Is Rasputin a "victim of Russia" or of British intelligence?

Table of contents:

Is Rasputin a "victim of Russia" or of British intelligence?
Is Rasputin a "victim of Russia" or of British intelligence?

Recently, the British press called Rasputin a victim of Russia - the first in a series that ends with Litvinenko, Skripals and other of our contemporaries. However, Western historical sources indicate that he was killed by a representative of the British authorities. At first glance, this is absurd: Rasputin objectively did not threaten Britain with anything. Why was he destroyed by her? Oddly enough, the whole thing is in the Russian opposition, which managed to instill in the British ambassador an absolutely incredible conspiracy theory. We understand the details of what happened.

Grigory Rasputin

The words "Rasputin" and "Rasputinism" have long become an element of pop culture for Russia. Back in 1916, a bizarre combination of press propaganda and popular rumors gave rise to a peculiar picture: allegedly Grigory Rasputin is in a love (or rather, physiological) connection with the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. And in the end he decides who will become a minister and who will cease to be.

In the opinion of the people - and the opposition, he even wanted to conclude peace with Germany, giving her part of the Russian lands. The Empress, a "German" woman, entered into an agreement with an immoral old man - either under his influence, or sympathizing with Germany, her homeland. This point of view played a major role in the mass discontent of the people during the First World War. The population did not understand how it was possible to wage a world war under the leadership of a weak-willed king, under whose nose a natural brothel and high treason were taking place.


When the tsar abdicated in 1917, all these ideas were instantly embodied in theatrical performances and even movies. Their names say enough so that we do not retell the plots: the movie "Dark Forces: Grigory Rasputin and His Companions" (March 12, 1917), "People of Sin and Blood. Tsarskoye Selo sinners "," The love affairs of Grishka Rasputin. " The Provisional Government created a whole commission to document the "crimes of the Rasputin regime", and in the USSR the results of its activities were published.


Now we have enough data to understand what actually happened around Rasputin during the First World War. And we have to admit: this is a much more exciting story than it seemed a hundred years ago. And the funny thing is that Rasputin was not a "victim of Russia." His life was cut short by the hand of a man from the British Empire, whose media today accuse our country of eliminating the “holy devil”. But first things first.

Did Rasputin rule over ladies from high society - and did he appoint ministers through them?

As you know, Rasputin came to St. Petersburg as a kind of "man of God" - a native of peasants who hung around for a long time in holy places, a kind of guru from the category "Bring me three rubles, and I will give you a lot of wisdom for that." All sources agree on this, and the very type of such a person has not gone anywhere in Russia today.

But as far as the alleged influence of Rasputin on the ladies is concerned, we must figure it out once and for all, otherwise we will not understand anything about his figure as a whole. Three sources are usually named that speak of such an influence (the rest are their retellings). Here is an excerpt from the memoirs of the noblewoman Tatyana Grigorova-Rudykovskaya, who claimed to have seen sexual practices between Rasputin and the ladies of the court society:


“… There was nothing Russian in it.Thick black hair, a big black beard … The first thing that attracted attention was his eyes: black, red-hot, they burned, piercing through, and his gaze at you was felt simply physically, you could not remain calm. It seems to me that he really had a hypnotic power, subduing him when he wanted to. He casually sat down at the table, addressed each by name and "you", spoke boldly, sometimes vulgarly and rudely, beckoned to him, put on his knees, groped, stroked, patted on the soft places, and all the "happy" were thrilled with pleasure! Impudently addressing one of those present, he said: “Do you see? Who embroidered the shirt? Sasha! " (meaning Empress Alexandra Feodorovna). Not a single decent man would ever betray the secret of a woman's feelings … Rasputin throws one leg over the other, takes a spoonful of jam and throws it over the toe of his boot. "Lick", - the voice sounds imperiously, she kneels down and, tilting her head, licks the jam …"

In appearance before us is a decisive proof of the power of the "holy devil" over women. The lady of the high society licks the jam from her boot, and the ladies' "happiness" is also available.

But there are a couple of nuances. Rasputin was not black-haired and black-eyed. Everyone who actually saw him (not only in black and white movies and cartoons) mentions that he has light brown hair and a beard, and his eyes are gray-blue. What is there to tell - just take a look at his lifetime portrait.


If someone tells us amazing stories about a person, but at the same time does not know what he looks like, this is a very bad sign. Most likely, such a person "heard the ringing, but does not know where he is." Or he is trying to give himself the appearance of a contemporary and a witness to the most important historical events.

What else is considered a source reporting such impact? Of course, the once famous "Diary of Vyrubova", one of the maids of honor of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. It contains about the same touching stories about the seizure of society ladies in different places and the licking of boots and other objects.

But there is also a nuance: back in 1929, it was reliably exposed as a fake. The one who compiled this "diary" did not know the real dates of Rasputin's stay in certain places. And when the dates were verified, it turned out that the "diary" describes Rasputin's stay in those places and at a time when he obviously could not be there.

According to the analysis of historians of the 1920s, the authors of the forgery are the famous writer Alexei Tolstoy and the historian Pyotr Shchegolev. By an incredible coincidence, Alexei Tolstoy in 1925 released the ideologically verified play "The Empress's Conspiracy" with approximately the same stories.

To promote their play more successfully, its authors stated in an interview: “The play is entirely historical. We did not allow any caricature, any parody. The era is drawn in strictly real colors. Details and details that may seem fictitious to the viewer are in fact historical facts. 60% of the characters speak in their own words, the words of their memoirs, letters and other documents "(" Krasnaya Gazeta ". Evening edition, 1924, December 29).

The picture turns out to be simple: the masters of pop culture needed a more scandalous play, and in order to pretend that it was honest at the same time, they took and forged a "historical source."

There remains the last, third source of stories about the sex control of the ladies of high society by Rasputin: the memoirs of the monarchist A.I.Dubrovin. He tells how Rasputin “left Vyrubova. Leaves from there [from the room] overweight, all red …”The reasons for the“reddening”of a woman after this kind of scene are quite understandable.


But even with this testimony, not everything is going smoothly. The fact is that after February 1917, the Provisional Government created an Extraordinary Commission to investigate the Rasputin story. The “provisional” comrades needed to be shown that the tsarist regime was decomposing in full force, so, of course, they conducted a compulsory medical examination of the maid of honor Anna Vyrubova.Alas, despite being 33 years old and having a marriage under her belt, she turned out to be a virgin. However, this to some extent clarifies why her marriage itself turned out to be ultrashort.

Thus, Dubrovin's “memories” are the same fairy tale as the “testimony” of Tatyana Grigorova-Rudykovskaya. Now the topic of Rasputin's sexual relations in this area can be closed: all sources who have seen him in general note that other ladies of the world were not left alone with him.

From this it is quite obvious that all the stories about the incredible influence at the court of Rasputin through his "harem" are the same fairy tale as the very existence of the "harem". Actually, the recollections of employees of the state apparatus of that time testify to the same thing: when Rasputin tried to ask for one of his acquaintances, using the status of "God's man", his petitioners were let down the stairs even in the Ministry of Education, not to mention more influential departments.

The modern British historian Douglas Smith is right: "These rumors [about the influence of Rasputin" through bed "on appointments and affairs in the country] were absolutely unfounded and were spread mainly by the left opposition."

What was really going on around Rasputin

It must be understood that all these tales about Grigory Rasputin began to circulate during his lifetime, and it is logical that the Special Section of the Police Department tried to check such incredible stories. To do this, he introduced his people - under the guise of servants - directly into Rasputin's house. There, these citizens carefully recorded all contacts of the "divine man", including with the female sex.

It turned out that he really often invited ladies - only from Nevsky, and not from high society. In those years, there were prostitutes of the last analysis - drug addicts, often burdened with the burden of venereal diseases, which were poorly curable at that time. Let's face it: contact with them is a big risk and a very dubious choice even in our time, after the massive introduction of means of preventing and combating such diseases. Why did the "man of God" risk so desperately, choosing the lowest layers of the female contingent of his time?


The answer to this question can be found in the interrogation of Vyrubova, which was carried out by the Extraordinary Commission of Inquiry of the Provisional Government in 1917. When she was asked about her connection with Rasputin - in which the "temporary" believed, like children, until they brought Vyrubova through a humiliating medical examination procedure - she said that Grigory was of no interest to women in principle. “He was so unappetizing,” said the 33-year-old virgin.

Let's pick up the testimonies of other ladies of that time. What do they say when describing Rasputin? Unwashed and long hair, the same beard, mourning headbands under long uncut nails, bad facial skin … For a "guru" such features are normal, but in attracting the opposite sex - not quite. An attractive male image of Rasputin is given only by Grigorova-Rudkovskaya - that is, one who does not even know what color his eyes and hair were. Conclusion: macho in Rasputin was seen only by those women who had no idea what a living Rasputin looks like.

With such masculine qualities, he had few options. Prostitutes from the "dance halls" (higher class than street ones) are expensive, and prostitutes from the Nevsky Prospect are extremely cheap. Hence his risky choice.

What does all this mean?

The reader may wonder: why do we need to know what Rasputin had under his nails? The answer is simple: to understand who actually killed him.

According to the "generally accepted" version of his death until the 1990s, the murder was carried out by F. Yusupov, V. Purishkevich and Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich. The conspirators after the murder claimed that they lured Rasputin to Yusupov's palace with a promise to arrange a meeting for him - with a physiologically understandable context - with Irina, Yusupov's wife. As we have shown above, the very idea of ​​the possibility of such contacts is a fiction. And the description of the murder, which begins with a fiction, is already alarming.


Alas, further doubts only grow. Yusupov claims in his memoirs that his group poisoned Rasputin during small talk with potassium cyanide in a sweet cake. True, for some reason he did not die, although in real life one cannot die from potassium cyanide. Then he was shot in the heart, after which he ran, and then Rasputin was shot again.

The trouble is that Grigory's relatives and acquaintances are unanimous: he could not stand sweets. Why I never ate it. If Yusupov really communicated with the living Rasputin, how could he not notice it? Go ahead: Yusupov writes that the victim's shirt was sewn with blue cornflowers. Another member of the group - Purishkevich - claims she was cream. Both write that he was in his shirt and thrown into the river. Only in the materials of the murder case, Rasputin's corpse was fished out of the river in a blue shirt, sewn with golden ears. At the same time, he was in a fur coat, which Purishkevich and Yusupov do not mention when they are thrown into the river.

Yusupov mentions that the conspirators fired at Rasputin twice, in the body (one of the shots was in the heart). The case file contains three bullet wounds: in the liver, kidney and forehead. Felix Yusupov shot very well, he could not shoot in the heart, hit in the head and not notice it.

Finally, the most interesting thing about these wounds is the third of them. This is a control shot to the forehead - and the inlet indicates that it was fired by a British Webley.455 (11.5mm) revolver. It should be understood: in the Russian Empire, a private person could legally buy even a Maxim machine gun, but this particular model was extremely rare and unpopular. The initial speed of 190 meters per second (against 260 meters per second for the "Nagan") made its accuracy rather doubtful, and the.455 caliber cartridges themselves were exotic for us. Yusupov and other conspirators simply did not have such a weapon.


From all this it follows: Yusupov's “memories” of the murder of Rasputin are the same fictions as the memories of Grigova-Rudykovskaya about licking boots or Dubrovin's fables about “all red” Vyrubova. Whoever shot at Grigory, it was not Yusupov or his would-be accomplices. Most likely, they did not even see the murder of Rasputin up close - otherwise it would be impossible to explain the incorrect descriptions of clothing and areas of bullet wounds.

But why did Yusupov and his group come up with all this? Recall: after the murder they were planned to be tried, and only the pardon of Nicholas II prevented them from going to prison. Why was such a risk necessary?

British comrades rush to the rescue

It was not in vain that we started the text by mentioning the list of "victims of Russia" published by the British press ("The Times"), where Grigory Rasputin is the first. The irony is that in 2004 the British state-owned BBC released a film according to which Oswald Reiner, a British intelligence officer, was the murderer of the "man of God". 16 years have passed, and, apparently, the British media have forgotten the facts that they voiced. Therefore, we ourselves will have to remind them.


In 1916, the Russian opposition, relying on the German press (formally banned in Russia), began to promote in society the idea that there was allegedly a pro-German “peaceful party” at the court of Nicholas II, which included Rasputin. On November 1, 1916, this was announced by the State Duma deputy from the liberal opposition Milyukov. Now we know for certain that Rasputin visited the court less than once a month and did not enjoy any influence there. But Miliukov in 1916 had no idea about this - as did the population as a whole, who got acquainted with Milyukov's speeches and seriously believed them.

But let's leave aside the population: wild ideas often circulate in it, let us recall at least the anti-vaccination hysteria of 2020. Much worse is the fact that British intelligence, which did not have their own agents at court, seriously believed the leaders of the opposition. The British Ambassador George Buchanan believed them in the same way.


Constantly communicating with all the same opposition leaders, he came to the conclusion that Russia is fighting the war badly and incorrectly, but the transition to a more democratic form of government - right now, during the world war - will immediately improve its ability to fight. Today we know that Russia at the end of 1916 captured several times more soldiers than all the other Entente powers together, and had a loss ratio no worse than France. But the British ambassador did not have access to these data - and he fully trusted the opinion of his interlocutors from the opposition.

Therefore, in 1916, Buckenen proposed to Nicholas II to give more power to parliament, to create a "ministry of trust", accountable specifically to the State Duma. And also to take other steps towards the liberal opposition. Nikolai was a very restrained and well-mannered person, so he did not explain to the British ambassador exactly what he thought of such proposals to the head of a sovereign state. He politely finished talking to the foreigner, and then just stopped inviting him to the palace.

Buchanan did not understand that the reason for his lack of handshake in the palace was the unsolicited advice to the emperor on how to equip Russia. Instead, the ambassador was convinced that Nicholas II was simply leaning towards the mythical “pro-German party at the Russian court” headed, of course, by Rasputin and his “mistress” the Empress. Therefore, they say, and does not want to receive the British ambassador.

Why he made such a mistake is understandable. Buchanan considered the only source of information about the real state of affairs in Russia - due to his communication with the liberal opposition - this very liberal opposition. The ambassador simply did not know that she imagined reality as accurately as, say, V.I.

In real life, Nikolai did not plan any peace with Germany, and Rasputin, who really doubted the need for war with the Germans, had absolutely no influence on his position. Nikolai's wife, as in everything else, shared her husband's position on the issue of the war. But in the distorted mirror of the information field formed by the media, rumors and oppositionists like Milyukov who actively disseminated them, all this remained completely unknown to both British intelligence and the British ambassador.

Because of this, the BBC notes, the British decided to eliminate Rasputin - to avoid a situation where Russia suddenly withdraws from the war with Germany, leaving the Western allies face to face with the strongest land army in the world. And Oswald Rainer, an MI6 agent, fired from his regular Webley revolver - hence the hole in Rasputin's forehead.

In such a situation, Yusupov and his comrades became the perfect cover. They said that they killed Rasputin, because rumors about him discredited the royal family - a logical version. In addition, such assassins averted suspicion from the British themselves.

The BBC version raises questions, of course. First: did not Zadornov write it? After all, it turns out that the British intelligence and the British ambassador showed a rare mental inadequacy to the world around them. First, they trust knowingly committed people like deputies Milyukov and Rodzianko.

But they are vitally interested in convincing the Western countries that Nicholas should be pushed away from power. And in return to push them to power - effective managers who will immediately fix everything. You can just as well listen to the owners of coal companies talk about the safety of burning coal. What kind of intelligence and diplomacy is it that makes such childish mistakes?

Secondly, the British intelligence officer uses Yusupov as a cover to divert his eyes from the British, and then … fires a control shot in the head of Rasputin from a British revolver, extremely exotic for Russia and therefore easily identifiable. Who is this liquidator who makes such ridiculous mistakes?

However, historical experience convincingly shows that the BBC is not at all exaggerating or trying to portray London as deliberately stupid. This was the real level of action by British diplomacy and intelligence in Russia.

According to the testimony of the French ambassador to Russia, already in December 1916, Russian high society was convinced that Buchanan was not just establishing contacts with the opposition, but was participating in the preparation of the revolution:

Thursday, December 28th.

For several times I have been asked about Buchanan's relations with the liberal parties and even, in the most serious tone, they ask me if he is secretly working in favor of the revolution … I protest every time with all my might. The old prince V., to whom I have just said this, objected to me with an air of sullenness: “But if his government ordered him to encourage the anarchists, he must do it.

No matter how the French ambassador defended the honor of the diplomatic corps in the Russian capital, it is impossible to ignore the fact that Buchanan really tried to influence Russian politics in the same direction as the leaders of the future Provisional Government, with whom the ambassador so often met on the eve of the revolution.

It is also hard not to notice that such meetings could not fail to inspire the leaders of the opposition to more active actions against Nicholas in the days of the revolution. Knowing that behind them is the support of the most powerful Entente power, they could not help changing their behavior at the moment of decisive events. In other words, regardless of whether Buchanan participated in the illegal preparation of the February events or not, objectively he contributed to their wide scale.

The results of these actions by the British ambassador were devastating, including for England. February came to pass, the opposition, whom Buchanan considered capable of quickly improving things at the front (so good), in fact, were forced to start with the issuance of Order No. 1, which immediately destroyed the Russian army. Because of this, Russia lost the opportunity to wage war by the summer, and by the fall the Provisional Government disintegrated from the inside so thoroughly that the Bolsheviks took power. In the end, exactly what Buchanan and Reiner fought against happened: Russia withdrew from the war with Germany, thereby delaying and complicating it for Great Britain.

Conclusion: as illogical as the assassination of Rasputin by the British authorities may seem, it was much less illogical than other actions of London towards Russia in those years. Therefore, there is nothing supernatural in such a mistake of Great Britain.

Finally, the rudeness of Reiner's work - shooting in the forehead with a unique British revolver - is also not atypical for Her Majesty's intelligence of that era. In 1918, London failed to realize that its push for the February Revolution was counterproductive and tried once again to change the ruling regime in Russia, this time to overthrow the Bolsheviks. For this, they, being extremely naive people, tried to bribe the Latvian riflemen guarding the Kremlin.


This event was called "The Conspiracy of Ambassadors" (although the implementation of the bribery lay on intelligence), and, at first glance, it looked more like a comedy than a real conspiracy. If you want to overthrow someone, then you should not act in such rude and straightforward ways - unless, of course, you are preparing a coup not in a Papuan tribe, but in a large country.

Apparently, by 1918, the brains of British intelligence officers were seriously overloaded with the burden of whites, so they allowed themselves to approach work in Russia too relaxed. In reality, by the summer of 1918, the Cheka, headed by Dzerzhinsky, had managed to break the codes of British diplomatic correspondence, which made it aware of the naive attempt to prepare a coup. The Chekists created a dummy "National Latvian Committee" and were able to convince the British that the Latvian riflemen were sleeping and seeing how to overthrow the Bolsheviks.

Of course, it was a linden: 1, 2 million rubles, which the British released the "conspirators", became just a prize for the Cheka.Lockhart was expelled from the country in the fall of 1918, the British agent Cromie, who tried to shoot himself from the Chekists during their raid on the British Embassy on August 31, 1918, was simply killed in a shootout (however, before that he managed to shoot one Chekist, Janson).


Output? British intelligence of those years really took steps in Russia of anecdotal scope and anecdotal senselessness. Probably, the point is not a lack of ability - the mentioned intelligence is considered by historians to be quite professional even at that time.

The problem was different: in Britain of those years, everyone, including Churchill, seriously believed that the British were full-fledged representatives of the Aryan race (a turnover actively used by the same Churchill in the 1910s). And other peoples, especially from less developed countries, no longer belong to this race, therefore they are not so complete. Of course, intelligence, which believes that it is acting against the inferior, risks a lot, because in reality the enemy may turn out to be quite full-fledged. His Majesty's scouts took a chance - and burned out.

The assassination of Grigory Rasputin is an interesting section of Russian history around the revolution. It shows that tens of millions of seemingly adults and sane people can believe in wild conspiracy theories in which an illiterate peasant, with a cunning network of politico-sexual intrigues, decides the fate of empires.

All this would be amusing if the Rasputin myth did not become the main propaganda tool that paved the way for February 1917. The natural and inevitable consequence was Russia's loss of the First World War, the Civil War, revolutionary terror and many other unpleasant things. The popular love for conspiracy theories cost the Russians in 1916 and beyond much more than any other nation in the history of the Earth. The liquidation of Rasputin was only the first stone in the 1917 avalanche - an avalanche that destroyed millions.

The supposedly qualified foreign policy and intelligence apparatus of the British Empire turned out to be living in the same fictional world of absurd conspiracy ideas about the "German queen", ruled by the "lover" Rasputin. London not only believed in the same flat-earth myths, but, based on them, made efforts to change the ruling regime in Russia. And as a result, the British have made themselves simply colossal problems.

Instead of the benevolent Russia, the ally of 1916, they received an anti-Western-minded Soviet, and since 2000 - a post-Soviet state. And if in 1916 Britain was politically and politically comparable to Russia, today it is difficult to even compare military capabilities. Believing in the insane conspiracy theory of the Russian opposition, Great Britain made an enemy for itself, which, in principle, it could not destroy.

Popular by topic