Today is the anniversary of the death of citizen Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov with his family. They raised a fuss on this issue - God forbid, therefore, it is simply necessary to speak out.
Well, first of all, I am extremely wary of the characters who scream with foam at the mouth … It doesn't matter what. So, in the part of the "anointed of God" they scream desperately, why I have a desire to ask them a question: July 16 is the anniversary of the tragic death of the anointed of God Emperor Ivan VI (John Antonovich) (born 12 [23] August 1740 - was killed 5 [16] July 1764 in Shlisselburg). Quite a legitimate emperor, who was kept in prison for many years and then killed. Question: why is there no howl about him? Is he anointed or not? Was he a victim of a bloody massacre or not? Why are there no screams?
As is clear, there are several answers here. The first is that those who yell, in reality, do not really understand what they are yelling and who does what gesheft on this (we will talk about geshefts a hundred years ago separately). But the puppeteers know very well that the question is not at all about the "anointed one" (since after renunciation it is not even very clear whether he retained his "goodness"), but about completely different questions. For example, that it would be necessary to restore the tsarist regime and put the "right" person at the head of Russia. From the point of view of such interests, as is clear, John Antonovich is not in business - which certainly cannot be the case when it comes to the murder of the anointed one. By the way, Ioann Antonovich did not renounce anywhere, he was in prison and was killed in the status of that same anointed and legitimate emperor.
Further, the question arises about the fate of, say, Paul I and Alexander II. Again, with the anointed, the situation is very similar to John Antonovich and somewhat less to Nicholas II, who, at the time of his death, was certainly not an emperor. And so another question arises: who and when destroyed the empire? In February 1917. Why did all these people live well in the West and no one judged them? Did they commit a crime? Or not?
And now the most interesting aspect arises. Let's remember how many empires were in Europe and the surrounding area at that time? A lot: British, German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Russian (who did not understand - this is approximately from west to east). How much is left? One, British. Question: is there any information that the British Empire fought with competitors? Answer: such information is above the roof. What is the conclusion from this: by the way, British special services were involved in the February Revolution, as well as in the murder of Paul I. And their goal was to dismember Russia (as the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires were dismembered, and even, in part, the German empire) and take for themselves what “lies badly”.
Another dark matter, which is very much in line with the interests of individual foreign characters. The provisional government tried to merge the family of citizen Romanov with his cousin, the British emperor, in England. And it was refused. Which in itself testifies to the fact that England is in this business, as they say, "in business." Under what - we'll see further.
By the way, the plan to "take away" began to be implemented immediately after the outbreak of the Civil War (which was organized by units of the Czechoslovak corps and picked up by the former Russian Admiral Kolchak, who was in the British service). Why did you start? And there were already agreements on the division of the country. And then, all of a sudden, for no reason, no reason, the Great October Socialist Revolution! Which decided that the agreements of specific characters of the Provisional Government are not worth a dime and we must act differently. By the way, they had an abundance of information about what the Provisional Government was doing there: the last war ministers of the Provisional Government, Verkhovsky and Manikovsky, were in the leadership of the Red Army.
Well, under the guise of the Civil War, they began to chop off pieces of Russia. And they did it extremely effectively, how many invaders killed the Russian people (that the British were in Murmansk and the surrounding area, that the Americans and Japanese were in the Far East, only the French were at their best) is even scary to enumerate. Tellingly, the same people who are foaming at the mouth screaming about the hundredth anniversary of the death of the "anointed of God" regularly find the graves of the victims of the "red" terror, but they cannot find the graves of the victims of the "white" terror and the terror of the invaders! Well, just nothing! Amazing business!
Promotional video:
And here's the fun part. The Council of People's Commissars, the new government of Russia, was not at all interested in being branded as a bloodthirsty gang. But in the conditions of the Civil War it was difficult to guarantee something, and the family of the aforementioned former “anointed one” lived in Tobolsk. And the Council of People's Commissars decided to transfer her to Moscow. In logic, that the "anointed one" needs to be judged (and if it turns out to prove something, then condemn, especially since the Bolsheviks had clean hands: they called for the overthrow of the monarchy, but they did not really do anything like that, they were and was not practically in Russia), and the family can be protected in Moscow. Since in the course of the movement across Russia many people appeared, under the most plausible pretexts, with reference to the "opinion of the common people", to kill them. Well, we know who refers to the "opinion of the people" (here, recently, I learned that the people, it turns out,practically in full force for raising the retirement age, which is typical for both those, then, and those who today in the government and the Central Bank stand the same forces … let's call them, for simplicity, international financiers).
Whose control was Yekaterinburg under then? Who in Moscow oversaw the Ural Soviet, which was led by the prominent Trotskyist Beloborodov, who was shot for this in 1938? They were supervised by Yakov Sverdlov, a man whose connections went far beyond the borders of Russia. His brother was a banker in New York (then, however, he returned and also disappeared in the 30s), another brother was de Gaulle's most faithful ally in the war, his sister was married to Yagoda, one of the leaders of the Cheka … Well, his connections in criminal environment (Sverdlov's father was a major merchant of stolen goods in Nizhny Novgorod, it was not for nothing that rumors about the robbery of the patriarchal sacristy in Moscow in 1918 led to Sverdlov). Well, let's not forget - the attempt on Lenin's life was also, most likely, his doing. Here, however, did not pass, after which Sverdlov died quite quickly (there is an opinion that it was not entirely by chance). In general, the character was extremely gloomy.
So, on my website there is material that says that it was international financiers who gave the command to kill the family of citizen Romanov. But even without him, the ears stick out here quite clearly. There is no information about the decision of the Council of People's Commissars to murder the family of citizen Romanov, there is only a conversation between Sverdlov and Beloborodov. But there is little information about the existence of such a conversation; we also need, as criminologists say, a motive!
But the motive is just there! Even two. The first is purely financial. Since Russia was an absolute monarchy, rather large of its assets located abroad were registered with Nicholas II. Personally. And in order to appropriate them, it was fundamentally important not only to kill all direct heirs, but to do it so that no material traces (graves, death certificates, and so on) remain. And whatever you think - that's exactly what happened.
The question is, why should the Bolsheviks deprive themselves of the opportunity to obtain these assets? Yes, at that time no one would have given them anything, but then, as relations developed (and as we know, they developed to the point that the USSR and England were allies in World War II), it was quite possible to appeal to the fact that the heir to the absolute monarch Nikolai Romanov is the successor to Tsarist Russia. Of course, there were problems here (since under Lenin all obligations were canceled), but, nevertheless, there was a subject for bargaining. Not to mention the relatives of Nicholas II himself, who could also claim something. If there were at least some documents … And there were none left.
The second motive is more subtle. The Romanov family represented the interests of Russia in the world elite. And their elimination (all, at the root) greatly reduced the authority and capabilities of our country on the world stage. Yes, Stalin fully reached the level of Roosevelt and Churchill, but they were leaders at the administrative level. Power has always belonged to others. And here we have a serious failure. We do not even have the right of an advisory vote today at the table of the real world elite. A hundred years have passed. Now, however, there is a chance to win back the situation, but - only a chance. And my article is not about that.
The liquidation of the Romanovs was so beneficial to the world financial elite, which at that time was based in London, that any author of detective stories would not even think about who was to blame. A multilevel special operation was carried out and, in general, it almost achieved success. Only the appearance of Stalin was not foreseen, but a genius - he is a genius because you cannot figure him out. And we have only one question: but now why is this topic being pulled out and forced to show activity with foam? There is an answer to it.
Well, firstly, for today there is a document on the death of the Romanovs. And that means we can talk about the heirs. And about their rights. Which many people do not want. Secondly, as I already said, there is a chance in the process of the crisis reformatting of the world elite (in which bankers, for the most part, will go into oblivion) to restore our (that is, Russia) presence in the world elite. And someone really wants these representatives to be their people. And, thirdly, I really want to distract the public's attention from the real events of 1918. That is, who actually benefited from everything, who organized everything and who suffered from it.
I am not against Nikolai Romanov. I am for the historical truth!
MIKHAIL KHAZIN