The Russian Revolution

1

1905: The Foreshock

In the preface to an autobiographical novel, Somerset Maugham explains why he prefers to write narratives in a literary rather than strictly factual manner:

Fact is a poor story teller. It starts a story at haphazard, generally long before the beginning, rambles on inconsequently and tails off, leaving loose ends hanging about, without a conclusion … a story needs a supporting skeleton. The skeleton of a story is of course its plot. Now a plot has certain characteristics that you cannot get away from. It has a beginning, a middle and an end.… This means that story should begin at a certain point and end at a certain point.¹

The historian does not have the luxury of reshaping events to fit the skeleton of a plot, which means that the story he tells can have neither a clear beginning nor a definite end. It must begin at haphazard and tail off, unfinished.

When did the Russian Revolution begin? Peter Struve, a leading liberal publicist at the turn of the century, surveying the wreckage of Imperial Russia, concluded that it had been preordained as early as 1730, when Empress Anne reneged on the promise to abide by a set of constitutional limitations that the aristocracy had forced upon her as a condition of giving her the throne. A case can also be made that the Revolution began in 1825 with the abortive Decembrist Revolt. Certainly in the 1870s Russia had a full-fledged revolutionary movement: the men who led the 1917 Revolution looked to the radicals of the 1870s as forerunners.

If, however, one wishes to identify events that not merely foreshadowed 1917 but led directly to it, then the choice has to fall on the disorders that broke out at Russian universities in February 1899. Although they were soon quelled by the usual combination of concessions and repression, these disorders set in motion a movement of protest against the autocracy that did not abate until the revolutionary upheaval of 1905–6. This First Revolution was also eventually crushed but at a price of major political concessions that fatally weakened the Russian monarchy. To the extent that historical events have a beginning, the beginning of the Russian Revolution may well have been the general university strike of February 1899.

And a haphazard beginning it was. Since the 1860s Russian institutions of higher learning had been the principal center of opposition to the tsarist regime: revolutionaries were, for the most part, either university students or university dropouts. At the turn of the century, Russia had ten universities as well as a number of specialized schools which taught religion, law, medicine, and engineering. They had a total enrollment of 35,000. The student body came overwhelmingly from the lower classes. In 1911, the largest contingent was made up of sons of priests, followed by sons of bureaucrats and peasants: hereditary nobles constituted less than 10 percent, equal to the number of Jews.² The Imperial Government needed an educated elite and promoted higher education, but it wished, unrealistically, to confine education strictly to professional and vocational training. Such a policy satisfied the majority of students, who, even if critical of the regime, did not want politics to interfere with their studies: this is known from surveys taken in the revolutionary year of 1905. But whenever the authorities overreacted to the radical minority, which they usually did, the students closed ranks.

In 1884, in the course of the “counterreforms,” which followed the assassination of Alexander II, the government revised the liberal University Statute issued twenty-one years earlier. The new regulations deprived the universities of a great deal of autonomy and placed them under the direct supervision of the Ministry of Education. Their faculties could no longer elect rectors. Disciplinary authority over the students was entrusted to an outsider, a state inspector, who had police functions. Student organizations were declared illegal, even in the form of zemliachestva, associations formed by students from the same province to provide mutual assistance. Students were understandably unhappy with the new regulations. Their unhappiness was aggravated by the appointment in 1897 as Minister of Education of N. P. Bogolepov, a professor of Roman law, the first academic to hold the post but a dry and unsympathetic conservative whom they dubbed “Stone Guest.” Still, the 1880s and 1890s were a period of relative calm at the institutions of higher learning.

The event which shattered this calm was trifling. St. Petersburg University traditionally celebrated on February 8 the anniversary of its founding.*

2. Nicholas II and family shortly before outbreak of World War I. By his side, Alexandra Fedorovna. The daughters, from left to right: Marie, Tatiana, Olga, and Anastasia. In front, Tsarevich Alexis.

On that day it was customary for the students, after taking part in formal festivities organized by the faculty, to stage celebrations in the center of the city. It was pure fun in which politics played no part. But in the Russia of that time any public event not officially sanctioned was treated as insubordination and, as such, as political and subversive. Determined to put a stop to such disturbances, the authorities requested the Rector, the well-known and popular law professor V. I. Sergeevich, to warn the students that such celebrations would no longer be tolerated. The warning, posted throughout the university and published in the press, deserves full citation because it reflected so faithfully the regime’s police mentality:

On February 8, the anniversary of the founding of the Imperial St. Petersburg University, it has been not uncommon for students to disturb peace and order on the streets as well as in public places of St. Petersburg. These disturbances begin immediately after the completion of university celebrations when students, singing and shouting “Hurrah!,” march in a crowd to the Palace Bridge and thence to Nevsky Prospect. In the evening, noisy intrusions into restaurants, places of amusement, the circus, and the Little Theater take place. Deep into the night the streets adjoining these establishments are cut off by an excited crowd, causing regrettable clashes and annoyance to the public. St. Petersburg society has long taken note of these disorders: it is indignant and blames the university and the entire student body, even though only a small part is involved.

The law makes provisions for such disorders and subjects those guilty of violating public order to imprisonment for 7 days and fines of up to 25 rubles. If such disorders involve a large crowd which ignores police orders to disperse, the participants are subject to terms of imprisonment for up to one month and fines of up to 100 rubles. And if the disorder has to be quelled by force, then those guilty are subject to terms of imprisonment of up to three months and fines of up to 300 rubles.

On February 8, the police are obliged to preserve peace in the same manner as on any other day of the year. Should order be disturbed, they are obliged to stop the disturbance at any cost. In addition, the law provides for the use of force to end disorders. The results of such a clash with the police may be most unfortunate. Those guilty may be subject to arrest, the loss of privileges, dismissal and expulsion from the university, and exile from the capital. I feel obliged to warn the student body of this. Students must respect the law in order to uphold the honor and dignity of the university.³

The tactless admonition infuriated the students. When on February 8 Sergeevich mounted the speakers’ rostrum, they booed and hissed him for twenty minutes. They then streamed outside singing “Gaudeamus Igitur” and the “Marseillaise.” The crowd attempted to cross the Palace Bridge into the city but, finding it blocked by the police, proceeded instead to the Nikolaev Bridge. Here more police awaited them. The students claimed that in the ensuing melee they were beaten with whips, and the police that they were pelted with snowballs and chunks of ice.

Greatly excited, the students held during the following two days assemblies at which they voted to strike until the government assured them that the police would respect their rights.⁴ Up to this point the grievance was specific and capable of being satisfied.

But the protest movement was promptly taken over by radicals in charge of an illegal Mutual Aid Fund (Kassa vzaimopomoshchi) who saw in it an opportunity to politicize the student body. The Fund was dominated by socialists, some of whom would later play a leading role in the revolutionary movement, among them Boris Savinkov, a future terrorist, Ivan Kaliaev, who in 1905 would assassinate Grand Duke Sergei, the governor-general of Moscow, and George Nosar (Khrustalev), who in October 1905 would chair the Petrograd Soviet.⁵ The leaders of the Fund at first dismissed the strike as a “puerile” exercise, but took charge once they realized that the movement enjoyed broad support. They formed an organizing committee to direct the strike and dispatched emissaries to the other schools with requests for support. On February 15, Moscow University joined the strike; on February 17, Kiev followed suit; and before long all the major institutions of higher learning in the Empire were shut down. An estimated 25,000 students boycotted classes. The strikers called for an end to arbitrary discipline and police brutality; they posed as yet no political demands.

The authorities responded by arresting the strike leaders. More liberal officials, however, managed to persuade them that the protests had no political purpose and were best contained by satisfying legitimate student grievances. Indeed, the striking students believed themselves to be acting in defense of the law rather than challenging the tsarist regime.⁶ A commission was appointed under P. S. Vannovskii, a former Minister of War, a venerable general with impeccable conservative credentials. While the Commission pursued its inquiries, the students drifted back to classes, ignoring the protests of the organizing committee. St. Petersburg University voted to end the strike on March 1, and Moscow resumed work four days later.⁷

Displeased by this turn of events, the socialists on the organizing committee issued on March 4, in the name of the student body, a Manifesto that claimed the events of February 8, 1899, were merely

one episode of the regime that prevails in Russia, [a regime] that rests on arbitrariness, secrecy [bezglasnost’] and complete lack of security, including even the absence of the most indispensable, indeed, the most sacred rights of the development of human individuality …

The Manifesto called on all the oppositional elements in Russia to “organize for the forthcoming struggle,” which would end only “with the attainment of its main goal—the overthrow of autocracy.”⁸ In the judgment of the police official reporting on these events, this Manifesto was not so much the expression of student disorders as a “prelude to the Russian Revolution.”⁹

The episode just described was a microcosm of the tragedy of late Imperial Russia: it illustrated to what extent the Revolution was the result not of insufferable conditions but of irreconcilable attitudes. The government chose to treat a harmless manifestation of youthful spirits as a seditious act. In response, radical intellectuals escalated student complaints of mistreatment at the hands of the police into a wholesale rejection of the “system.” It was, of course, absurd to insinuate that student grievances which produced the university strike could not be satisfied without the overthrow of the country’s political regime: restoring the 1863 University Statutes would have gone a long way toward meeting these grievances, as most students must have believed, since they returned to classes following the appointment of the Vannovskii Commission. The technique of translating specific complaints into general political demands would become a standard procedure for Russian liberals and radicals. It precluded compromises and partial reforms: nothing, it was alleged, could be improved as long as the existing system remained in place, which meant that revolution was a necessary precondition of any improvement whatsoever.

Contrary to expectations, the Vannovskii Commission sided with the students, placing the blame for the February events on the police. It concluded that the strikes were neither conspiratorial in origin nor political in spirit, but a spontaneous manifestation of student unhappiness over their treatment. Vannovskii proposed a return to the 1863 University Statutes, as well as a number of specific reforms including the legalization of student assemblies and zemliachestva, reducing the amount of time devoted to the study of Latin, and abolishing the Greek requirement. The authorities chose to reject these recommendations, preferring to resort to punitive measures.¹⁰

On July 29, 1899, the government issued “Temporary Rules” which provided that students guilty of political misconduct would lose their military deferments. At the time of publication, it was widely assumed that the measure was intended to frighten the students and would not be enforced. But enforced it was. In November 1900, after a year and a half of quiet, fresh university disturbances broke out, this time in Kiev, to protest the expulsion of two students. Several universities held protest meetings in support of Kiev. On January 11, 1901, invoking the July 1899 ordinance, Bogolepov ordered the induction into the army of 183 Kievan students. When St. Petersburg University struck in sympathy, 27 of its students were similarly punished. One month later, a student by the name of P. V. Karpovich shot and fatally wounded Bogolepov: the minister was the first victim of the new wave of terrorism which in the next few years would claim thousands. Contemporaries regarded Bogolepov’s measures against the students and his assassination as marking the onset of a new revolutionary era.¹¹

More university strikes followed at Kharkov, Moscow, and Warsaw. Hundreds of students were expelled by administrative procedures. In 1901, hoping to calm the situation, the government appointed Vannovskii, then seventy-eight years of age, to take Bogolepov’s place. Vannovskii introduced modifications in the university rules, authorizing student gatherings and relaxing the ancient language requirements. The concessions failed to appease the students; indeed, student organizations rejected them on the grounds that they indicated weakness and should be exploited for political ends.¹² Having failed to calm the universities, Vannovskii was dismissed.

Henceforth, Russian institutions of higher learning became the fulcrum of political opposition. Viacheslav Plehve, the arch-conservative director of the Police Department, was of the opinion that “almost all the regicides and a very large number of those involved in political crimes” were students.¹³ According to Prince E. N. Trubetskoi, a liberal academic, the universities now became thoroughly politicized: students increasingly lost interest in academic rights and freedoms, caring only for politics, which made normal academic life impossible. Writing in 1906, he described the university strikes of 1899 as the beginning of the “general crisis of the state.”¹⁴

The unrest at institutions of higher learning occurred against a background of mounting oppositional sentiment in zemstva, organs of local self-government created in 1864. In 1890, during the era of “counterreforms,” the rights of zemstva were restricted, which caused as much unhappiness among its deputies as the 1884 University Statutes did among students. In the late 1890s, zemtsy began to hold semi-legal national conclaves with political overtones.¹⁵

The government at this point had two alternatives: it could seek to placate the opposition, so far confined mainly to the educated elements, with concessions, or it could resort to still harsher repressive measures. Concessions would have certainly been the wiser choice, because the opposition was a loose alliance of diverse elements from which it should have been possible, at a relatively small cost, to satisfy the more moderate elements and detach them from the revolutionaries. Repression, on the other hand, drove these elements into each other’s arms and radicalized the moderates. The Tsar, Nicholas II, was committed to absolutism in part because he believed himself duty-bound by his coronation oath to uphold this system, and in part because he felt convinced that the intellectuals were incapable of administering the Empire. Not entirely averse to some concessions if they would restore order, he lacked patience: whenever concessions did not immediately produce the desired results, he abandoned them and had recourse to police measures.

When in April 1902 a radical student killed the Minister of the Interior, D. S. Sipiagin, it was decided to give the police virtually unlimited powers. The appointment of Viacheslav Plehve as Sipiagin’s successor signaled the beginning of a policy of unflinching confrontation with “society,” a declaration of war against all who challenged the principle of autocracy. During Plehve’s two-year tenure in office, Russia came close to becoming a police state in the modern, “totalitarian” sense of the word.

To contemporaries, Plehve was a man of mystery: even his date and place of birth were unknown. His past has come to light only recently as a result of archival researches.¹⁶ Of German origin, he had been raised in Warsaw. He attended law school, following which he served for a time as procurator. His bureaucratic career began in earnest in 1881 with the appointment to the post of director of the newly formed Department of Police, established to fight sedition. He is said to have feigned liberalism to qualify for this post under the relatively enlightened ministry then in office.¹⁷ Henceforth, he lived and worked in the shadow world of political counterintelligence. Introducing the technique of infiltration and provocation, he achieved brilliant successes in penetrating and destroying revolutionary organizations. He had excellent understanding of the issues touching on state security, an indomitable capacity for work, and skill in adjusting to the shifting winds of Court politics. The personification of bureaucratic conservatism, he was unwilling to grant the population a voice in affairs of state. Such changes as were required—and he did not oppose them in principle—had to come from above, from the Crown: in the words of his biographer, he was “not so much opposed to change as to loss of control.”¹⁸ While intolerant of public initiatives, he was prepared to have the government take direct charge of everything that required reforms in the status quo. The police in his view had not merely a negative function—that is, preventing sedition (kramola)—but also the positive one of actively directing the forces that life brought to the surface and that left to themselves could undermine the government’s political monopoly. In this extraordinary extension of police functions into the realm of positive management of society lay the seed of modern totalitarianism. Because Plehve refused to distinguish between the moderate (loyal) and radical opposition, he inadvertently forged a united front which, under the name Liberational Movement (OsvoboditeVnoe dvizhenie) would in 1904–5 compel the government to give up its autocratic prerogatives.

3. Viacheslav Plehve.

On assuming office, Plehve tried to win over the more conservative wing of the zemstvo movement. But he persisted in treating zemstvo deputies as government functionaries and any sign of independence on their part as insubordination. His effort to make the zemstva a branch of the Ministry of the Interior not only lost him the sympathy of the zemstvo conservatives but radicalized the zemstvo constitutionalists, with the result that by 1903 he had to give up his one effort at conciliation.

Plehve’s standing with society suffered a further blow with the outbreak of a vicious anti-Jewish pogrom on Easter Sunday (April 4) of 1903 in the Bessarabian town of Kishinev. Some fifty Jews were killed, many more injured, and a great deal of Jewish property looted or destroyed. Plehve made no secret of his dislike of Jews, which he justified by blaming them for the revolutionary ferment (he claimed that fully 40 percent of the revolutionaries were Jews). Although no evidence has ever come to light that he had instigated the Kishinev pogrom, his well-known anti-Jewish sentiments, as well as his tolerance of anti-Semitic publications, encouraged the authorities in Bessarabia to believe that he would not object to a pogrom. Hence they did nothing to prevent one and nothing to stop it after it had broken out. This inactivity as well as the prompt release of the Christian hooligans strengthened the widely held conviction that he was responsible. Plehve further alienated public opinion with his Russificatory policies in Finland and Armenia.

The epitome of Plehve’s regime was a unique experiment in police-operated trade unions, known as “Zubatovshchina,” after S. V. Zubatov, the chief of the Moscow political police (Okhrana). It was a bold attempt to remove Russian workers from the influence of revolutionaries by satisfying their economic demands. Russian workers had been stirring since the 1880s. The nascent labor movement was apolitical, confining its demands to improvements in working conditions, wages, and other typically trade-unionist issues. But because in Russia of that time any organized labor activity was illegal, the most innocuous actions (such as the formation of mutual aid or educational circles) automatically acquired a political and, therefore, seditious connotation. This fact was exploited by radical intellectuals who developed in the 1890s the “agitational” technique which called for inciting workers to economic strikes in the expectation that the inevitable police repression would drive them into politics.¹⁹

Zubatov was a onetime revolutionary who had turned into a staunch monarchist. Working under Plehve, he had mastered the technique of psychologically “working over” revolutionary youths to induce them to cooperate with the authorities. In the process he learned a great deal about worker grievances and concluded that they were politically harmless and acquired a political character only because existing laws treated them as illegal. He thought it absurd for the government to play into the hands of revolutionaries by transforming the workers’ legitimate economic aspirations into political crimes. In 1898, he presented a memoir to the police chief of St. Petersburg, D. F. Trepov, in which he argued that in order to frustrate radical agitators, workers had to be given lawful opportunities to improve their lot. Radical intellectuals posed no serious threat to the system unless they gained access to the masses, and that could be prevented by legitimizing the workers’ economic and cultural aspirations.²⁰ He won over Trepov and other influential officials, including Grand Duke Sergei Aleksandrovich, the ultrareactionary governor-general of Moscow, with whose help he began in 1900 to organize official trade unions.²¹ This innovation ran into opposition from those who feared that police-sponsored labor organizations not only would annoy and confuse the business community but in the event of industrial conflicts place the government in a most awkward position of having to support workers against their employers. Plehve himself was skeptical, but Zubatov enjoyed powerful backing of persons close to the Tsar. Great things were expected of his experiment. In August 1902, Zubatov was promoted to head the “Special Section” of the Police Department, which placed him in charge of all the Okhrana offices. He expanded the Okhrana network beyond its original three locations (St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Warsaw) to the provincial towns, assigning it many functions previously exercised by other police groups. He required officials involved in political counterintelligence to be thoroughly familiar with the writings of the main socialist theoreticians as well as the history of European socialist parties.²²

Zubatov’s scheme seemed vindicated by the eagerness with which workers joined the police-sponsored trade unions. In February 1903, Moscow witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of 50,000 workers marching in a procession headed by Grand Duke Sergei to the monument of Alexander II. Jewish workers in the Pale of Settlement, who suffered from a double handicap in trying to organize, flocked to Zubatov’s unions in considerable numbers.

The experiment nearly came to grief, however, in the summer of 1903, following the outbreak in Odessa of a general strike. When Plehve ordered the police to quell the strike, the local police-sponsored trade union collapsed: by backing the employers, the authorities revealed the hollowness of the whole endeavor. The following month Plehve dismissed Zubatov, although he allowed some of his unions to continue and even authorized some new ones.*

In January 1904, Russia became involved in a war with Japan. The origins of the Russo-Japanese conflict have long been distorted by the self-serving accounts of Sergei Witte, the relatively liberal Minister of Finance and Plehve’s bitter enemy, which assigned the responsibility partly to reactionaries anxious to divert attention from internal difficulties (“We need a small, victorious war to avert a revolution” was a sentiment he attributed to Plehve) and partly to unscrupulous adventurers close to the Court. It has since become known that Plehve did not want a war and that the adventurers played a much smaller role than Witte would have had posterity believe. In fact, Witte himself bore a great deal of the blame for the conflict.²³ As the main architect of Russia’s industrialization, he was eager to ensure foreign markets for her manufactured goods. In his judgment, the most promising export outlets lay in the Far East, notably China. Witte also believed that Russia could provide a major transit route for cargo and passengers from Western Europe to the Pacific, a potential role of which she had been deprived by the completion in 1869 of the Suez Canal. With these objectives in mind, he persuaded Alexander III to authorize a railway across the immense expanse of Siberia. The Trans-Siberian, begun in 1886, was to be the longest railroad in the world. Nicholas, who sympathized with the idea of Russia’s Far Eastern mission, endorsed and continued the undertaking. Russia’s ambitions in the Far East received warm encouragement from Kaiser Wilhelm II, who sought to divert her attention from the Balkans, where Austria, Germany’s principal ally, had her own designs. (In 1897, as he was sailing in the Baltic, Wilhelm signaled Nicholas: “The Admiral of the Atlantic greets the Admiral of the Pacific.”)

In the memoirs he wrote after retiring from public life, Witte claimed that while he had indeed supported a vigorous Russian policy in the Far East, he had in mind exclusively economic penetration, and that his plans were wrecked by irresponsible generals and politicians. This thesis, however, cannot be sustained in the light of the archival evidence that has surfaced since. Witte’s plans for economic penetration of the Far East were conceived in the spirit of imperialism of the age: it called for a strong military presence, which was certain sooner or later to violate China’s sovereignty and come in conflict with the imperial ambitions of Japan. This became apparent in 1895, when Witte had the idea of shortening the route of the Trans-Siberian Railroad by cutting across Chinese Manchuria. He obtained China’s consent with bribes given the Chinese statesman Li Hung-chang and the promise of a defensive alliance. An agreement to this effect was signed in June 1896 during Li Hungchang’s visit to Moscow to attend the coronation of Nicholas II. The signatories pledged mutual help in the event of an attack on either of them or on Korea. China allowed Russia to construct a line to Vladivostok across Manchuria, on the understanding that her sovereignty in that province would be respected.

Russia immediately violated the terms of the treaty by introducing numerous police and military units into Manchuria and establishing in Kharbin a quasi-independent base of operations. More Russian troops were sent to Manchuria during the anti-Western Boxer Rebellion (1900). In 1898 Russia extracted from China the naval base at Port Arthur on a long-term lease.

With these steps, and despite Nicholas’s desire for peaceful relations and the reservations of some ministers, Russia headed for a confrontation with Japan. In November 1902, high-ranking Russian officials held a secret conference in Yalta to discuss China’s complaints about Russia’s treaty violations and the problems caused by the reluctance of foreigners to invest in Russia’s Far Eastern ventures. It was agreed that Russia could attain her economic objectives in Manchuria only by intense colonization; but for Russians to settle there, the regime needed to tighten its hold on the area. It was the unanimous opinion of the participants, Witte included, that Russia had to annex Manchuria, or, at the very least, bring it under closer control.²⁴ In the months that followed, the Minister of War, A. N. Kuropatkin, urged aggressive action to protect the Trans-Siberian Railroad: in his view, unless Russia was prepared to annex Manchuria she should withdraw from there. In February 1903, Nicholas agreed to annexation.²⁵

The Japanese, who had their own ambitions in the region, tried to forestall a conflict by agreement on spheres of influence: they would recognize Russian interests in Manchuria in return for an acknowledgment of their interests in Korea. An accord might have been reached along these lines were it not that in August 1903 Nicholas dismissed Witte as Minister of Finance: after that, Russia’s Far Eastern diplomacy began to drift, with no one in charge. It is then that socially prominent speculators, interested in exploiting Korean lumber resources, aggravated relations with Japan.* Persuaded that Russia would not negotiate, the Japanese in late 1903 decided to go to war. Although aware of Japan’s preparations, the Russians did nothing, willing to let her bear the blame for initiating hostilities. They held the Japanese in utter contempt: Alexander III had called them “monkeys who play Europeans,” and the common people joked that they would smother the makaki (macaques) with their caps.

On February 8, 1904, without declaring war, Japan attacked and laid siege to the naval base at Port Arthur. Sinking some Russian warships and bottling up the rest, they secured command of the sea which permitted them to land troops on the Korean peninsula. The battles that followed were fought on Manchurian soil, along the Korean border, far away from the centers of her population and industry, which presented Russia with considerable logistic difficulties. These were compounded by the fact that the Trans-Siberian was not yet fully operational when the war broke out because of an unfinished stretch around Lake Baikal. In every engagement, Japan displayed superior quality of command as well as better intelligence.

The Socialist-Revolutionary Combat Organization, which directed the party’s terrorist operations, had Plehve at the top of its list of intended victims. The minister took every conceivable precaution, but he felt confident of his ability to outwit the terrorists because he had achieved the seemingly impossible feat of placing one of his agents, Evno Azef, in the combat organization. Azef betrayed to the police an attempt on Plehve’s life, which led to the apprehension of G. A. Gershuni, the terrorist fanatic who had founded and led the group. At Gershuni’s request, Azef was named his successor. In 1903 and 1904 several more attempts were made on Plehve’s life, each of them failing for one reason or another. By then some SRs began to suspect Azef’s loyalty, and to salvage his reputation and very likely his life, Azef had to arrange for the assassination of Plehve. The operation, directed by Boris Savinkov, was successful: Plehve was blown to pieces on July 15, 1904, by a bomb thrown at his carriage.†

4. Remains of Plehve’s body after terrorist attack.

At the time of his death, Plehve was the object of universal hatred. Even liberals blamed his death not on the terrorists but on the government. Peter Struve, who at the time was editing in Germany the main liberal organ, spoke for a good deal of public opinion when he wrote immediately after the event:

The corpses of Bogolepov, Sipiagin, Bogdanovich, Bobrikov, Andreev, and von Plehve are not melodramatic whims or romantic accidents of Russian history. These corpses mark the logical development of a moribund autocracy. Russian autocracy, in the person of its last two emperors and their ministers, has stubbornly cut off and continues to cut off the country from all avenues of legal and gradual political development.… The terrible thing for the government is not the physical liquidation of the Sipiagins and von Plehves, but the public atmosphere of resentment and indignation which these bearers of authority create and which breeds in the ranks of Russian society one avenger after another.… [Plehve] thought that it was possible to have an autocracy which introduced the police into everything—an autocracy which transformed legislation, administration, scholarship, church, school, and family into police [organs]—that such an autocracy could dictate to a great nation the laws of its historical development. And the police of von Plehve were not even able to avert a bomb. What a pitiful fool!²⁶

Struve and other liberals would come to rue these incautious words, for it would soon become apparent that for the terrorists terrorism was a way of life, directed not only against the autocracy but also against the very “avenues of legal and gradual political development.” But in the excited atmosphere of the time, when politics turned into a spectator sport, the terrorists were widely admired as heroic champions of freedom.

Plehve’s death deeply affected Nicholas: the emotional diary entry on this event contrasts strikingly with the cold indifference with which he would record seven years later the murder of Stolypin, a statesman of incomparably greater caliber but one who happened to believe that Russia no longer could be run as an autocracy. He had lost to terrorist bombs two Ministers of the Interior in two years. Once again he stood between the alternatives of conciliation and repression. His personal inclinations always ran toward repression, and he might well have chosen another die-hard conservative were it not for the uninterrupted flow of bad news from the war front. On August 17, 1904, a numerically inferior Japanese force attacked the main Russian army near Liaoyang, forcing it to retreat to Mukden.

5. Prince P. D. Sviatopolk-Mirskii.

This happened on August 24, and the very next day Nicholas offered the Ministry of the Interior to Prince P. D. Sviatopolk-Mirskii. On the spectrum of bureaucratic politics, Mirskii stood at the opposite pole from Plehve: a man of utmost integrity and liberal temperament, he believed that Russia could be effectively governed only if state and society respected and trusted each other. The favorite word in his political vocabulary was doverie—“trust.” An officer of the General Staff who had served as governor in several provinces and as Deputy Minister of the Interior—that is, head of the police—he represented a type of enlightened bureaucrat more prevalent in late Imperial Russia than commonly thought. He completely rejected the police methods of Sipiagin and Plehve, and rather than serve under them in the Ministry of the Interior, had himself posted as governor-general to Vilno.

Mirskii was not overjoyed by Nicholas’s offer. Considerations of personal safety played a part in his hesitation: on his retirement half a year later, he would toast his good fortune in having survived so dangerous an assignment.²⁷ But he also did not think that someone holding his views could work with the Court. To prevent misunderstandings, he laid out before Nicholas his political credo:

You know little of me and perhaps think that I share the opinions of the two preceding ministers. But, on the contrary, I hold directly opposite views. After all, in spite of my friendship with Sipiagin, I had to quit as Deputy Minister because I disagreed with his politics. The situation has become so acute that one can consider the government to be at odds with Russia. It is imperative to make peace, or else Russia will soon be divided into those who carry out surveillance and those who are under surveillance, and then what?²⁸

He advised Nicholas that it was necessary to introduce religious tolerance, to broaden the competence of self-government (he referred to himself as a “zemstvo man”), to confine the concept of political crime to acts of terror and incitement to terror, to improve the treatment of the minorities, to ease censorship, and to invite zemstvo representatives for consultations. Nicholas, whose upbringing precluded open disagreement, seemed to approve of everything Mirskii told him.²⁹

Mirskii’s appointment to the most important administrative post in Russia was very favorably received. As an experienced official with a broad base of popular support, he seemed the ideal man to resolve the political crisis. His main shortcomings were softness of character and lack of decisiveness which caused him to send signals that encouraged the opposition in the belief the government was prepared to make greater concessions than was the case.

Mirskii immediately went to work to win public support. He abolished corporal punishment, relaxed censorship, and restored to their posts a number of prominent zemtsy whom Plehve had exiled. He further expressed the intention of lifting the disabilities of the Old Believers and easing the lot of the Jews. He made a strong impression with an address to the officials of the Ministry of the Interior, published in the press, in which he said that experience had taught him that government had to have a “genuinely well-meaning and genuinely trustful attitude toward civic and estate institutions and the population at large.”³⁰

A new era seemed to be dawning. The zemtsy read in Mirskii’s remarks an invitation to hold a national congress. They had held one such gathering in 1902, but surreptitiously because it was illegal. The idea of a public zemstvo congress emerged in late August 1904, immediately after Mirskii’s appointment, and quickly gained the endorsement of both the liberal (constitutionalist) and conservative (Slavophile) wings of the movement. Initially, the planners intended to confine the agenda to zemstvo affairs. But having learned of Mirskii’s remarks, they concluded that the government would welcome their views on national issues and expanded the agenda accordingly. The zemtsy felt it was essential to institutionalize the latest changes in government policy: Mirskii, after all, could prove merely a tool of the “dark forces”—the Court camarilla, above all—to be discarded as soon as he had served his purpose by pacifying the country. In the words of Dmitrii Shipov, the most prominent among the conservative zemtsy, many of his associates felt

that so far, trust in society had been expressed only by the individual placed at the head of the Ministry of the Interior … it was necessary for that one official’s sense of trust to be assimilated by the entire government and clothed in legal form, protected by safeguards, which would preclude shifts in the government’s attitude to society being dependent on such happenstance as the change of personnel at the head of government offices. It was further said that it had become an urgent need to make proper arrangements for legislative activity and to grant a national representative body participation in it.³¹

These sentiments spelled constitution and a legislative parliament. Some conservative zemtsy thought this went too far, but persuaded that the government wanted to hear the whole range of opinions, they agreed to place constitutional proposals on the agenda of the forthcoming congress, scheduled for early November.

When he first learned that the zemtsy planned a national congress Mirskii not only approved but asked and received the Tsar’s blessing for it. In so doing he was under the misapprehension that the gathering would confine itself, as, indeed, had originally been planned, to zemstvo matters; in this belief, he inadvertently misled the Tsar. When he learned of the revised agenda, he requested Shipov to have the congress postponed for several months. Shipov thought this impossible to arrange, whereupon the minister requested that it move to Moscow. This, too, was rejected, so Mirskii agreed to have the congress proceed as planned but in the guise of a “private consultation” (chastnoe soveshchanie). His approval conveyed the misleading impression that the government was prepared to contemplate a constitutional and parliamentary regime.

Expecting the Zemstvo Congress to come up with a constitutional project, Mirskii asked Sergei Kryzhanovskii, an official in his ministry, to draft a counterproposal. His intention was to formulate a program that would include the maximum of oppositional demands conceivably acceptable to the Tsar.³²

In this atmosphere of great expectations, the oppositional groups felt the time had come to combine forces. On September 17, representatives of the constitutionalist Union of Liberation met secretly in Paris with Socialists-Revolutionaries as well as Polish and Finnish nationalists, to forge a united front against the autocracy.*

The Paris Conference was a prelude to the great Zemstvo Congress held in St. Petersburg on November 6–9, 1904, an event that in terms of historical importance may be compared with the French Estates-General of 1789. The analogy was not lost on some contemporaries.³³

The congress met in private residences, one of them the apartment of Vladimir Nabokov (the father of the future novelist) on Bolshaia Morskaia, within sight of the Winter Palace.³⁴ On arrival in the capital, the delegates were directed to their destination by the police.

A number of resolutions were put up for a vote, of which the most important as well as the most controversial called for an elected legislature with a voice in the shaping of the budget and control over the bureaucracy. The conservatives objected to this motion on the grounds that political democracy was alien to Russia’s historic traditions: they wanted a strictly consultative body modeled on the Muscovite Land Assemblies that would convey to the throne the wishes of its subjects but not interfere with legislation. They suffered defeat: the resolution in favor of a legislative parliament carried by a vote of 60–38. There was near-unanimity, however, that the new body should have a voice in the preparation of the state budget and oversee the bureaucracy.³⁵ It was the first time in the history of modern Russia that a legally assembled body—even if assembled under the guise of a “private consultation”—passed resolutions calling for a constitution and a parliament—even if the resolutions did not use these taboo words.

In the weeks that followed, the platform adopted by the Zemstvo Congress provided the text for the many public and private bodies that met to take a stand on national questions, among them the Municipal Council of Moscow, various business associations, and the students of nearly all the institutions of higher learning.³⁶ To spread the message as widely as possible, the Union of Liberation organized a campaign of nationwide banquets—modeled on 1848 France—at which the guests toasted freedom and the constitution.³⁷ The first took place in St. Petersburg on November 20, the fortieth anniversary of the judiciary reform; 676 writers and representatives of the intelligentsia affixed their signatures to a petition calling for a democratic constitution and a Constituent Assembly. Similar banquets were held in other cities during November and December 1904. The socialist intelligentsia, which at first had poured scorn on these “bourgeois” affairs, eventually joined in and radicalized the resolutions. Of the forty-seven banquets on which there exists information, thirty-six are known to have followed the Zemstvo Congress, while eleven went further and demanded a Constituent Assembly.³⁸ The provincial authorities, confused by conflicting signals from the capital, did not interfere, even though Mirskii instructed them in secret circulars to prevent the banquets from taking place and to disperse them if they defied government prohibitions.³⁹

After the Zemstvo Congress had adjourned, Shipov briefed Mirskii on its resolutions; the minister listened sympathetically. Later that month, Prince Sergei Trubetskoi, the rector of Moscow University, submitted at Mirskii’s request a reform proposal, which Mirskii gave to Kryzhanovskii and Lopukhin, the director of the Police Department, to edit for submission to the Tsar.⁴⁰

The Trubetskoi-Kryzhanovskii-Lopukhin reform proposal which Mirskii presented to Nicholas early in December 1904 was a cleverly worded appeal to the Tsar’s conservative instincts.⁴¹ The authors made the proposed constitutional and parliamentary concessions appear to be a restoration of old practices rather than the revolutionary innovation that they really were. The reforms of Alexander II, they wrote, had ended the “patrimonial” (votchinnyi) regime in Russia by introducing the notion of public interest. They

marked the end of the old patrimonial order and, along with it, of the personalized notions of rulership. Russia ceased to be the personal property and fiefdom of its ruler.… [The concepts] of “public interest” and “public opinion” suggested the emergence of the impersonal state … with its own body politic, separate from the person of the ruler.⁴²

Legality (zakonnosf) was depicted as entirely compatible with autocracy because the Tsar would remain the exclusive source of laws, which he could repeal at will. The proposed representative body—envisaged as limited to consultative function—was depicted as a return to the days of “true autocracy” when tsars used to heed the voice of their people.

Mirskii’s draft was discussed on December 7 by high officials under Nicholas’s chairmanship. The most controversial clause called for the introduction into the State Council, at the time an exclusively appointed body, of deputies elected by the zemstva. It was an exceedingly modest measure, but it did inject the elective principle into a political system in which legislation and administration were the exclusive preserve of the monarch and officials designated by him. In advocating its adoption, Mirskii argued that it would “ensure domestic tranquility better than the most determined police measures.”⁴³ According to Witte, the meeting was very emotional. The majority of the ministers sided with Mirskii. The chief adversary was Konstantin Pobedonostsev, the procurator of the Holy Synod and the regime’s most influential conservative, who saw in the introduction of elected representatives into state institutions a fatal breach in Russia’s traditional political system. Having heard out both sides, Nicholas agreed to all of Mirskii’s proposals. Those present left the meeting with the sense of having been witnesses to a momentous event in Russia’s history.⁴⁴

At the Tsar’s request, Witte prepared an appropriate document for his signature. But Nicholas had second thoughts: he needed reassurance. Before signing it into law, he consulted Grand Duke Sergei and Witte. Both advised against adding elected representatives to the State Council—Sergei out of conviction, Witte more likely out of opportunism. Nicholas did not require much convincing: relieved, he struck out this provision. “I shall never, under any circumstances,” he told Witte, “agree to a representative form of government because I consider it harmful to the people whom God has entrusted to my care.”⁴⁵

When he learned of the Tsar’s change of heart on the key provision in his draft, Mirskii fell into despondency. Convinced that all was lost he offered to resign, but Nicholas persuaded him to stay on.

On December 12, 1904, the government made public a law “Concerning the Improvement of the Political Order,” which, its title notwithstanding, announced all kinds of reforms except in the realm of politics.⁴⁶ One set of measures addressed the condition of the peasantry, “so dear to OUR heart.” Others dealt with the population’s legal and civil rights. Government officials would be held accountable for misdemeanors. The sphere of activity of zemstva would be broadened and zemstvo institutions introduced into lower administrative units. There were pledges of state insurance for workers, equal justice for all, religious tolerance, and the easing of censorship. The emergency regulations of 1881 providing for the suspension of civil rights in areas placed under Safeguard would be modified.

All this was welcome. But the absence of any political concessions was widely seen as a rejection of the demands of the November 1904 Zemstvo Congress.⁴⁷ For this reason the Law of December 12 was given little chance to resolve the national crisis, which was first and foremost political in nature.

Commissions were named to draft laws implementing the December 12 edict, but they had no issue because neither Nicholas nor the Court desired changes, preferring to procrastinate. They may have been hoping for some miracle, perhaps a decisive victory over the Japanese now that the Minister of War, Kuropatkin, had taken personal command of the Russian armies in the Far East. On October 2, Russia’s Baltic Fleet sailed to relieve Port Arthur.

But no miracle occurred. Instead, on December 20, 1904/January 2, 1905, Port Arthur surrendered. The Japanese captured 25,000 prisoners and what was left of Russia’s Pacific Fleet.

Throughout 1904, Russia’s masses were quiet: the revolutionary pressures on the government came exclusively from the social elite—university students and the rest of the intelligentsia, as well as the zemstvo gentry. The dominant trend was liberal, “bourgeois.” In these events the socialists played a secondary role, as terrorists and agitators. The population at large—peasants and workers alike—watched the conflict from the sidelines. As Struve wrote on January 2, 1905: “In Russia, there is as yet no revolutionary people.”⁴⁸ The passivity of the masses encouraged the government to wage a rearguard action against its opponents, confident that as long as the demands for political change were confined to “society” it could beat them off. All this changed dramatically on January 9 with the massacre of worker demonstrators in St. Petersburg. This so-called Bloody Sunday spread the revolutionary fever to all strata of the population and made the Revolution truly a mass phenomenon: if the 1904 Zemstvo Congress was Russia’s Estates-General, then Bloody Sunday was her Bastille Day.

This said, it would be incorrect to date the beginning of the 1905 Revolution from January 9 because by then the government had been under siege for more than a year. Indeed, Bloody Sunday would not have occurred were it not for the atmosphere of political crisis generated by the Zemstvo Congress and the banquet campaign.

It will be recalled that in 1903 Plehve had dismissed Zubatov but continued the experiment of police-sponsored trade unions. One of the post-Zubatov unions which he authorized was led by a priest, Father George Gapon.⁴⁹ The son of a Ukrainian peasant, Gapon was a charismatic figure who genuinely identified with the workers and their grievances. He was inspired by Leo Tolstoy and agreed to cooperate with the authorities only after considerable hesitation. With the blessing of the governor-general of the capital, I. A. Fullon, he founded the Assembly of Russian Factory and Plant Workers to work for the moral and cultural uplifting of the working class. (He stressed religion rather than economic issues and admitted only Christians.) Plehve approved Gapon’s union in February 1904. It enjoyed great popularity and opened branches in different quarters of city: toward the end of 1904, it was said to have 11,000 members and 8,000 associates,⁵⁰ which overshadowed the St. Petersburg Social-Democratic organization, numerically insignificant to begin with and composed almost entirely of students. The police watched Gapon’s activities with mixed feelings, for as his organization prospered he displayed worrisome signs of independence, to the point of attempting, without authorization, to open branches in Moscow and Kiev. It is difficult to tell what was on Gapon’s mind, but there is no reason to regard him as a “police agent” in the ordinary meaning of the term—that is, a man who betrayed associates for money—because he indubitably sympathized with his workers and identified with their aspirations. Unlike the ordinary agent provocateur, he also did not conceal his connections with the authorities: Governor Fullon openly participated in some of his functions.⁵¹ Indeed, by late 1904 it was difficult to tell whether the police were using Gapon or Gapon the police, for by that time he had become the most outstanding labor leader in Russia.

At first, Gapon’s only concern was for the spiritual welfare of his flock. But in late 1904, impressed by the Zemstvo Congress and the banquet campaign, and possibly afraid of isolation, he concluded that the Assembly had to enter politics, side by side with the other estates.⁵² He tried to make contact with the Social-Democrats and Socialists-Revolutionaries, but they spurned him. In November 1904 he communicated with the St. Petersburg branch of the Union of Liberation, which was only too happy to involve him in its campaign. As Gapon recalled in his memoirs:

Meanwhile, the great conference of the Zemstvos took place in November, and was followed by the petition of Russian barristers for a grant of law and liberty. I could not but feel that the day when freedom would be wrested from the hands of our old oppressors would be near, and at the same time I was terribly afraid that, for lack of support on the side of the masses, the effort might fail. I had a meeting with several intellectual Liberals, and asked their opinion as to what the workmen could do to help the liberation movement. They advised me that we also should draft a petition and present it to the Government. But I did not think that such a petition would be of much value unless it were accompanied by a large industrial strike.*

6. Governor Fullon visits Father Gapon and his Assembly of Russian Workers.

Gapon’s testimony leaves no doubt that the worker petition that led to Bloody Sunday was conceived by his advisers from the Liberation Movement as part of the campaign of banquets and professional gatherings. At the end of November, Gapon agreed to introduce into his Assembly the resolutions of the Zemstvo Congress and to distribute to its members publications of the Union of Liberation.⁵³

The opportunity for a major strike presented itself on December 20, 1904, with the dismissal of four workers belonging to his Assembly by Putilov, the largest industrial enterprise in the capital. Because the Putilov management had recently founded a rival union, the workers viewed the dismissals as an assault on their Assembly and went on strike. Other factories struck in sympathy. On January 7, an estimated 82,000 workers were out; the following day, their number grew to 120,000. By then, St. Petersburg was without electricity and newspapers; all public places were closed.⁵⁴

Imitating the banquet campaign, Gapon on January 6 scheduled for Sunday, January 9, a worker procession to the Winter Palace to present the Tsar with a petition. As was the case with all the documents drafted by or with the assistance of the Union of Liberation, the petition generalized and politicized specific and unpolitical grievances, claiming that there could be no improvement in the condition of the workers unless the political system was radically changed. Written in a stilted language meant to imitate worker speech, it called for a Constituent Assembly and made other demands taken from the program of the Union of Liberation.⁵⁵ Gapon sent copies of the petition to high officials. Preparations for the demonstration went ahead despite the opposition of the socialists.

Since Gapon’s Assembly enjoyed official sanction, the workers had no reason to think that the planned demonstration would be anything but orderly and peaceful. But the government feared that a procession of tens of thousands of workers could get out of control and lead to a breakdown of public order. In the eyes of the authorities Gapon was not so much a police agent as a “fanatical socialist” who exploited police protection for his own revolutionary purposes. It was further feared that the socialists would take advantage of the unrest to press their own agenda.⁵⁶ On January 7, Fullon appealed to the workers to stay away, threatening to use force, if necessary. The next day, orders went out for the arrest of Gapon, but he managed to hide.

That evening, January 8, Mirskii convened an emergency meeting of ministers and such high officials as happened to be on hand: a haphazard gathering to deal with what threatened to become a major crisis. It was decided to allow the demonstration to proceed but to set physical boundaries beyond which it was not to go. The Winter Palace was to be off limits. If persuasion failed to deter the workers, the troops deployed at these boundary lines were to shoot. There was a general sense, however, that force would not be required. The Tsar dismissed the strike of 120,000 workers and the planned demonstration as a trivial incident: on the eve of the massacre, he noted in his diary: “At the head of the workers’ union is some kind of a priest-socialist, Gapon.” Assured that the situation was under control, he departed for Tsarskoe Selo, his country residence.

Fullon, who had responsibility for the city’s security, although a professional Gendarme, was a gentle, cultivated person who, according to Witte, disliked police methods and would have been better employed running a girls’ boarding school.⁵⁷ Implementing decisions taken the previous night, he placed armed troops at several key points in the city.

By the time Gapon’s workers began to gather Sunday morning at the six designated assembly points it was evident that a confrontation had become unavoidable. The demonstrators were in the grip of a religious exaltation and prepared for martyrdom: the night before, some had written farewell letters. The marching columns looked like religious processions, the participants carrying ikons and singing hymns. As the groups advanced toward the city’s center, bystanders took off their hats and crossed themselves; some joined. Church bells tolled. The police did not interfere.

7. Bloody Sunday.

Eventually, the demonstrators ran into army pickets. In some places the troops fired warning shots into the air, but the masses, pushed from behind, pressed on. The soldiers, untrained in controlling crowds, reacted in the only way they knew, by firing point-blank at the advancing crowd. The worst altercation occurred at the Narva Gate, in the southwestern part of the city, where Gapon led the demonstrators. The troops fired and the crowd fell to the ground: there were 40 dead. Gapon rose to his feet and cried: “There is no God anymore, there is no Tsar.” Massacres occurred also in other parts of the city. Although journalists spoke of 4,600 killed and wounded, the best estimate is 200 killed and 800 injured.* Immediately, disorders spread throughout St. Petersburg. In the evening, there was much looting, especially of shops carrying liquor and firearms.⁵⁸

Bloody Sunday caused a wave of revulsion to sweep across the country: among the masses, it damaged irreparably the image of the “good Tsar.”

Mirskii received his walking papers on January 18 without so much as a word of thanks: he was the first Minister of the Interior since the post had been created a century earlier to be let go without some honorific title or even a medal.⁵⁹ His replacement, a colorless bureaucrat named Alexander Bulygin, also resisted as long as he decently could the honor of being named minister. Real power now passed into the hands of D. F. Trepov, who took over from Fullon the post of governor-general in the capital. A dashing officer, he had the complete confidence of Nicholas, who appreciated his candor and lack of personal ambition: in the months that followed, Trepov would exert a rather beneficial influence on Nicholas, persuading him to make concessions that he would rather have avoided.*

In the wake of Bloody Sunday protest meetings took place throughout Russia: zemstva, municipal councils, and private organizations condemned in the sharpest terms the government’s brutality. The workers responded with strikes. In January 1905 over 400,000 workers laid down their tools: it was the greatest strike action in Russian history until that time.⁶⁰ University students left their classrooms; in some localities the unrest spread to secondary schools. On March 18, 1905, the authorities ordered all institutions of higher learning closed for the rest of the academic year. The released students swelled radical ranks. Disturbances were especially violent in the borderlands. On January 13, in the course of a general strike in Riga, Russian troops killed 70 persons. The following day, during a strike in Warsaw, 93 people lost their lives; 31 more were killed there during May Day celebrations (April 18).⁶¹ The worst massacres occurred in mid-June in Odessa, where striking workers were joined by the crew of the mutinous battleship Potemkin. Here 2,000 are said to have died and 3,000 to have been gravely injured.⁶² In many localities, criminals took advantage of the breakdown of order to ply their trade. In Warsaw, for example, Jewish gangsters disguised as “anarcho-Communists” broke into affluent residences, “expropriating” money and whatever else struck their fancy.⁶³

Russia stood on the edge of an abyss. It seemed as if the country was boiling over from anger, envy, and resentments of every imaginable kind which until then had been kept contained under a lid of awe and fear. Now that the population had lost respect for the government, there was nothing to hold society together: neither civic sense nor patriotism. For it was the state that made Russia a country, not vice versa. It was a horrifying spectacle to many Russians to see how tenuous the bonds holding the Empire together were and how powerful the divisive passions.

As was its custom in such cases, the government’s first (and often last) reaction to a domestic crisis was to appoint a commission to investigate its causes, which in this instance were worker grievances. Chaired by Senator N. V. Shidlovskii, the commission took the unprecedented step of inviting factory workers to send representatives. In the second week of February 1905 elections were held in St. Petersburg factories, in which 145,000 workers cast ballots: the delegates they chose in turn picked representatives to the commission. Despite its dramatic beginning, the commission accomplished nothing because the workers posed conditions which were found unacceptable, whereupon it was dissolved. Even so, it was of considerable historic importance. Not only were these the “first free worker elections ever” held in Russia,⁶⁴ but “for the first time in Russian history there was an elected representation of a large body of workers … and not merely workers in separate factories.”⁶⁵ By recognizing workers as a distinct social group, with its own interests, the government laid the foundations of what later in the year would emerge as the St. Petersburg Soviet of Workers’ Deputies.

The turmoil, verging on civil war, confounded and paralyzed Nicholas. He could not for the life of him understand why people would not be content with the lot which destiny had assigned them, as he was: after all, he carried on even though he derived no enjoyment from his difficult and often tedious responsibilities. (“I maintain autocracy not for my own pleasure,” he told Sviatopolk-Mirskii, “I act in its spirit only because I am convinced that it is necessary for Russia. If it were for myself, I would gladly be rid of it.”⁶⁶) In the first decade of his reign he had faithfully followed in the footsteps of his father: but Alexander had not had to contend with a country in rebellion. Nicholas’s inclination was to quell the unrest by force. The police, however, were pitifully inadequate to the task, while the bulk of the army, over one million men, was thousands of miles away fighting the Japanese. According to Witte, the country was virtually depleted of military forces.⁶⁷ There was no alternative, therefore, to political concessions: but just how little one could get away with was unclear. Nicholas and his confidential advisers were torn between the realization that things could not go on as they were and the fear that any change would be for the worse.

Some officials now urged the Tsar to expand on the promises made in the December 12 edict. They were joined by industrialists who worried about a breakdown of production. Among the events that softened Nicholas’s opposition to further concessions was the murder on February 4, 1905, at the hands of a terrorist, of his uncle, the Grand Duke Sergei Aleksandrovich, a friend and confidant.

On January 17, Nicholas met with A. S. Ermolov, the Minister of Agriculture and State Properties, an experienced and wise official. The advice which Ermolov proffered, first in person and then in a memorandum, made a strong impression on him and seems to have been the main inspiration behind the important legislative acts of February 18.⁶⁸ Ermolov depicted Russia as a country on the verge of revolution. To prevent collapse, two measures had to be taken without delay. A cabinet of ministers had to be formed to give the government the necessary unity and the ability to coordinate policy in face of the opposition, neither of which was possible under the existing system.* Concurrently, a Land Assembly (consultative in nature) had to be convened of representatives of all the Tsar’s subjects without distinction of social rank, religion, or nationality. Only such a body would enable the Tsar to establish direct contact with the nation: after the November Zemstvo Congress, in which the gentry dominated, one could no longer hope to rely on that class, the monarchy’s traditional support. Ermolov assured Nicholas that he could trust his people. “I know,” he wrote,

that Your Majesty also hears from his closest advisers different voices. I know the opinion exists that it is dangerous to convene the nation’s representatives, especially at the present troubled time, when passions have been stirred. There is the fear that at a gathering of such representatives voices may resound calling for a fundamental change in the ancient foundations of our state system, for limiting tsarist authority, for a constitution; the fear that the Land Assembly may turn into a Constituent Assembly, the peasantry raise the question of a Black Repartition.† that the very unity of the Russian land may be challenged. That such voices may indeed be heard in such an Assembly cannot be denied. But, on the other hand, one cannot help but feel confident that in an Assembly where all the classes of the population will be represented, where the views and spirit of the people will find true reflection, these individual voices will be drowned out by the vast majority which remains faithful to national traditions, to the native foundations of the Russian state system. After all, such voices resound now, too, and now they are the more dangerous because the silence of the masses offers them no refutation. No, Your Majesty, there is nothing to fear from such phenomena, and they represent no real danger.⁶⁹

In effect, Ermolov was proposing to isolate the intelligentsia by bringing into the political process the silent majority. The alternative, in his opinion, was a massive peasant uprising such as Russia had not seen since Pugachev’s rebellion in the reign of Catherine the Great.

Impressed by these arguments, Nicholas told Bulygin the next day that he was prepared to consider a representative body to discuss drafts of legislative bills.

On February 18, Nicholas signed three documents. The first was a manifesto urging the population to help restore order. The second was an invitation to the Tsar’s subjects to submit “suggestions” “on matters concerning the improvement of the state and the nation’s well-being.” The last was a “rescript” to Bulygin informing him that the Tsar had decided to “involve the worthiest men, endowed with the nation’s confidence and elected by the people, in the preliminary working out and evaluation of legislative bills.”⁷⁰

While experts were drafting the proposal for an advisory (zakonosovesh-chatel’naia) assembly or Duma, across the country hundreds of meetings took place to draw up petitions. The response to its invitation exceeded anything the government had anticipated:

The newspaper carried accounts of the meetings and thus publicized the grievances and demands that were being voiced by a growing number of people. Instead of curbing unrest, the monarch’s ukase proved to be [the] catalyst that mobilized masses of people who had not previously dared to express opinions on political issues. Dominated by liberals and liberal demands, the petition campaign really amounted to a revival, in more intense form, of the liberal offensive of the fall and winter of 1904–5.⁷¹

The liberals seized the opportunity offered by the February 18 edict to press their program, resuming the banquet campaign in the guise of a “petition campaign.” It was now possible, not only at private gatherings but also at public assemblies, to demand a constitution and a legislative parliament. The zemtsy held their Second Congress in Moscow in April 1905: the majority of the delegates would be satisfied with nothing less than a Constituent Assembly. Various professional associations met and passed resolutions in the spirit of the Union of Liberation. The bureaucrats, fearful of the effect of the manifesto on the village, tried to keep it out of peasants’ hands, but the liberals foiled them, using provincial and district zemstva to distribute it in hundreds of thousands of copies. As a consequence, in the spring of 1905, 60,000 peasant petitions flooded St. Petersburg.⁷² (Except for a handful, they remain unpublished and unstudied.) The petition campaign inadvertently contributed to the politicization of the village, even though the peasants’ cahiers seem to have dealt mainly with land and related economic matters.*

It was in the course of the petition campaign that the liberals created their third and most powerful national organization, the Union of Unions, which was to play a decisive role in the climactic stage of the 1905 Revolution. The Union of Unions (Soiuz Soiuzov) was the most radical of the liberal organizations, standing to the left of both the Zemstvo Congress and the Union of Liberation. The decision to create this body was taken at the October 1904 congress of the Union of Liberation: its mission was to broadcast the liberal message to the mass constituency of professional people as well as white- and blue-collar employees in order to involve them in the political struggle. The intention was for the professional and trade associations formed under the Union’s auspices not to serve their members’ special interests, but to involve them in the campaign for political freedom. V. A. Maklakov, a prominent liberal, recalls that the Union of Lawyers, of which he was a member, did not promote the collective interests of its members or the cause of law, but used the prestige of the legal profession to add to the clamor for a parliament and a constitution.⁷³ The same held true of the other unions. The movement for the formation of such unions accelerated significantly after the publication of the February 18 manifesto. In addition to the Union of Lawyers, unions were formed of Medical Personnel, Engineers and Technicians, Professors, Agronomists and Statisticians, Pharmaceutical Assistants, Clerks and Bookkeepers, Journalists and Writers, Veterinarians, Government, Municipal, and Zemstvo Employees, Zemstvo Activists, and School Teachers. Separate organizations were set up to work for the equality of Jews and of women.⁷⁴ The Union also organized mass associations: its outstanding success was in setting up the All-Russian Union of Railroad Employees and Workers, the largest labor organization in the country. Later on, it was instrumental in forming the Peasant Union. All the member unions adhered to a minimum program calling for the replacement of autocracy with a constitutional regime and full civil rights for the population. On other issues, such as the Constituent Assembly, they showed considerable divergencies.⁷⁵ On May 8, 1905, a congress of fourteen unions organized by the Union of Liberation in Moscow federated into the Union of Unions under the chairmanship of Paul Miliukov. Miliukov, the leading figure in the liberal movement, by this time was a liberal only in name because he was prepared to use any means, including the general strike, to topple the autocracy. In the next five months, the Union of Unions virtually set the course of the Russian Revolution.

The news from the Far East went from bad to worse. In February 1905, the Russians fought the Japanese for Mukden, a Manchurian city that Kuropatkin had vowed never to surrender. It was a ferocious engagement in which 330,000 Russians battled 270,000 Japanese. After losing 89,000 men (to 71,000 of the enemy), Kuropatkin decided to abandon the city.

As if this humiliation were not enough, in May came news of the worst disaster in Russian naval history. The Baltic Fleet was sailing off the east coast of Africa when it learned of the surrender of Port Arthur. Since his mission was to relieve Port Arthur, the fleet’s commander, Admiral Z. P. Rozhestvenskii, requested permission to return to his home base. The request was denied. Joined by the Black Sea Fleet, which had sailed through the Suez Canal, he reached the China Sea and headed for Vladivostok by way of the Strait of Tsushima between Korea and southern Japan. Here a Japanese fleet under Admiral Togo lay in wait. The Russian vessels were more heavily armed but slower and less maneuverable. Togo also had the benefit of superior intelligence. The engagement fought on May 14/27, 1905, was an unmitigated disaster for the Russians. All their battleships and many auxiliary vessels were sunk and most of the remainder captured; only a few managed to escape under the cover of darkness. Rozhestvenskii himself was taken prisoner. Tsushima ended any hope the Imperial Government may have had of staving off constitutional reforms by a glorious military victory.

8. Paul Miliukov, leader of the Constitutional-Democratic Party.

Nicholas’s immediate reaction to Tsushima was to designate Trepov Deputy Minister of the Interior with extensive police powers, which, according to Witte, made him “unofficial dictator.”⁷⁶ He also resolved to seek peace. The difficult mission was assigned to Witte, who in June left for Portsmouth, New Hampshire, where the peace talks were to take place under the patronage of the U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt.

Sergei Witte was late Imperial Russia’s most outstanding politician. It would strain the word to call him a statesman, because he was rather short of political vision. But he did have the talent—rare in Russia where government and opposition were equally prone to lock themselves into doctrinaire positions—of practicing politics as the art of the possible, content, when making or recommending policies, to settle on the lesser of evils. Like many successful politicians, he was an opportunist skilled at pursuing his private interests in the guise of public service. No one was better suited to steer Russia through the revolutionary storms: he had a remarkably acute political instinct and energy to spare. Unfortunately for Witte, and possibly Russia, Nicholas disliked and mistrusted him. The diminutive, exquisitely mannered Tsar could not abide the rough, overbearing minister who had married a divorcée of dubious reputation, chewed gum, and was rumored (wrongly) to be a Freemason.

Witte descended from a Russified Swedish family. He began his career in the Railroad Department of the Ministry of Commerce. His early politics were nationalist and pro-autocratic: after the assassination of Alexander II he joined the right-wing “Holy Brotherhood,” which planned to turn the weapon of terrorism against the terrorists. In his view, Russia had to have a strong and unlimited monarchy because over one-third of her population consisted of “aliens.”⁷⁷ But he was willing to come to terms with the opposition and always preferred compromise to repression. He had uncommon managerial talents and advanced rapidly: in 1889 he was placed in charge of State Railways and in 1892 was appointed Minister of Finance. He formulated and implemented ambitious plans for the industrial development of Russia, and was instrumental in securing loans from abroad, a good part of which went into constructing railways and buying out private railroad companies. His policies of forced industrial growth aroused the enmity of diverse groups: the landed gentry and the officials of the Ministry of the Interior in particular, who thought that he was subverting the country’s agrarian foundations.

Dismissed in 1903 and given the purely honorific post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Witte was now recalled and sent to the United States. His instructions were vague. He was under no circumstances to agree to an indemnity or to surrender one foot of “ancient Russian soil.”⁷⁸ Otherwise he was on his own. Witte, who had a fine sense of the “correlation of forces,” realized that Russia was not without strong cards, for the war had severely strained Japan’s economy and made her no less eager to come to terms. While in the United States, he exploited American anti-Japanese feelings, and made himself popular with the public by such democratic gestures as shaking hands with railway engineers and posing for ladies with Kodak cameras, which he admitted came hard to him, unaccustomed as he was to acting.

In Russia, the news of Tsushima raised the political tension still higher. On May 23, the St. Petersburg Municipal Council voted for political reforms; the Municipal Council of Moscow followed suit the next day. These were significant developments because up to that time the institutions of urban self-government had been more restrained than the zemstva and stayed clear of the Liberation Movement. On May 24–25, the zemtsy held in Moscow a gathering of their own people along with representatives of the nobility and Municipal Councils.⁷⁹ Its resolution called for the convocation of a national representative body elected on a secret, equal, universal, and direct ballot: among the signatories were the chairmen of twenty Municipal Councils.⁸⁰ The meeting chose a deputation to see the Tsar, which he received on June 6. Speaking for the group, Prince Sergei Trubetskoi, the rector of Moscow University, urged Nicholas to allow public representatives to enter into a direct dialogue with him. He spoke of the military defeats raising among the people the specter of “treason” in high places. Without specifying whether the proposed body should be advisory or legislative, Trubetskoi asked that it be elected, not by estates, but on a democratic franchise. “You are Tsar of all Russia,” he reminded him. In his response, Nicholas assured the deputation he was determined to convene representatives of the nation.⁸¹ The encounter set a historic precedent in that it was the first time a Russian ruler had met with representatives of the liberal opposition to hear pleas for constitutional change.

9. Sergei Witte at Portsmouth, N.H.: Summer 1905.

How widespread the demand for such change had become after Tsushima can be gathered from the fact that a Conference of the Marshals of the Nobility (June 12–15) concluded that Russia stood at the threshold of anarchy because she had only a “shadow” government. To restore state authority, the Tsar had to stop relying exclusively on the officialdom and avail himself of the assistance of “elected representatives of the entire land.”⁸²

The entire opposition movement at this point was driven by liberals and liberal-conservatives who saw in constitution and parliament a way of strengthening the state and averting revolution.⁸³ The revolutionaries continued to play a marginal role and followed the liberals. This would remain the case until October.

On June 23, a newspaper carried the first reports on the discussions underway in government concerning the Duma, as the new representative body was to be called. In July more information on this subject leaked from a secret meeting at Peterhof. (The leaks originated with the professor of Russian history at Moscow University, Vasilii Kliuchevskii, who participated in the drafting commission as a consultant.⁸⁴) The provisions of what came to be popularly known as the Bulygin Constitution were officially released on August 6.⁸⁵ Because of the leaks, the public, even if disappointed, was not surprised. It was the usual story of too little, too late. A proposal that would have been welcomed six months earlier now satisfied no one: while the opposition was demanding a legislative parliament and even a Constituent Assembly, the government was offering a powerless consultative body. The new State Duma was to be limited to deliberating legislative proposals submitted for its consideration by the government and then forwarding them to the State Council for final editing. The government was not even obligated to consult the Duma: the document explicitly reaffirmed the “inviolability of autocratic power.” As a concession to liberal demands, the franchise was based, not on estate, but on property qualifications, which were set high. Many of the non-Russian regions were deprived of the vote; industrial workers, too, were disenfranchised. In St. Petersburg and Moscow, only 5 to 10 percent of the residents qualified; in the provincial cities, 1 percent or even fewer.⁸⁶ The franchise was deliberately skewed in favor of Great Russian peasants. According to Witte, during the deliberations of the Bulygin Commission it was assumed

that the only [group] on which one could rely in the present turbulent and revolutionary condition of Russia was the peasantry, that the peasants were the conservative bulwark of the state, for which reason the electoral law ought to rely primarily on the peasantry, i.e., that the Duma be primarily peasant and express peasant views.⁸⁷

The assumption had never been put to a test and turned out to be entirely wrong: but it fitted with the Court’s deeply held conviction that the pressures for political change emanated exclusively from the cities and the non-Russian ethnic groups.

Even though the so-called Bulygin Duma offered little, it represented a major concession, inadequately appreciated by contemporaries: “The autocrat and his government, who had always claimed to be the best and only judges of the people’s true interests, now at least were willing to consult with the people on a permanent and comprehensive basis.…”⁸⁸ In so doing, the Tsar accepted the principle of representation, which a mere eight months earlier he had declared he would “never” do. Witte, who also knew the proposal fell far short of what was needed, nevertheless felt certain that the Duma would in no time develop from an advisory into a full-blooded legislative institution: only “bureaucratic eunuchs” could have deluded themselves that Russia would be content with a “consultative parliament.”⁸⁹

The liberals now faced the choice of accepting the Bulygin Duma as given, petitioning the Tsar to change it, or appealing to the nation to pressure the government. A joint Zemstvo and Municipal Councils Congress held in early July, by which time the substance of the government’s proposal was already known, discussed these options. The more conservative participants feared that a direct appeal to the population would inflame the peasants, who were beginning to stir, but there was near-unanimity that it was pointless to petition the Tsar. The majority decided to call on the population to help achieve “peaceful progress”—a veiled way of exhorting it to civil disobedience.⁹⁰

Notwithstanding these developments, in August and September 1905, the country seemed to be settling down: the announcement of August 6, promising a Duma, and the prospect of peace with Japan had a calming effect. Nicholas, convinced that the worst was over, resumed the routine of Court life. He ignored warnings of informed officials, including Trepov, that the calm was deceptive.

Witte returned to Russia in triumph, having managed to obtain far better terms than anyone had dared to hope. In the Treaty of Portsmouth, concluded on September 5 (NS), Russia surrendered the southern half of Sakhalin and consented to Japan’s acquiring the Liaotung Peninsula with Port Arthur, as well as establishing hegemony over Korea, neither of which were Russian property. There was to be no indemnity. The price was small, considering Russia’s responsibility for the war and her military humiliation.*

Witte was not deceived by appearances. Not only was the government unable to reassert authority, but Russian society was in the grip of a psychosis that had it convinced “things cannot go on like this.” He thought all of Russia was on strike.⁹¹

And, indeed, a nationwide strike was in the making.

The idea of resorting to a general strike to force the government to its knees had been placed on the agenda of the Union of Unions shortly after the Tsushima debacle. At that time, the Union’s Central Bureau took under advisement the resolutions of two of its more radical affiliates—the Union of Railroad Employees and Workers and the Union of Engineers—to organize a general political strike. A committee was formed to look into the matter,⁹² but little was done until early October, when the center of political resistance once again shifted to the universities.

As the opening of the new academic year drew near, the government made unexpectedly generous concessions to the universities. On the advice of Trepov, rules were issued on August 27 allowing faculties to elect rectors and students to hold assemblies. To avoid confrontations with the students, Trepov ordered the police to keep out of university precincts: responsibility for maintaining discipline was given to faculty councils.⁹³ These liberalizing measures went far in meeting objections to the unpopular 1884 University Statutes. But they had the opposite of the anticipated effect: instead of mollifying the students, they provided the radical student minority with the opportunity to transform universities into arenas of worker agitation.

In August and early September 1905, the students were debating whether to resume studies. They overwhelmingly wanted the schools to reopen: a vote taken at St. Petersburg University showed that those favoring this course enjoyed a seven-to-one plurality.⁹⁴ But being young and therefore sensitive to charges of selfishness, they struck a compromise. A nationwide student conference in September representing twenty-three institutions of higher learning rejected motions calling for a boycott of classes. It did agree, however, as a concession to the radicals and proof of political awareness, to make university facilities available to non-students for political rallies.⁹⁵

This tactic had been formulated the preceding summer by the Menshevik Theodore Dan in the pages of the Social-Democratic organ Iskra. Dan urged the students to return to school, not to study, but to make revolution:

The systematic and overt violation of all the rules of the police-university “regulations” [rasporiadok], the expulsion of all kinds of disciplinarians, inspectors, supervisors, and spies, opening the doors of the lecture halls to all citizens who wish to enter, the transformation of universities and institutions of higher learning into places of popular gatherings and political meetings—such should be the students’ objective when they return to the lecture halls which they have abandoned. The transformation of universities and academies into the property of the revolutionary people: this is how one can succinctly formulate the task of the student body … Such a transformation, of course, will make the universities into one of the centers for the concentration and organization of the national masses.⁹⁶

Trepov’s rules inadvertently made such revolutionary tactics possible.

The militant minority immediately took advantage of this opportunity to invite workers and other non-students to political gatherings on university grounds. Academic work became impossible as institutions of higher learning turned into “political clubs”: non-conforming professors and students were subjected to intimidation and harassment.⁹⁷ The workers were slow to respond to the invitation of student militants but curiosity got the better of them. As word got around that the students treated them with respect, increasing numbers of workers turned up. They listened to speeches and soon began to speak up themselves.⁹⁸ Similar scenes took place in other university towns, including Moscow. It was an unprecedented spectacle to have radical students incite workers to strike and rebel without police interference. Trepov’s hope that his relaxed rules would allow students to “blow off steam” had completely misfired. In Witte’s view, the university regulations of August 27 were a disaster: “it was the first breach through which the Revolution, which had ripened underground, emerged into the open.”⁹⁹

At the end of September a new wave of strikes broke out in central Russia. Although economic in origin, they became rapidly politicized thanks to the efforts of the Union of Unions and the radical students who followed its lead.

The strikes which were to culminate in the general strike of mid-October began with a walkout of Moscow printers on September 17. The dispute, which began peacefully, was over wages, but university students soon gave it a political coloration. The strikers clashed with the police and Cossacks. Other workers joined in the protests. On October 3, St. Petersburg printers struck in sympathy.¹⁰⁰ Until the formation of the St. Petersburg Soviet on October 13, the universities served as coordinating centers for the strike movement because they were then the only institutions in Russia where it was possible to hold political meetings without police interference.¹⁰¹ Their lecture halls and other facilities were taken over for political rallies, attended by thousands. Trubetskoi, the rector of Moscow University, was determined not to allow his institution to be turned into a political battleground and ordered it closed on September 22. (It was his last act, for he died suddenly a week later: his funeral in Moscow was an occasion for a grandiose political demonstration.) But St. Petersburg University and the St. Petersburg Technological Institute stayed open and this allowed them to play a critical role in the events that led to the general strike.

Industrial unrest in Moscow and St. Petersburg assumed a national dimension when the railroad workers joined in. It was noted previously that the All-Russian Union of Railroad Employees and Workers, an affiliate of the Union of Unions, had been discussing since the summer of 1905 the possibility of a general political strike. The railroad action began with a minor incident. In late September the authorities convened a conference to discuss with railroad representatives questions connected with their pension rights. On October 4–5 false rumors spread that the workers attending this conference had been arrested. The Railroad Employees and Workers Union used this opportunity to execute its plan. On October 6, the Moscow railroads struck, isolating the city. The strike spread to other cities, soon joined by communication and factory workers and white-collar employees. In all instances, the Union of Unions and its affiliates made certain that the strikers posed political demands, calling for the convocation of a Constituent Assembly elected on a “four-tail” franchise (universal, direct, secret, and equal ballot). Partly spontaneous, partly directed, the movement headed toward a complete work stoppage. On October 8, the Union of Unions instructed its members to join in support of the railroad workers and set up strike committees throughout the country. The stage was set for a general strike.*

On October 6, as the movement was gathering momentum, Witte requested an audience with the Tsar, which was granted three days later. Witte, who in the past was inclined to tell the Tsar what he wanted to hear, was now brutally frank. He told Nicholas that he had two choices: appoint a military dictator or make major political concessions. The rationale for the latter was outlined in a memorandum which he brought along.* Nicholas almost certainly told his wife what had transpired, for Witte was requested to return to Peterhof the following day, October 10, to repeat his arguments in her presence. Throughout the encounter, Alexandra never uttered a word.

Close reading of Witte’s memorandum indicates that he was familiar with the program of the Union of Liberation and, in particular, the writings of Struve, its chief theorist. Without saying it in so many words, he proposed the adoption of the platform which Struve had been urging in the pages of the Union’s organ, Liberation: “The slogan of ‘freedom’ must become the slogan of government activity. There is no other way of saving the state.”† The situation was critical. The country had become dangerously radicalized, and the masses, having lost confidence in the government, were poised to destroy the country’s very foundations:

The advance of human progress is unstoppable. The idea of human freedom will triumph, if not by way of reform then by way of revolution. But in the latter event it will come to life on the ashes of a thousand years of destroyed history. The Russian bunt [rebellion], mindless and pitiless, will sweep everything, turn everything to dust. What kind of Russia will emerge from this unexampled trial surpasses human imagination: the horrors of the Russian bunt may exceed everything known to history. It is possible that foreign intervention will tear the country apart. Attempts to put into practice the ideals of theoretical socialism—they will fail but they will be made, no doubt about it—will destroy the family, the expression of religious faith, property, all the foundations of law.¹⁰²

To prevent such a catastrophe, Witte proposed to satisfy the demands of the liberals and in this manner detach them from the revolutionaries. The united front of the opposition broken up, the liberals could be pacified and the radicals isolated. The only realistic course of action—it had to be taken at once, there was no time to lose—was for the government “boldly and openly to take charge of the Liberation Movement.” The government should adopt the principle of constitutionalism and democratize the restricted franchise adopted for the consultative Duma. It should consider having ministers chosen by and responsible to the Duma, or at least enjoying its confidence. Neither a constitution nor a legislative parliament, Witte assured Nicholas, would weaken his authority: they would rather enhance it. Witte further proposed, as a means of calming social unrest, improvements in the condition of workers, peasants, and the ethnic minorities, as well as guarantees of the freedom of speech, press, and assembly.

It was a revolutionary program, born of desperation, for Witte realized that the government did not dispose of the military strength required to restore order by force.* Although on October 9–10 and the days that followed he would list military repression as an alternative, he did so pro forma, knowing full well that the only realistic option was surrender.

His proposals were subjected to intense discussions at the Court and in high bureaucratic circles. Because Nicholas could not decide on the drastic changes that Witte had suggested, he initially agreed only to a bureaucratic measure which had long been urged on him—namely, creating a cabinet of ministers. On October 13, Witte received a telegram appointing him Chairman of the Council of Ministers “for the purpose of unifying the activity of all the ministers.”¹⁰³ Assuming that this meant his reform proposals had been turned down, he requested to see the Tsar. He told him he saw no possibility of serving as Prime Minister unless his entire program was adopted. But on October 14 he was invited to return to Peterhof the next morning with the draft of a manifesto.

While Nicholas was mulling over Witte’s suggestions, the country was coming to a standstill. The week that followed Witte’s first visit to Peterhof (October 10–17), critical in the history of Russia, is difficult to disentangle because of contrary claims of various oppositional groups which the sources presently available do not make it possible to sort out. In the eyes of the well-informed police authorities, the general strike and the St. Petersburg Soviet were the work of the Union of Unions. Trepov unqualifiedly credited the Union with creating the St. Petersburg Soviet and serving as its “central organization.”¹⁰⁴ Such was also the opinion of the chief of the St. Petersburg Okhrana, General A. V. Gerasimov, for whom the Union exerted its impact in October 1905 by providing the scattered oppositional groups with a common program: “The principal initiative and organizational work in the aforementioned strikes belongs to the Union of Unions.”¹⁰⁵ Nicholas wrote his mother on November 10 that “the famous Union of Unions … had led all the disorders.”¹⁰⁶ Miliukov in his memoirs endorsed this view although he preferred to credit the parent organization, the Union of Liberation. He states that the initial meetings of the workers which led to the creation of the Soviet took place in the homes of members of the Union of Liberation and the first appeal to convoke the Soviet was printed on the Union’s presses.¹⁰⁷ The Mensheviks hotly denied this claim, insisting it was they who had launched the Soviet; in this, they received support from some early Communist historians.¹⁰⁸ There is, indeed, evidence that on October 10 the Mensheviks, mostly students, appealed to the workers of St. Petersburg to elect a Workers’ Committee to direct their strike.¹⁰⁹ But indications also exist that the workers, following the precedent established by the Shidlovskii Commission, independently chose their representatives, whom they called starosty, the name given elected village officials: some of these had served on the Shidlovskii Commission.¹¹⁰ The most likely explanation is that the Union of Unions initiated the Soviet and that Menshevik youths helped rally factory workers in its support. This was the conclusion reached by General Gerasimov.¹¹¹

On October 10 communication workers and service employees of public as well as private enterprises in St. Petersburg went on strike. The following evening, over 30,000 people, mostly workers and other non-students, filled the assembly halls and lecture rooms of the university. The crowd voted to join the railroad strike.¹¹² By October 13 virtually all rail traffic in Russia stopped; the telegraph lines were also dead. More and more industrial workers as well as white-collar employees joined the strike.

On October 13, the Soviet held its first session in the St. Petersburg Technological Institute. On hand were some forty intellectuals and workers’ representatives. The meeting was called to create a center to direct the strike. Initially, the Soviet was no more than that, a fact reflected in the names which it used in the first four days of its existence: Strike Committee (Stachennyi komitet), United Workers’ Soviet (Obshchii rabochii sovet), and Workers’ Committee (Rabochiii komitet). The name Soviet of Workers’ Deputies was adopted only on October 17.* Fifteen of the workers’ representatives present were elected that day, the remainder having been chosen earlier in the year to serve on the Shidlovskii Commission.¹¹³ The opening session dealt with the strike. An appeal was issued calling on workers to maintain the work stoppage in order to force the convocation of a Constituent Assembly and the adoption of the eight-hour working day.

At the second meeting of the Soviet, on October 14, the Menshevik George Nosar (Khrustalev) was elected permanent chairman. (In 1899, he had been one of the leaders of the student strike at St. Petersburg University.) By then, public life in St. Petersburg had come to a standstill. Nevsky Prospect was illuminated by projectors mounted on the Admiralty spire.

At this point (October 14) Trepov issued a warning against further disorders, threatening to resort to firearms.¹¹⁴ He had St. Petersburg University surrounded by troops and after October 15 allowed no more rallies there. A few days later, he shut down the university for the rest of the academic year. Right-wing elements began to beat up Jews, students, and anyone else who looked like an intellectual. It became dangerous to wear eyeglasses.* This was the beginning of mob violence, which after the proclamation of the October Manifesto would assume massive proportions, claiming hundreds if not thousands of lives and causing immense destruction of property.

At its third session on October 15, the Soviet acquired a formal organization. Present were 226 delegates from 96 industrial enterprises. Socialists came in force, too, among them the Bolsheviks, who had initially boycotted the Soviet because they opposed the formation “of organs of proletarian self-rule before power had been seized.”†

At the October 15 session an organizational step was taken which, although hardly noticed at the time, would have the most weighty consequences in February 1917, when the St. Petersburg Soviet was resuscitated. An Executive Committee (Ispolnitenyi Komitet, or Ispolkom for short) of thirty-one persons was formed: fourteen from the city’s boroughs, eight from the trade unions, and nine (29 percent) from the socialist parties. The latter allotted three seats each to the Menshevik and Bolshevik factions of the Social-Democratic Party and three to the Socialists-Revolutionaries. The socialist intellectuals were not elected by the Soviet but appointed by their respective parties. Although they had only a consultative vote, their experience and organizational skills assured them of a dominant role in the Ispolkom and, through it, the Soviet at large. In 1917, the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet would consist exclusively of intellectuals nominated by the socialist parties.¹¹⁵ The rising influence of the radical intelligentsia found expression in an appeal to the workers issued by the Soviet on October 15 with an explicit threat of physical coercion against strikebreakers. “Who is not with us is against us, and to them the Soviet of Deputies has decided to apply extreme methods—force.” The appeal urged the strikers forcibly to shut down shops which ignored the strike and to prevent the distribution of government newspapers.¹¹⁶

At the meeting of October 17, the Soviet adopted the name Soviet of Workers’ Deputies (Sovet rabochikh deputatov) and expanded the Executive Committee to fifty, with the socialist parties being allotted seven seats each, for a total of twenty-one (42 percent). It was decided to issue Izvestiia as the Soviet’s official organ.

Similar soviets sprang up in some fifty provincial cities, as well as certain rural areas and in a few military units, but the St. Petersburg Soviet enjoyed from the beginning a position of undisputed primacy.

In the evening of October 14, Witte was in receipt of a telegram from Peterhof asking him to appear the following morning with the draft of a manifesto. Witte claims that he was unable to write the manifesto because he was feeling unwell, and entrusted the task to Alexis Obolenskii, a member of the State Council who happened to be spending the night at his home.¹¹⁷ Since it is unlikely that he failed to realize the importance of this document, and he appeared healthy enough both before and after the event, the more likely explanation for his missing this unique opportunity to make history was the fear of bearing the blame for a step which he knew the Tsar took with the utmost distaste. If one is to believe him, he first familiarized himself with the manifesto the following morning aboard a ship which was taking him and Obolenskii to Peterhof (the railroads being on strike).¹¹⁸*

For his basic text, Obolenskii drew on the resolutions of the Zemstvo Congress held in Moscow on September 12–15. The zemtsy had rejected the Bulygin Duma as entirely inadequate, and offered their own program:

1. Guarantees of personal rights, freedom of speech and publication, freedom of assembly and association;

2. Elections to the Duma on the basis of a universal franchise;

3. The Duma to be given a determining voice in legislation as well as control over the state budget and the administration.¹¹⁹

In drafting his text, Obolenskii borrowed not only the contents but also the format of the September Zemstvo Congress resolutions. As a result, the substantive part of the October Manifesto turned out to be little more than a paraphrase of the zemstvo demands.

The Tsar spent most of October 15 with Witte and other dignitaries discussing and editing the manifesto. Among those he consulted was Trepov, in whose judgment and good faith he retained unbounded confidence. He forwarded to him Witte’s memorandum and the draft of the manifesto, requesting his frank opinion. Even while getting ready to sign the manifesto, Nicholas must still have contemplated resort to military force, for he also asked Trepov how many days he thought it possible to maintain order in St. Petersburg without bloodshed and whether it was altogether feasible to reassert authority without numerous victims.¹²⁰

In his response the next day (October 16), Trepov agreed in general with Witte’s proposals, even as he urged restraint in making concessions to the liberals. To the question whether he could restore order in the capital without risking a massacre, he answered that

he could give no such guarantee either now or in the future: rebellion [kramola] has attained a level at which it was doubtful whether [bloodshed] could be avoided. All that remains is faith in the mercy of God.¹²¹

Still unconvinced, Nicholas asked Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich to assume dictatorial powers. The Grand Duke is said to have responded that the forces for a military dictatorship were unavailable and that unless the Tsar signed the manifesto he would shoot himself.¹²²

On October 17, Witte presented the Tsar with a report (doklad) summarizing the rationale for the manifesto which was to be issued jointly with it. Here he restated the conviction that the unrest afflicting Russia resulted neither from specific flaws in the country’s political system nor from the excesses of the revolutionaries. The cause had to be sought deeper, “in the disturbed equilibrium between the intellectual strivings of Russia’s thinking society and the external forms of its life.” The restoration of order, therefore, required fundamental changes. In the margin, Nicholas wrote: “Adopt for guidance.”¹²³

That evening, having crossed himself, Nicholas signed the manifesto. Its operative part consisted of three articles paralleling the three-part resolution of the September 1905 Zemstvo Congress:

We impose on the government the obligation to carry out our inflexible will:

1. To grant the population inviolable foundations of civil liberty [based] on the principles of genuine inviolability of person, the freedoms of conscience, speech, assembly, and association;

2. Without postponing the projected elections to the State Duma, insofar as possible, in view of the short time that remains before the convocation of that body, to include in its work those classes of the population which until now have been entirely deprived of the right to vote, and to extend in the future, through the new legislature, the principle of universal franchise; and,

3. To establish as inviolate the rule that no law shall acquire force without the approval of the State Duma and that the people’s representatives shall have an effective opportunity to participate in supervising the legality of the actions of the authorities whom We have appointed.*

Before retiring, Nicholas wrote in his diary: “After such a day, the head has grown heavy and thoughts have become confused. May the Lord help us save and pacify Russia.”

The proclamation of the October Manifesto, accompanied by Witte’s report of October 17, set off tumultuous demonstrations in all the cities of the Empire: no one had expected such concessions. In Moscow, a crowd of 50,000 gathered in front of the Bolshoi Theater. Thousands also assembled spontaneously in the other cities, singing and cheering. On October 19, the St. Petersburg Soviet voted to end the general strike.¹²⁴ The strike also collapsed in Moscow and elsewhere.

Two aspects of the October Manifesto call for comment, for otherwise a great deal of the political history of the last decade of the Imperial regime will be incomprehensible.

The manifesto was extracted from Nicholas under duress, virtually at the point of a gun. For this reason he never felt morally obligated to respect it.

Second, it made no mention of the word “constitution.” The omission was not an oversight. Although the claim has been made that Nicholas did not realize he had committed himself to a constitution,¹²⁵ contemporary sources leave no doubt that he knew better. Thus, he wrote his mother on October 19 that granting the Duma legislative authority meant “in essence, constitution.”¹²⁶ Even so, he wanted at all costs to avoid the detested word in order to preserve the illusion that he remained an autocrat. He had been assured by the proponents of liberal reforms that under a constitutional regime he would continue as the exclusive source of laws and that he could always revoke what he had granted.* He believed this explanation because it helped assuage his conscience, which was troubled by the thought that he might have violated his coronation oath. This self-deception—the absurd concept of a constitutional autocrat—would cause no end of trouble in relations between the Crown and the Duma in the years to come.

But when the October Manifesto was proclaimed, these problems were not apparent to the liberals and liberal-conservatives who felt confident that a new era had dawned. Even high police officials were telling each other, only half in jest, that they would soon have nothing left to do.¹²⁷

Witte agreed to assume the chairmanship of the Council of Ministers only on condition that he be permitted to act as a genuine Prime Minister and select his cabinet. Like Ermolov, Kryzhanovskii, and other experienced officials, he felt that a cohesive, disciplined ministry was an absolute necessity in view of the government’s imminent confrontation with an elected legislature.¹²⁸ Although there was no reason why such a ministry could not consist exclusively of bureaucrats, Witte believed that the cabinet would be much more effective if it included some respected public figures.

On November 19, he initiated talks with Dmitrii Shipov, Alexander Guchkov, a prominent industrialist, Prince E. N. Trubetskoi, a professor of philosophy and the brother of the recently deceased rector of Moscow University, and several other public figures.¹²⁹ The persons he approached with offers of posts in the government were liberal-conservatives, on good terms alike with the opposition and the bureaucracy. The mere fact of a minister choosing a cabinet was without precedent (and, one may add, without sequel): “For the first time in tsarist history someone beside the tsar had single-handedly dictated the identity of most of the ministers.”¹³⁰

The negotiations collapsed within a week. Those whom Witte had approached turned down his offer on the ostensible ground that they could not work together with Peter Durnovo, whom Witte had offered the Ministry of the Interior. Durnovo had once been implicated in a sordid affair involving his mistress and the Spanish Ambassador. He was further mistrusted because of his long-standing connection with the police. But the country was in chaos, virtually in a condition of civil war, and it required an experienced administrator to restore order. Durnovo happened to have the experience and the practical intelligence needed for the job. Witte refused to yield to Durnovo’s critics, for he realized that the fate of the reforms hinged on his ability to pacify the country as quickly as possible. But judging by the fate of subsequent attempts to bring public figures into the government, all of which would also fail, it is questionable that Durnovo was anything more than a pretext. The leaders even of the moderate, liberal-conservative opposition feared being accused of betrayal by the liberals and the socialists, for whom the October Manifesto was only a stepping-stone toward a Russian Republic. By entering the government they risked isolating themselves from society without gaining effective influence on policy, for they had no guarantee that the bureaucracy would not use them for its own purposes. But concern over physical safety also played its part: “I would not be candid,” Witte wrote in retrospect,

10. Crowds celebrating the proclamation of the Manifesto of October 17, 1905.

if I did not voice the impression, perhaps an entirely groundless one, that at the time public figures were frightened of the bombs and the Brownings which were in common use against those in power, and that this was one of the inner motives which whispered to each, in the depths of his soul: “As far as possible from danger.”¹³¹

Witte behaved like a Western Prime Minister not only in selecting his cabinet but in requiring the governors and the military authorities, who in Russia carried administrative responsibilities, to submit daily reports to him. He also established a press bureau to promote favorable news coverage for himself.¹³² These practices were not appreciated at the Court, which suspected him of using the crisis to accumulate personal power and make himself into a “Grand Vizier.” How insecure Witte’s position was may be judged from the fact that in a letter to his mother Nicholas referred to his Prime Minister, who had to deal with Jewish bankers abroad to secure loans for Russia, as a “chameleon” trusted only by “foreign Yids.”¹³³

The October Manifesto, and the political amnesty act that followed, succeeded in good measure in calming strikes and other forms of radical unrest in the cities. At the same time it unleashed even more violent disorders by right-wing elements against those whom they held responsible for forcing the Tsar to concede something as un-Russian as a constitution, as well as by peasants against landed proprietors. It would be futile to seek any logic in these excesses which would rage for the next two years. They were outbursts of pent-up resentments set off by the breakdown of authority: irrational and even anti-rational, without a program, they represented the Russian bunt which Witte feared and hoped to prevent.

The day after the proclamation of the October Manifesto, anti-Jewish pogroms broke out throughout the Empire, accompanied by attacks on students and intellectuals. Panic spread among Jews in the Pale of Settlement and in cities like Moscow where many of them resided on temporary permits: Jews had not experienced such fear since the Middle Ages. There were beatings and killings, accompanied by the looting and burning of Jewish properties. Odessa, which had a record of extreme violence, witnessed the most savage pogrom, in which around five hundred Jews perished. It was common for thirty, forty, or more Jews to lose their lives in a medium-sized city.¹³⁴

Although subjecting Jews to severe discriminations, the Russian Government had in the past not encouraged pogroms; it had even repressed them, from fear that anti-Jewish violence would get out of control and victimize Russian landlords and officials. Indeed, the two kinds of violence had a common psychological basis: for although radical intellectuals considered anti-Jewish pogroms “reactionary” and assaults on landlords “progressive,” their perpetrators made no such distinction. The spectacle of policemen and Cossacks standing by while mobs beat and robbed Jews the peasants interpreted to mean that the authorities condoned assaults on all non-communal properties and their owners. In 1905–6, in many localities, peasants attacked landed estates of Christian owners under the impression that the Tsar who tolerated anti-Jewish pogroms would not object to pogroms of landlords.* So that, in preventing anti-Jewish violence, the establishment acted in its own best interests.

11. After an anti-Jewish pogrom in Rostov on Don—the burnt out shells of a prayer house and private residence: October 1905.

But in their frustration with the course of events, the monarchists now lost sight of these realities: they not only tolerated anti-Jewish excesses but actively promoted them. After assuming the premiership Witte learned that the Department of Police, using equipment which it had seized from the revolutionaries, secretly printed and distributed appeals for anti-Jewish pogroms—a practice which he stopped but not before it had claimed many lives.¹³⁵ Unable to explain what had happened to their idealized Russia in any other way than by blaming alleged villains, among whom Jews occupied the place of honor, the monarchists vented their fury in a manner that encouraged generalized violence. Nicholas shared in this self-destructive delusion when he wrote his mother on October 27 that “nine-tenths of the revolutionaries are Yids [zhidy].” This explained and presumably justified popular wrath against them and the other “bad people,” among whom he included “Russian agitators, engineers, lawyers.”¹³⁶* In December 1905, Nicholas accepted the insignia of the Union of Russian People (Soiuz Russkogo Naroda), a newly formed monarchist organization which wanted the restoration of autocracy and persecution of Jews.

The main cause of the unrest now, however, was not Jews and intellectuals but peasants. The peasantry completely misunderstood the October Manifesto, interpreting it in its own manner as giving the communes license to take over the countryside. Some rural disorders occurred in the spring of 1905, more in the summer, but they exploded only after October 17.¹³⁷ Hearing of strikes and pogroms in the cities going unpunished, the peasants drew their own conclusions. Beginning on October 23, when large-scale disorders broke out in Chernigov province, the wave of rural disorders kept on swelling until the onset of winter, reemerging in the spring of 1906 on an even vaster scale. It would fully subside only in 1908 following the adoption of savage repressive measures by Prime Minister Stolypin.

The agrarian revolt of 1905–6 involved surprisingly little personal violence; there is only one authenticated instance of a landlord being killed, although there are reports of the murder of fifty non-communal peasants who were particularly detested.¹³⁸ In some localities attacks on estates were accompanied by anti-Jewish pogroms. The principal aim of the jacquerie was neither inflicting physical harm nor even appropriating land, but depriving landlords and other non-peasant landowners of the opportunity to earn a livelihood in the countryside—“smoking them out,” as the saying went. In the words of one observer: “The [peasant] movement was directed almost exclusively against landed properties and not against the landlords: the peasants had no use whatever for landlords but they did need the land.”¹³⁹ The notion was simple: force the landlords to abandon the countryside and to sell their land at bargain prices. To this end, the peasants cut down the landlord’s forests, sent cattle to graze on his pasture, smashed his machinery, and refused to pay rent. In some places, manors were set on fire. The violence was greatest in the central Russian provinces and the Baltic areas; it was least in the western and southwestern regions, once part of Poland. The most prone to engage in it were village youths and soldiers returning from the Far East; everywhere, the city acted as a stimulant. In their assaults on landlord properties, the peasants did not discriminate between “good” and “bad” landlords—the estates of liberal and revolutionary intellectuals were not spared. Conservative owners who defended themselves suffered less than liberals with a guilty conscience.¹⁴⁰ As we shall see, the peasants had considerable success with their campaign to evict non-peasant landowners from the countryside.

In an effort to stem the agrarian unrest, the government in early November reduced the due installments of the redemption payments (payments for the land given the emancipated serfs in 1861) and promised to abolish them altogether in January 1907, but these measures did little to calm the rural districts.

In 1905 and 1906 peasants by and large refrained from seizing the land they coveted from fear they would not be allowed to keep it. They still expected a grand national repartition of all the non-communal land, but whereas previously they had looked to the Tsar to order it, they now pinned their hopes on the Duma. The quicker they drove the landlords out, they reasoned, the sooner the repartition would take place.

To Nicholas’s great disappointment, the October Manifesto failed to pacify Russia. He was impatient with Witte: on November 10 he complained that Witte had promised he would tolerate no violence after the Manifesto had been issued but in fact the disorders had gotten even worse.¹⁴¹

The government faced one more trial of strength, this time with the radical left. In this conflict, there was no room for compromises, for the socialists would be satisfied with nothing less than a political and social revolution.

The authorities tolerated the St. Petersburg Soviet, which continued to sit in session although it no longer had a clear purpose. On November 26, they ordered the arrest of Nosar, its chairman. A three-man Presidium (one of whose members was Leon Trotsky) which replaced Nosar resolved to respond with an armed uprising. The first act, which it was hoped would bring about a financial collapse, was an appeal to the people (the so-called Financial Manifesto), issued on December 2, urging them to withhold payments to the Treasury, to withdraw money from savings accounts, and to accept only bullion or foreign currency. The next day, Durnovo arrested the Soviet, putting some 260 deputies (about one-half of its membership) behind bars.¹⁴² Following these arrests a surrogate Soviet assembled under the chairmanship of Alexander Helphand (Parvus), the theoretician of “permanent revolution.”¹⁴³ On December 6, the St. Petersburg Soviet issued a call for a general strike to begin two days later. The call went unheeded, even though the Union of Unions gave it its blessing.¹⁴⁴

The socialists were more successful in Moscow. The Moscow Soviet, formed only on November 21 by intellectuals of the three principal socialist parties, decided to press the revolution beyond its “bourgeois” phase. Their followers consisted of semi-skilled workers, many of them employed in the textile industry, professionally and culturally less mature than their counterparts in the capital. The principal force behind this effort was the Moscow Bolshevik Committee.¹⁴⁵ The Moscow rising was the first occasion in the 1905 Revolution when the socialists took the lead. On December 6, the Moscow Soviet voted to begin the following day an armed insurrection for the purpose of overthrowing the tsarist government, convoking a Constituent Assembly, and proclaiming a democratic republic*

12. Members of St. Petersburg Soviet en route to Siberian exile: 1905. On the left in front, wearing dark coat, Leon Trotsky.

On December 7, Moscow was paralyzed: the strike was enforced by Soviet agents who threatened with violence anyone who refused to cooperate. Two days later, government forces launched an attack on the insurgents; the latter responded with urban guerrilla tactics. The arrival of the Semenovskii Regiment, which used artillery to disperse the rioters, settled the issue. On December 18 the Executive Committee of the Moscow Soviet capitulated. Over 1,000 people lost their lives in the uprising and whole areas of the ancient capital were gutted.

There followed an orgy of reprisals in which the police singled out students for beatings. An unknown number of persons involved or suspected of involvement in the insurrection were summarily executed. Punitive expeditions were sent to the provinces.

In mid-April 1906, Witte resigned, mainly because he felt that the Tsar no longer showed confidence in him. Before leaving, he managed to obtain for Russia an international loan of 844 million rubles—the largest ever contracted up to that time by any country—which had the effect of stabilizing Russia’s finances, damaged by the war and revolution. It further freed the Crown for some time from dependence on the Duma, which was due to open shortly.¹⁴⁶ He was replaced by Ivan Goremykin, a bureaucrat beloved by the Court for his slavish devotion. Appointed to the State Council, the upper house of the new parliament, Witte spent his remaining years (he died in 1915) dictating memoirs and hating Goremykin’s successor, Peter Stolypin.

The year 1905 marked the apogee of Russian liberalism—the triumph of its program, its strategy, its tactics. It was the Union of Liberation and its affiliates, the zemstvo movement and the Union of Unions, that had compelled the monarchy to concede a constitutional and parliamentary regime. Although they would later claim credit, the socialists in general and the Bolsheviks in particular played in this campaign only an auxiliary role: their one independent effort, the Moscow uprising, ended in disaster.

The liberals’ triumph, nevertheless, was far from secure. As events would soon show, they were a minority caught in a cross fire of conservative and radical extremism. Concerned like the conservatives to prevent revolution, they were nevertheless beholden to the radicals, since the threat of revolution was the only lever they had to prod the Crown into making still more concessions. Ultimately, this contradiction would cause their demise.

The 1905 Revolution substantially altered Russia’s political institutions, but it left political attitudes untouched. The monarchy continued to ignore the implications of the October Manifesto and to insist that nothing had really changed. Its supporters on the right and the mobs they inspired longed to punish those who had humiliated the Tsar. The socialist intelligentsia, for its part, was more determined than ever to exploit the demonstrated weakness of the government and press on with the next, socialist phase of the revolution. The experiences of 1905 had left it more, not less, radical. The terrible weakness of the bonds holding Russia together was revealed to all: but to the government it meant the need for firmer authority, whereas to the radicals it signaled opportunities to destroy the existing order. Not surprisingly, the government and the opposition alike viewed the Duma, not as a vehicle for reaching compromises, but as an arena of combat, and sensible voices, pleading for cooperation, were vilified by both sides.

It is fair to say, therefore, that the 1905 Revolution not only failed to resolve Russia’s outstanding problem—estrangement between rulers and ruled—but aggravated it. And to the extent that attitudes rather than institutions or “objective” economic and social realities determine the course of politics, only unbounded optimists could look to the future with any confidence. In fact, Russia had gained only a breathing spell.

*Unless otherwise stated, dates for the period preceding February 1918 are given according to the Julian calendar in use until then (“Old Style,” or OS), which in the nineteenth century was 12 days behind the Western calendar, and in the twentieth, 13 days. From February 1, 1918, dates are given New Style (NS)—that is, according to the Western calendar, which the Soviet Government adopted at that time.

*Witte (Vospominaniia, II, Moscow, 1960, 218–19) says that in July 1903 Zubatov confided to him that Russia was in a revolutionary situation which could not be resolved by police measures. Zubatov also predicted Plehve’s assassination. This was betrayed to Plehve, who fired Zubatov and exiled him to the provinces. In March 1917, on learning of the Tsar’s abdication, he committed suicide.

*Witte’s dismissal resulted from the Tsar’s dislike of him and Plehve’s intrigues. It occurred, however, as a result of a sudden illumination. Nicholas told Plehve that during a church service he heard the Lord instructing him “not to delay that which I was already persuaded to do”: V. I. Gurko, Features and Figures of the Past (Stanford, Calif., 1939), 225.

†On Azef, see Boris Nikolajewsky [Nikolaevskii], Azeff the Spy (New York, 1934). After Plehve’s murder, Azef’s reputation among revolutionaries grew immensely, and he managed to continue his double role until exposed by the director of the Police Department, A. A. Lopukhin, in December 1908, following which he fled to Germany and went into business. He died in 1918.

*Shmuel Galai, The Liberation Movement in Russia, 1900–1905 (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), 214–19; Richard Pipes, Struve: Liberal on the Left (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), 363–66. The Social-Democrats, who wanted to lead the revolution on their own, stayed away, but Azef was present.

*George Gapon, The Story of My Life (New York, 1906), 144. The “intellectual Liberals” whom Gapon consulted are known to have been Ekaterina Kuskova, her common-law husband S. N. Prokopovich, and V. Ia. Bogucharskii (Iakovlev).

*KL, No. 2/3 (1922), 56, cited in Galai, Liberation Movement; 239. The official figure was 130 dead and 299 wounded: A. N. Pankratova et al, Revoliutsiia 1905–1907 gg. v Rossii: Dokumenty i materialy, IV, Pt. 1 (Moscow, 1961), 103, 811, note 12.

*Gapon fled abroad. He returned to Russia after the amnesty that followed the October Manifesto, and was killed by an SR on the orders of Azef. After January 9, all his unions were closed, despite worker protests.

*In pre-1905 Russia, there was no cabinet with a Prime Minister: the ministers reported to the Tsar separately and received from him personal instructions. On the reasons for this practice, see Chapter 2.

†“Black Repartition” was a peasant and Socialist-Revolutionary slogan that called for the abolition of the right of property to land and the distribution (“repartition”) of all privately held land among peasant communes. See Chapter 3.

*The first to call attention to this important source was F.-X. Coquin in F.-X. Coquin and C. Gervais-Francelle, eds., 1905: La Première Révolution Russe (Paris, 1986), 181–200. The invitation for the population to submit petitions was officially withdrawn on August 6, 1905, following the publication of the so-called Bulygin Constitution.

*Russia’s defeat at the hands of the Japanese was to have grave consequences for the whole of Europe by lowering the esteem in which whites had been held by non-Western peoples: for it was the first time in modern history that an Asiatic nation defeated a great Western power. One observer noted in 1909 that the war had “radically reshaped” the mood of the Orient: “There is no Asiatic country, from China to Persia, which has not felt the reaction of the Russo-Japanese war, and in which it has failed to wake new ambitions. These usually find expression in a desire to assert independence, to claim equality with the white races, and have had the general result of causing Western prestige to decline in the East” (Thomas F. Millard, America and the Far Eastern Question, New York, 1909, 1–2). In a sense, the war marked the beginning of the process of colonial resistance and decolonization that would be completed half a century later.

*Galai, Liberation Movement, 262–63. The Union of Railroad Employees and Workers, the largest labor organization in Russia, with 700,000 members, had only 130,000 workers: the majority of its members were local hands, mostly peasants: Oskar Anweiler, The Soviets (New York, 1974), 269, note 53.

*Vitte, Vospominaniia, III, n. See Andrew M. Verner, Nicholas II and the Role of the Autocrat during the First Russian Revolution, 1904–1907, Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1986, 370–76. Verner maintains that Witte misdated his first meeting with Nicholas and that it actually took place one day earlier (October 8), but this seems most unlikely, especially in view of the testimony of a third person, D. M. Solskii (Vitte, Vospominaniia, III, 25).

†Witte’s memorandum of October 9, 1905, is in KA, No. 11–12 (1925), 51–61. The above passage appears on p. 55. This is what Struve had written four months earlier: “Russia needs a strong government which will not fear revolution because it will place itself at its head … The Revolution in Russia must become the government”: Richard Pipes, Struve: Liberal on the Left, 1870–1905 (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), 384. Struve’s program, from which Witte generously borrowed: Ibid., 376–85. The concept is an echo of the French Revolution: when, in February 1791, Louis XVI urged the National Assembly to pursue the work of reform, Brissot, the Girondist leader, declared: “The King is now the Head of the Revolution” (J. M. Thompson, The French Revolution, Oxford, 1947, 192).

*The entire St. Petersburg garrison at this time consisted of 2,000 men: Abraham Ascher, The Revolution of 1905 (Stanford, Calif., 1988), 225. Cf. Vitte, Vospominaniia, II, 9–10, 26–27.

*The earliest Soviet had emerged in May 1905 in the textile center of Ivanovo-Voznesensk to manage the workers’ economic conflict with the employers. It had no political program. Oscar Anweiler, The Soviets (New York, 1974), 40–42.

*In the revolutionary years 1905–6 as well as 1917, persons wearing glasses, called ochkastye, risked the fury of both monarchist and radical mobs: Albert Parry in the preface to A. Volskii [Machajski], Umstvennyi rabochii (New York-Baltimore, 1968), 15–16.

†L. Geller and N. Rovenskaia, eds., Peterburgskii i Moskovskii Sovety Rabochikh Deputatov 1905 g. (v dokumentakh) (Moscow-Leningrad, 1926), 17. This position was grounded in the conviction of Lenin, the Bolshevik leader, that left to follow their own inclinations, the workers would not make revolution but seek accommodation with capitalism. For this reason the revolution had to be done for them but not by them.

*Vitte, Vospominaniia, III, 26–27. Witte asserted that he opposed issuing the reform program in the form of a manifesto because such a document, written in succinct and solemn language, could not provide the rationale behind the reforms and might unsettle the population: Ibid., 33. Imperial manifestos were read at church services.

*G. G. Savich, ed., Novyi gosudarstevennyi stroi Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1907), 24–25. The only demand of the September 1905 Zemstvo Congress which the October Manifesto ignored concerned the Duma’s control over the budget, but that power was granted to it later in the Fundamental Laws.

*This is what Witte told Nicholas during his audience of October 9: Verner, Nicholas II, 373–74.

*A survey of the rural disorders in 1905–6 carried a report from the Central Agricultural Region which stated that the “agrarian movement was caused by the fact that from all ends of Russia at a certain time the villages heard reports that in the cities people beat Yids [zhidov] and were allowed to steal their property without being punished”: Agrarnoe dvizhenie v Rossii v 1905-1906 gg., I (St. Petersburg, 1908), 48. Similar observations were made about agrarian violence in the Ukraine: Ibid., II, 290.

*Two weeks after he had explained the anti-Jewish pogroms as justifiable punishment, he noted with dismay that these pogroms were followed by the destruction of estates of Russian landlords: KA, No. 3/22 (1927), 174.

*Pankratova et al, eds., Revoliutsiia 1905–1907 gg. v Rossii, IV, Pt. 1, 650. The authors of this program apparently decided on their own that the Assembly would replace the monarchy with a republic.