of economics":

“Russia,” wrote V. O. Klyuchevsky back in 1898, “is on the edge of an abyss. Every minute is precious. Everyone feels it and asks questions, what to do? No answer". Another 10 years have passed, and the answer has not been found. The catch-up type of development was also preserved at the crisis moment in the history of 1914–1918, once again confirming the invariance of traditional thinking, i.e. hope for chance and fatalistic lack of will.

Mikhail Voeikov made a report “Russian revolution: one or two?”, and called this question the main problem in understanding the interpretation of the Russian revolution:

– In the Soviet period, it was necessary to scientifically justify the socialist character of the October Revolution and the further construction of socialism in an economically and culturally very backward country. After all, from a scientific point of view, it would be contradictory to make a socialist revolution in an essentially feudal country that did not really go through the stage of capitalist development. The question thus boiled down to determining the degree of development of capitalism in Russia by 1917.

But after the reform of 1861, one can only speak of the beginning of the process of capital accumulation, and even then with a high degree of conventionality. For by the beginning of the first stage of industrialization in the last quarter of that century, there was little own capital in the country. This period is only the beginning of "initial accumulation", which was interrupted by the First World War. There was simply no normal bourgeois (capitalist) society in Russia.

Mikhail Voeikov ended his report with a quote from M. Gorky's Untimely Thoughts:

“The most interesting and significant thing is that the bourgeoisie is growing! Socialist fatherland and suddenly - the bourgeois is growing! And such, you know, the harvest for him, like a porcini mushroom in a damp summer. Such a petty bourgeois, but - strong, vigorous.

“Today, too, the bourgeois has become vigorous,” Mikhail Voeikov summed up.

Vladimir Lavrov declared his disagreement with the theses that determined the attitude towards the revolution, which were put forward at the opening of the round table, and called for repentance, which should include state and legal condemnation of what Lenin and Stalin committed. Vladimir Lavrov called the holy Patriarch Tikhon, who at that time headed the Russian Orthodox Church, the main authority in relation to the revolution:

- In the New Year's sermon on the first day of the 18th year, the Patriarch gave his assessment of what is happening: “The past year was the year of building the Russian state. But alas! Doesn't it remind us of the sad experience of the Babylonian construction? ... This arrogant undertaking suffers the same fate as the plans of the Babylonians: instead of good, bitter disappointment is brought. The Most High will laugh at our plans and destroy our counsels.”

And in conclusion, the fundamental position of the Russian Orthodox Church is formulated: “The Church condemns such construction, and we strongly warn that we will not have any success until we remember God, without whom nothing good can be done…”.

The patriarch spoke out against the massacres in Petrograd, Moscow, Irkutsk, Sevastopol and other cities of the fatherland. As you know, the most bloody was the execution of a peaceful demonstration in support of the Constituent Assembly in Petrograd: “Come to your senses, madmen, stop your massacres,” the Orthodox pastor demanded. - After all, what you are doing is not only a cruel deed: it is truly a satanic deed, for which you are subject to the fire of Gehenna in the future life - the afterlife and the terrible curse of posterity in the present life - earthly. By the authority given to us from God, we forbid you to approach the Mysteries of Christ, anathematizing you ... ".

That is, the leaders of the Communist Party, primarily Lenin, were anathematized. And the darkness of this age - such is the spiritually and morally consistent definition of socialism under construction.

Earlier, the onset of 1918, and now the first anniversary of the October Socialist Revolution, "forces Us to tell you a bitter word of truth," said the Patriarchal Address to the Council of People's Commissars of November 7. “By tempting the dark and ignorant people with the possibility of easy and unpunished gain, you have clouded their conscience, drowned out the consciousness of sin in them; but no matter what names the atrocities are covered with, murder, violence, robbery will always remain serious and crying out to heaven for vengeance by sins and crimes. Yes, we are experiencing a terrible time of your dominion, and for a long time it will not be blotted out from the soul of the people, clouding the image of God in it and imprinting in it the image of the beast.

Speaking about the future, about how to get out of the black hole in which we found ourselves, the Patriarch in the Message of October 8, 1919 said that “no foreign interference, and no one and nothing in general, will save Russia from disorder and ruin, until The just Lord will not turn His wrath on mercy until the people themselves are cleansed in the font of repentance from their many years of ulcers, otherwise they will not be reborn spiritually ... "

This is the most important position - no one will save us except ourselves, but repentance is necessary. But it does not exist, and I think that it is necessary and should include the state, legal condemnation of what was committed by Lenin, Stalin. Without this, there will be no revival of Russia, no proper economic development.

Undoubtedly, the Patriarch considered it impossible to consolidate with those who served Satanism - with red demons. The upcoming anniversary is alarming. For 100 years, by the grace of God and the feat of the New Martyrs, we were able to survive the communist yoke, but we did not overcome it.

I am afraid that the Lord will not change mercy to anger. Today, a lot of good things have been said, but a lot of unsaid, there is a feeling that the authors of the appeal, like snakes in a frying pan, curl in order to remain objective and at the same time come to terms with the Stalin-Lenin party. It's impossible.

As the holy Matrona of Moscow said, "If the people do not repent, they will disappear."

From the editor:

2017 marks the 100th anniversary of the dramatic events associated with the two Russian revolutions - February and October 1917. The revolutionary upheavals of that year not only affected the current life in the state, but also changed the very course of its history. The regime established after October 1917 opened a new page in a sad series of persecutions against Christians and religion in general. Today in our country there is a public discussion about the causes and consequences of the revolutions of 1917. Various alternative scenarios for the development of events are considered, as well as numerous conspiracy theories about the causes and driving forces of these phenomena. Periodically, a version is voiced about the involvement of the Old Believers in revolutionary events. In this regard, our site opens a series of articles in order to cover this difficult topic as truthfully as possible.

***

The period of life of the Old Believers after the famous decree of 1905 of the emperor Nicholas II about strengthening the principles of religious tolerance seemed to be the beginning of a new path. Temples were printed, hundreds of new churches were built, publishing and educational activities expanded. It seemed that the dark times of persecution of the Church of Christ were fading into the past forever. At the same time, many unresolved economic and political problems remained in the country. So, a sharp conflict was around the agrarian issue - the land remained in the ownership of the landowners. The position of the workers remained difficult - the existing labor legislation did not meet modern requirements. The situation was complicated by some historical circumstances, such as Russia's entry into the bloody First World War or " Rasputinism» within the walls of the imperial family.

These and other reasons led to the revolutionary events of February 1917, when the dynasty Romanovs was removed from power. The newly created Provisional Government announced its intention to remove all restrictions on the activities of religious associations. On July 14, 1917, the corresponding Decree “On Freedom of Conscience” appeared, which significantly expanded the rights of citizens to religious self-determination. For example, it said: “Every citizen of the Russian State is guaranteed freedom of conscience. Therefore, the enjoyment of civil and political rights does not depend on belonging to a religion, and no one can be persecuted and limited in any rights for convictions in matters of faith.. These and other similar resolutions aroused great hopes in all the Old Believer agreements, the meetings of communities and dioceses expressed their support for the Provisional Government.

In April 1917, an extraordinary congress of the Old Believers of the Belokrinitskaya hierarchy was held. Its resolution stated:

The Church cannot be in the service of state power, the Church must renounce all encroachments to domination ... The complete separation of the Church from the state and the freedom of religious groups located in Russia will serve only for the good, greatness and prosperity of free Russia.

In Moscow, St. Petersburg and other cities in the spring and summer of 1917, dozens of large and small meetings of the Old Believer concords were held. Through joint efforts, the Organizing Committee of Moscow Old Believers of all accords was created, which came out in May 1917 with a joint program of political and spiritual transformations. It was proposed to hold a Constituent Assembly, which would establish the form of government and the federal structure of the future Russian state, equalize the rights of all confessions and adopt a law on the separation of the Church from the state. As the basis of the state, the Old Believers proposed the so-called people-right (republican) form of government, modeled on the ancient Russian republics of Pskov and Veliky Novgorod. The Old Believer societies also called for the return of the capital from Petrograd to Moscow. The congress supported the provisional government and appealed to the Prime Minister, Prince Georgy Evgenievich Lvov. The telegram said: ... welcoming the Provisional Government in your person, we express to it full confidence and confidence that under its wise leadership God will save Russia from the coming anarchy and external enemy» .

All over the country, Old Believer meetings gathered, at which the most sincere hopes for transformation were expressed. So, the Christians of Yegorievsk at their meeting on April 17, 1917 adopted a resolution very characteristic of that time, where they noted that “ they sincerely rejoice at the overthrow of the painful oppression of the despotic power of an irresponsible government, alien to the Russian spirit - an oppression that fettered the development of the spiritual and material forces of the country; they also rejoice in all the proclaimed freedoms: speech, press, personality» .

Support was also expressed for the Provisional Government in anticipation of the convening of the main constitutional body of Russia - the Constituent Assembly, " which will establish firm foundations for the foundations of firm power, consolidate the promised freedoms and calm the country» . The same meeting condemned the attempt by some groups to seize power by force or negotiate separately with Germany, which was at war with Russia. Yegorievsk Old Believers prophetically pointed out that such attempts would end " civil war and then anarchy, the consequences of which, of course, are disastrous» . On the other hand, the appeals and articles of the Old Believers were also found in the moderate social democratic press.

In the summer of 1917, the religious situation became more complicated mainly because the war with Germany was continuing, claiming thousands of lives, and the Provisional Government could not find a way out of this situation. On the one hand, the signing of a separate peace with Germany threatened a serious defeat, on the other hand, there were no forces and means to continue the war. Also, the issue of land was not resolved, millions of peasants were waiting for the immediate transfer of land to their property. In the autumn of 1917, a deep government crisis erupted in the country. Under the pressure of the radical left forces, the Provisional Government fell, and the Bolsheviks came to power, who dispersed the Constituent Assembly and established a dictatorship of personal power.

In November 1917, immediately after the overthrow of the Provisional Government, the bishop wrote to the bishop Filaret of Kazan-Vyatsky (Parshikov): « Yes, the “Bolsheviks” create so many troubles that great Russia becomes a poor “Dispersion”, from the “dispersion of peoples” that made it up: Finland, Latvia, Ukraine, the Caucasus, Crimea, Don, Siberia, and maybe the Volga and so on are separated. , etc. Lenin and Co. will conclude a separate peace with Germany, and the allies, having united with Germany, will steal the remnants for debts and enslave for hundreds of years the unfortunate Russian people, who have lost not only their conscience, but also faith in God, as the Moscow fratricidal war proved when they spared neither the icons of the saints nor the temples. Oh my God, what have we come to! Why, O God, turn away Your face from us?»

In many places, the Old Believer communities refused to recognize the new government. So, under the chairmanship of the bishop, a meeting of the Don Diocese was held, which spoke out against the October coup. Bishop, the future Belokrinitsky Metropolitan, was the first to write a prayer for the deliverance of Russia from the godless power of the Bolsheviks.

Already in the first years after the October Revolution, it became clear that the Bolshevik Party set itself the task of fighting not only the bourgeois classes, but also the Church and religion as such. The resolution of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) of 1921 stated: “ Both in anti-religious debates and in the press… systematically emphasize that the RCP is fighting not against any particular religious groups, but against any religious worldview in general» .

The resolution of the XII Congress of the RCP (b) in 1923 on anti-religious agitation and propaganda indicated: “The work of the party for the final destruction of religious beliefs in all forms among the worker and peasant masses inevitably acquires, first of all, the character of in-depth systematic propaganda, clearly and convincingly revealing to each worker and peasant lies and contradiction to his interests of any religion” .

However, the real persecution of the Church unfolded not even in the 1920s, but even earlier, in the very first months after the revolution. Signed Lenin On January 23, 1918, the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars "On the separation of the church from the state and the school from the church" deprived religious associations of the right to property and form a legal entity. Article 13 of the decree presented a particular danger to the Old Believer Church: “Buildings and objects intended specifically for liturgical purposes are given, by special decrees of local or central state authorities, to the free use of the respective religious societies” .

Unlike the synodal church, whose church buildings (monasteries, temples, chapels, etc.) were originally created as specialized places of worship, many Old Believer churches and prayer houses (especially those built before 1905) were built as an integral part of private property and even residential premises. This situation arose due to continuous persecution in tsarist times, when it was almost impossible for the Old Believers to officially formalize the construction of a separate Old Believer church.

Of the 46 officially registered Old Believer churches and prayer rooms in Moscow in 1917, only 16 were separate buildings. The rest, including a significant number of unregistered prayer houses and churches, were defined by the authorities as " brownies”, private, not created specifically for the performance of worship and, therefore, subject to liquidation. Already in 1918, the Old Believer Teachers' Institute was closed, as well as other spiritual and charitable institutions on Rogozhsky.

In 1919, under the pretext of transferring the premises to the insurance fund, the prayer room of Sts. Peter and Paul on Luzhnetskaya. In 1923-1924. churches and prayer rooms of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus in Gzhelsky lane, Introduction to the Church of the Most Holy Theotokos in the house of the Spiridonovs on Malaya Andronovka, St. Sergius of Radonezh on the Izmailovsky highway, the Apostle Matthew in the house of M. S. Kuznetsov on 1st Meshchanskaya and many others.

The temples left by the Old Believers now de jure belonged to the state and were used by believers on a leasehold basis. The contract for the lease of the building was drawn up between the local religious community and the Gubernia Executive Committee, which could terminate the contract at any time for the most far-fetched and fictitious reasons. For example, in response to " workers' letter» to local authorities with a request to organize a club in the building of the temple.

Seizing the buildings of temples, monasteries and prayer houses was far from the only way to fight the Church. Even earlier, at the beginning of 1918, all periodicals of the Old Believers were closed. In the summer of 1925, the Politburo of the RSDLP (b) decided to allow the publication of only that religious literature that was used exclusively for liturgical purposes. However, soon the publication of any religious literature was actually banned.

The most devastating impact on the Old Believers and other socio-political events. At the end of 1917, banks were nationalized, and in the first half of 1918, all branches of heavy and light industry were nationalized in stages. The class of the Old Believer merchants, industrialists and entrepreneurs, who were the main benefactors of the Church, ceased to exist.

No less a blow to the Old Believers was dealt by the policy of the so-called " decossackization". On December 12, 1918, the Supreme Revolutionary Council of the RSFSR issued an instruction:

The persons listed in the paragraphs are subject to mandatory extermination: all generals; landlords; staff and chief officers; district, village and farm atamans; all counter-revolutionaries and - all the Cossacks.

Thus, during the years of the civil war, as well as in the course of collectivization, one of the important social pillars of the Church was destroyed.

The outbreak of civil war, provoked by the October Revolution and the establishment of the Bolshevik dictatorship, divided the Old Believer dioceses, cut off the Moscow Archdiocese from the rest of the dioceses of Russia. During the Civil War, many Old Believers opposed the godless Bolshevik dictatorship. Among them was the hero of the First World War Kozma Kryuchkov. His presence in the ranks of the Cossacks was the best campaign for volunteers. At the end of August 1919, Kozma died in battle near the village of Lopukhovka, Saratov province. He was buried in the cemetery of his native farm.

The name of another Cossack is fanned with legends - the Old Believer priest of the 1st Ural consolidated regiment Mokiya Kabaeva who blessed the Cossack regiments to fight the godless regime. After the end of the Civil War, he refused to leave his native land, was arrested and shot by the Bolsheviks in 1921. Now Mokiy Kabaev is revered by the South Ural Cossacks as a locally revered saint.

Otherwise, the fate of the priest John Kudrin, who officially held the position of the chief Old Believer priest of the army and navy of the supreme ruler of Russia, Admiral Alexander Vasilyevich Kolchak. After the Civil War, he emigrated abroad, where he founded a number of Old Believer parishes in China and Australia, some of which still exist today. Among them is the Church of Peter and Paul in Sydney.

After the end of the civil war, the spiritual life of the Old Believer Church began to improve little by little. A characteristic feature of her life in troubled revolutionary and post-revolutionary times, unlike the synodal church, was the absence of any schisms, " autocephalous", renovationism, movements" forgetful”, etc. The Church has preserved its integrity and unity, thanks to its inherent spirit of catholicity. However, the persecution of religion, which began after the October Revolution, continued to intensify. clergy, or clergymen”, as they were then called in Soviet laws and the media, were equated with kulaks, former White Guard officers, nobles and entrepreneurs, taxes for them increased tenfold from 1928 to 1930. This put the Old Believer clergy on the brink of survival.

In 1930, the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks "On measures to eliminate kulak farms in areas of complete collectivization" was promulgated. The new policy of the Soviet government largely hit the rural Old Believers, which were based on wealthy peasants, called kulaks in Soviet times. The decree presupposed either their imprisonment in concentration camps, or expulsion to remote areas of the USSR.

Simultaneously with the struggle against the kulaks, the authorities began a large-scale closure of rural Old Believer churches and monasteries. The latter were liquidated not only as religious centers, but also as efficient farms competing with the collective farms being created. A similar thing happened in the cities: by the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, only one functioning church of the Russian Orthodox Church remained in Moscow -.

Not only the closure of churches has become a terrible sign of the times. A total and merciless struggle against religion was going on in all directions. The policy of destruction of religion, announced by the Bolsheviks after the tragic October 1917, led to terrible consequences. Thousands of priests and believers were repressed, an anti-religious worldview was implanted in schools, the result of which was lack of spirituality, loss of respect for Russian history, church and folk traditions. And although more than 25 years have passed since the period of godlessness and the struggle against religion, the legacy of this era continues to be felt, and much remains to be done by the Church of Christ in order to overcome the atheistic fruits of the October Revolution of 1917.

Decree of the Provisional Government "On freedom of conscience" (July 14, 1917) // Church Gazette. 1917. No. 31. July 29. pp. 247-248.
. Kozlov V.F. Moscow Old Believers in the first third of the 20th century. / Old Believers in Russia. Moscow, 1999. S. 197.