Who knows the history of the Russian czar?

1996 79 years passed and the tsar was overthrown? 19 17 was overturned.

On June 65438+1 October1day, 2008, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation made a final decision, recognizing that the last Russian Tsar Nicholas II and his family were victims of political repression in the Soviet Union and rehabilitating them. At the same time, the decision 165438+ made by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme Court of Russia on June 8, 2007 was revoked, and Nicholas II and his family did not belong to the object of rehabilitation. At this point, in the words of defense lawyer Luqi Anoff, the trial of the case came to a successful conclusion.

Nicholas II (romanov Nikolai Aleksandrovic)1868+was born in Huangcun in May 2009,1June 894 +2 1 year1October, and1March 5. Later, Nicholas II and his family were placed under house arrest by the interim government of kerensky. After the victory of the October Revolution, the Tsar family was imprisoned by the Bolshevik regime. In July 19 18, they were transferred to Ibat Ye Fu apartment in Yekaterinburg. Nicholas II's wife Alexandra Fedoroff is a descendant of the German royal family. She was born in 1872, became the queen of Russia in 1894, and gave birth to four daughters and one son for Nicholas II. 1918 July 17 Late at night, Nicholas II's family, together with his janitor, chef, servant and maid, were secretly shot dead in the basement of their apartment, and the body was burned by the executioner, and was buried beside the old Coptic Diacov road not far from Yekaterinburg. 199 1 In July, Nicholas II and his family were found there, but the bodies of Nicholas II's son Alexei and daughter Mary were gone.

The disintegration of the Soviet Union, the discovery of the remains of the last Tsar and his family, and the promulgation of the Law on the Rehabilitation of the Persecuted in the Russian Federation have caused great differences in the positions and views of Russians on the repression of Nicholas II and his family members, which can be divided into two types: supporting the rehabilitation of Nicholas II's family and holding reservations and opposing attitudes. The current regime and the Orthodox Church are the representatives who support the restoration, while the Russian Production Party is the representative who has reservations and objections. The Russian government specially entrusted Chubais, then Deputy Prime Minister, to lead and be responsible for the identification of the remains of Nicholas II and his family. 1993, the remains of the last tsar and his family were examined at the British Crime Research Center; 1995, the remains were examined at the Military Medical Research Center of the US Department of Defense. Finally, these remains were examined again in 1997+0 1 Judicial Expertise Center of Russian Ministry of Health. 1998 65438+1On October 30th, the Russian government expert committee officially confirmed and declared the remains to be true. A month later, on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the murder of Nicholas II's family, the Russian government decided to bury the body in the ancestral cemetery of the Russian royal family in Peter Paul Cathedral in St. Petersburg on July 17 of that year. The burial ceremony was very grand, 19 salute. Members of the government, celebrities and more than 60 members of the Romanov family attended the funeral, and then the Russian President also appeared at the funeral and delivered a speech. On the same day, Orthodox churches all over Russia held memorial services for the dead. Prior to this, on July 14, Yekaterinburg held a ceremony to move out the remains of Nicholas II and his family. This year, Russia also issued a special commemorative stamp with a face value of 3 rubles and pictures of Nicholas II and his family. In 2000, the Russian Orthodox Church named Nicholas II and his family as "innocent great martyrs". At this point, the rehabilitation of Nicholas II and his family has actually been completed.

However, in the next eight years, due to the lack of legal evidence, the process of formally restoring the reputation of Nicholas II and his family encountered obstacles. On June 5438+February 1 day, 2005, Princess Maria Vladi Mirov, the granddaughter of Nicholas II's cousin and now living in Spain, submitted an application for rehabilitation to the Russian General Prosecutor's Office, demanding that Nicholas II and his family be rehabilitated. It is based on Article 8 of the Law on Rehabilitation of Persecuted Politicians promulgated by Russia. She believes that what happened to Nicholas II and his family conforms to the conditions that they were suppressed during the Soviet period and were victims of the Soviet system, so they should be completely rehabilitated. The Russian General Prosecutor's Office refused to accept the case on the grounds that it was not a political repression, but a criminal murder. Maria Vladi Mirov refused to accept the decision and filed a lawsuit in the Tver court in Moscow. However, on May 25th, 2006, the Tver Court made a judgment supporting the position of the Russian General Prosecutor's Office, and on June 28th, 2006, it refused to adopt a supplementary decision on the case of the Tsar's family rehabilitation. After that, the Duchess appealed to the Moscow City Court, and the High Court revoked the judgment of the Tver Court after examination and instructed it to reopen the trial. However, the Russian General Prosecutor's Office has not changed its original position. At the court hearing on June 165438+ 10/4, 2006, representatives of the Russian General Prosecutor's Office stressed in court that criminals deprived Nicholas II and his family of their lives, and their deaths had nothing to do with the state. Therefore, there is no reason for the Attorney General's Office to change its position. But this time, the presiding judge Andrei konya Zef did not accept the view of the General Prosecutor's Office, ruled that it was "illegal" for the General Prosecutor's Office to refuse to accept Maria Vladimirov's application for rehabilitation, and instructed the General Prosecutor's Office to accept the application and reopen the trial.

The following year, the Tver court twice urged the Russian General Prosecutor's Office to speed up the trial of the case, and in the second decision on June 25, 2007, it asked the General Prosecutor's Office to make a determination within three months whether the shooting of Nicholas II and his family was a political repression. On June 5438+065438+ 10, 2007, the Russian General Prosecutor's Office rejected Maria Vladimirov's application again for lack of evidence. In fact, until June 65438+1 October1day, 2008, the Presidium of the Russian Supreme Court made a resolution to rehabilitate Nicholas II and his family, and no convincing evidence about the shooting case was found. The Supreme Court changed its position only because it changed the way and angle of handling cases, and no longer paid attention to the fact of insufficient evidence. Instead, it just tried to proceed from general historical facts and handle cases in a logical way, so that the judgment finally met the requirements of the plaintiff and was finally recognized by law.

The main reason why the lawsuit could not be finally closed was that although the relevant personnel secretly executed the Nicholas II family at that time, the procuratorate could not find the relevant judgment of the court at that time, nor could it find any resolution, relevant documents or written materials of the central revolutionary regime. In other words, the Russian General Prosecutor's Office has no conclusive direct evidence to prove that the execution of the Nicholas II family was related to the judgment of the judicial department at that time, and there is no evidence to prove that it was the result of the corresponding decision made by the Supreme Soviet regime at that time. Since there is no direct evidence that the central state organs at that time were not at fault, they did not have to bear corresponding responsibilities; Since there is no direct evidence, there is no need for the current central government to create a wrong fact out of thin air and then correct it. What's more, there is no file in the historical confidential files that even indirectly accuses or condemns the czar and his family, so there is no prerequisite and condition for rehabilitation.

In addition, the investigation of the General Prosecutor's Office also obtained some historical data and basis contrary to the expected goal. First of all, Russia's nascent Soviet revolutionary regime had planned a large-scale judicial trial of the last monarch. Therefore, Lenin criticized the newly-built all-Russian court for its wrong position, believing that its actions safeguarded the interests of Germans and Alexandra Fedoroff, and asked the court to admit its mistake and change its position. This shows that, at least before the great trial, the Soviet central government did not intend to execute the last czar, let alone his family. Second, the civil war that began immediately changed Lenin's trial plan. Because Yekaterinburg is in the front line of fighting against the white bandits, the city may give up and the risk of moving all the detainees out is too great. Therefore, the Urals Party Committee at that time reported to Moscow and asked for advice on how to deal with all the detainees, but it did not get instructions from the central government to "clean" the detainees. Third, the Urals Executive Committee adopted a decision to suppress "special families" in June 2008 19 16, but this decision was in conflict with the laws promulgated by the Soviet regime at that time, so it could not be considered as a state decision. Moreover, although the decision was "official", the Attorney General's Office found no direct evidence, such as instructions or orders to execute Nicholas II and his family in the Urals.

It is worth mentioning that the Russian General Prosecutor's previous decision against rehabilitation does not reflect its political stance against the president and the government, but only reflects its compliance with its own functions and technical requirements and rules in the process of law enforcement. In fact, as early as the Khrushchev period in the last century, the Soviet regime had restored the reputation of some members of the Tsar family. In addition, 1996, at the request of an organization named "St. Petersburg Monument Association", the Russian General Prosecutor's Office, after three years of investigation, also rehabilitated four royal relatives who were suppressed by "Cheka", but did not rehabilitate the other 20 royal deceased who were shot, on the grounds that their deaths had nothing to do with the judicial organs and the state, and there was no relevant judgment or resolution of the state organs that could reflect political motives.

In sharp contrast with the position and attitude of the ruling forces and the church, it is Russia's position and viewpoint. After the Russian Supreme Court made a resolution to rehabilitate Nicholas II and his family, Russia immediately responded. Ivan melnikov, a member of the All-Russia Party and vice chairman of the State Duma, pointed out that this was only a short and temporary decision, and the presidium of the Supreme Court's interpretation of this issue would be revised sooner or later, and "everything would return to its original position". He believes that it is best not to deny the facts and comments that have been tested by a long history, which will make the present society a mess. He said that the affection for the Tsar family was just a beautiful myth imagined by some researchers, but they deliberately forgot the fact that it was all the working people who made a historic judgment on the Tsar family and put it into practice. He believes that this is the logical result of the long-term accumulated anger of the working people against the tsarist system. He admitted that from a modern point of view, it was inhuman, but it was understandable at that time, because breaking with the tsar required the most thorough means. Therefore, to rehabilitate the tsar and his family now is at least disrespectful to history and extremely dangerous. In the eyes of other "leftists", Nicholas II is a sinner of history because he took severe measures to suppress the workers' demonstration in St. Petersburg in 1905+ 10 and several uprisings in China during 1905- 1906. They are also worried that after rehabilitating the last Tsar and his family, some topics that are not conducive to "Left", such as moving the capital to Lenin's mausoleum, will be heated again.

In short, Nicholas II and his family were rehabilitated 90 years after their death, which largely showed the historical evolution trend of Russian social and political values in the past century, including development and progress, stagnation and rumination, which is worth pondering and pondering.