Did Nicholas Nearly Abdicate in 1905?

[G_Lermontov]

In a New York Times article from 1918, the same one that produced the infamous false "trial in Moscow" story, there was a report of a discovery of the Tsar's secret, unpublished abdication decree of 1905.  As anyone who is familiar with the abdication decree of 1917 can see, it is very similar in parts to the supposed 1905 document.  My question is, is this legitimate, or a fabrication, like the rest of the New York Times story?  Here is a link to the entire article, and the text of the 1905 document in full:

Disturbances and riots in the capital and many parts of the empire are filling my heart with painful grief.  The welfare of the Russian Emperor is indissolubly joined with the welfare of the people, and the affliction of the people is his grief.  From the disturbances which have now arisen may proceed deep disorder among the population, a threat to the unity and integrity of our state. 

In these days, when the fate of Russia is being determined, we consider it the duty of our conscience to fuse our people into a close union and join all the powers of the population for the height of the state’s prosperity.
   
Therefore, we have decided to abdicate the throne of the Russian Empire and lay down the high power.  Desiring not to be separated from our beloved son, we surrender the succession to our brother, the Grand Duke Michael, and bless him upon his ascendance to the Russian Throne.

NICHOLAS ROMANOFF

[Mexjames]

1918 was a terrible year.  I don't think that at the time there were any files to be discovered, everything must have been in terrible disarray.

Letting my imagination run, I think that the abdication paper in question might have been a rough draft of the final abdication document.

In any case, at the time the information might have come from Soviet sources and I don't think they can be fully trusted.

On the other hand, the riots and the defeat in the war against Japan might have been too hard to swallow at the same, time and perhaps the thought of abdication might have crossed the Emperor's mind, which is doubtful.  He was raised to be an autocrat.

[LisaDavidson]

The NYT articles were written by Carl Ackerman. The alleged 1905 abidication is a fabrication based upon the Emperor's actual abdication of 1917. Pure drivel.

[Terence]

The NYT articles were written by Carl Ackerman. The alleged 1905 abidication is a fabrication based upon the Emperor's actual abdication of 1917. Pure drivel.

TY Lisa.  People really have to careful and evaluate sources.  Simply because something once appeared in print in a newspaper does not make it fact.  And a newspaper is NOT a primary source when it is referring to something in the past.

Perhaps a thread here on AP explaining primary and secondary sources, and their reliability, would be of some benefit.  There are a lot of sincere folks here who might benefit.  Some not so sincere could care less, but they might become easier to identify for those passing through.  Just a thought.

T