https://historyattallis.weebly.com/unit-1-russian-revolution-c1880-1929.

html
Content overview

The reign of Alexander III and first half of Nicholas II from 1881-1907. Students should
understand the nature of the autocracy, the assassination of Alexander II and the use of
repression and anti-reformist stance. Students should be aware of urbanisation and
industrialisation transforming the Russian empire and the growth of reformist and
revolutionary groups such as the Kadets, Social Revolutionaires and the Social
Democrats. Students should understand the causes of the 1905 revolution, including the
impact of the Russo-Japanese War, and the nature, extent and significance of that
revolution.

Students should understand

 The nature of the autocracy. 1 Hour

 The assassination of Alexander II and the use of repression and anti-reformist
stance. 1 Hour
 Urbanisation and industrialisation transforming the Russian Empire. 1 Hour
 The growth of reformist/revolutionary groups such as the Kadets, Social
Revolutionaries and the Social Democrats. 1 Hour
 The causes of the 1905 revolution, including the impact of the Russo-Japanese
War. 1 Hour
 The nature, extent and significance of the 1905 revolution by 1907. 1 Hour

Hans Rogger "Russia in the Age of modernisation and revolution 1888-1917"

Chapter 1 Prologue

When Alexander II was assassinated two basic questions emerged, would the autocracy continue along
the path of reform and could it remain intact given the changes it had cautiously introduced? The
opposition disputed the autocracy's claim that it alone could provide the basis to keep a vast, diverse and
multinational empire together, and they argued that "the country's multiple crisis was exacerbated and its
resolution complicated by the absoluteness of power claimed by their rulers". "The result was growing
estrangement and friction between an authoritarian state and a restive society" The nature, course and
outcome of this confrontation was decisively affected by the autocracy's policies, personalities and
institutions.

Alexander II had enacted reforms that would allow the essence of autocracy to survive by partial
liberalisation. He felt that restoration of absolutism was all the more necessary as the consequences of
reform unfolded, and there would be no question of sharing the Tsar's power. Alexander II and his
successors preferred to deal with individuals, autocrat to bureaucrat, rather than institutions as this was
bound to undermine the practice of autocracy. After repeated attempts on his life he issued Loris Melikov
Minister of Interior the task of conciliating the public and he proposed systems of representative
government in which the Tsar's power would not be diminished. Alexander agreed and on the day of his
death was due to meet Ministers to discuss implementation. Despite the assassination the desire for more
representative governments remained strong, and on the accession of Alexander III there was much
debate. However the events of the 28th April supplied a superb illustration of the defects of autocratic
rule. After a meeting of the State Council Loris Melikov's proposals were agreed to, but when the meeting
broke up at 1am on 29th April news of a reactionary Imperial Manifesto was released. Pobedonostev was
instrumental in persuading Alexander III of such a course. Pobedonostev's "Coup de Theatre" spelled the
demise of the liberal members of the government (Loris Melikov, Abaza, Miliutin) but did not solve the
problem of irresolution of direction for autocracy at the top, or the calls from opposition, that the gap
between rulers and the ruled needed to be narrowed. The assassination of Alexander II was the excuse not
the cause for those who advocated that the reforms had been ill-advised, that they were tantamount to
revolution and that now the harm should be undone.

The appointment of Tolstoi signalled an end to hopes of political reform in society, and his programme of
"Order" witnessed the end of experimentation with consultative or advisory bodies. The writer Tolstoy
addressed a letter to Alexander and appealing that the autocracy should meet its critics on the grounds of
ideas, but it was the lack of such an idea that afflicted the autocracy and its defenders. "The official
ideology's poverty, its lack of self confidence, stem from the lack of a social basis and its failure to
identify itself with a vital social historical force from which it could draw political and moral
justification." Tsarism became the prisoner of its own rhetoric. Political debate and organisations, could
conceivably have led to the emergence of autonomous political forces on which the state could have
leaned but Tsardom lacked the will and the resources.

The calm which settled over public life when Alexander finally embarked on the reactionary course did
not stop the erosion of its moral and political authority, for the pattern of distrust and contention that
divided government and society were firmly entrenched. "Russia's was a crisis of authority" manifested in
a waning of respect for established rulers.

Chapter 2 Tsar Autocrat and Emperor.

The fundamental laws of 1832 proclaimed "The Russian Empire is ruled on the basis of Autocratic
Power." That Alexander III confirmed the minority view in one third of the decisions on which the
Council of State was divided illustrates that the Tsar was supreme over institutions as well as laws. The
judicial reforms of 1864 restricted monarchical and administrative interference in the processes of justice,
but when the security of the state was felt to be at stake, the Tsar's will was law. The Tsar controlled the
administration, the armed forces, the church, education, industry, transport and local government.
However there was growing resentment at the system.

In the reign of Alexander lll external peace and internal quiet temporarily obscured the widening gap
between the pretensions of monarchy and its performance. His malthinking anti-Semitism, his reluctance
to admit that the 1891 famine was more than a local crop failure, his temperamental conduct of the
Bulgarian crises in 1885-6 are testimony to his mishandling of vital issues. On the other hand Nicholas
too revealed all the weaknesses of Tsarism, when in January 1895 at a reception from Zemstva's, towns
and nobility to offer him good wishes he dismissed any form of representative government as a "senseless
dream". Such disregard was a feature of his rule.

The role of Tsar as chief clerk of the Empire had long been a cause of concern for those closest to the
throne. Neither Tsar made a formal or systematic delegation of authority which compounded the
problems of ruling a vast multinational empire undergoing economic modernisation since they had neither
the resources, skill, experience or confidence in the machinery of state let alone of "the dark masses."
Neither Alexander III or Nicholas II could substitute their conscientious industry for the potential benefits
of a genuinely representative body. "A modification of autocracy which could have solved the problem
would have been tantamount to its own abolition."

It lasted so long for a number of reasons; deeply rooted traditions, the interests of the conservative elites,
instruments of control and repression, the political immaturity of the peasant majority, the embryonic
nature of the urban working class, the relatively small middle classes and fear. Russia's upper classes had
a strong sense of prestige within the state and the emerging industrialists perceived the state as a
benefactor of contracts and protection. It was seen by many as the barrier to national and social
disintegration and the only common focus for loyalty in a multinational state.

2
Russia's real problems lay elsewhere; the deep distrust of all state authority, the alienation of those who
sought accommodation, the widespread lack of administrative experience in the population, the absence
of leaders and institutions sufficiently independent and popular to mediate conflicts between state and
society. These crucial problems were the legacy of autocracy.

Chapter 3 The Tsar's Ministers

The diction "men not governments govern" of Alexander l became a central policy of Russian
governmental conservatism, the logical extension of a highly personal, centralised system of rule.
Pobedonostev advised Alexander lll "institutions are of no importance. Everything depends on
individuals", and Nicholas ll learned the lesson well.

Skilful administrators were indispensable to the effective running of a centralised monarchy, of which
there was a noticeable absence. The poverty of human resources however rarely led to the re-examination
of the efficiency of the administrative machinery. The heads of Ministries (Navy, War, Foreign Affairs,
Interior, Finance) were merely servants of the crown. Ministers rarely spoke out since this would threaten
their reputation of loyalty, promotion, pay and pension. Ministers might even vote against their own
proposal in the Council of State if the Tsar disapproved.

The Interior Ministry impinged most directly on the lines of Russians and its Ministers were a source of
hope and fear. They received the public in their chambers but this was often delegated to assistants.
Alexander's first Minister of Interior was ignorant and although he repressed Jews and civil liberties
generally, he did favour economic aid to the peasantry and consultation for which he was dismissed after
a year. Tolstoi was then appointed, an advocate of firmness and discipline, and his successors were
chosen from the Ministry which is testimony to the stress placed on routine rather than new perspectives.
Durnvo followed the measures Tolstoi initiated, and in 1895 subjected the compliant agency committees
of popular literacy to the control of the Ministry of Education. His replacement Governykin was
dismissed in 1899 for favouring the extensions of the Zemstva's to the western provinces. The next two
Ministers Sipiagin and Pleve were assassinated in 1902 and 1904 respectively, which coincided with
extensive burning and looting of gentry estates in 1902-1903, the resistance to Russification by
Armenians and Finns, and the pogroms of Kishinev and Gomel were an extension of the regimes anti-
semitic policies. The problem of the working class exploded in 1903 in a wave of strikes and culminated
in Pleve's assassination.

Finance reached nearly as deep and painfully into the lines of Russia as did the Interior. It was the single
most important agency dealing with Russia's economic development and the most progressive since it
tolerated technical specialists. Bunge served from 1881-1887 and reduced tax on peasantry, took the first
steps to protect workers, but did not balance the budget or find capital for growth. Vyshnegradskii served
from 1887-1893 and pursued the orthodox cause of cutting expenditure and increasing revenue to balance
the budget, whilst pushing grain export, but the measures were unpopular despite a balanced budget
because of the burden on consumers and the famine of 1891/92. Witte took over the Ministry and served
from 1893-1903 and implemented policies which spread industrialisation but deepened the agricultural
crisis.

It was difficult for the Russian monarch to have a statesman of great calibre for fear of being
overshadowed or overpowered, the result being constant change, loss of respect and instability at the
helm. The Ministers acceptance of their initiatives remained paramount, and the machinery of
administration of the government Ministries lacked a co-ordinating mechanism and moved slowly. This is
indicated by it taking from 1894-1905 to report on the revision of judicial laws implemented by
Alexander II. However it was to be remembered that whilst acknowledging lack of human resources and
administrative weakness that Russia's monumental difficulties might have defeated the inspired efforts of
a phalanx of virtue and genius. However it must be said they were held in low public esteem since they
more often than not were failing to achieve their aims, and being a constant irritant to those they

3
administered they exposed "the gap between pretensions and performance" that raised fundamental
questions about the efficiency of the regime.

Chapter 4 Bureaucrats, policeman and public servants.

The typical Chinovnik (Bureaucrat) with important exceptions at the top, had little authority either in
sense of power or in the sense of expertise. Only about one fifth received more than one thousand rubles a
year which provided for a middle class lifestyle and could be dismissed without reason. More than half of
the 4,339 appointments in 1894 had no higher or secondary education, the virtues of social origin and
political reliability and the mastery of routine being seen as the most valuable. The bureaucracy remained
the executor of the government's will and the fact that it wasn't a politically conscious policy making
bureaucracy tended to reinforce the autocrats power. Chinovniks were seen as souless administrators,
bribe making was common among lower officials to supplement salary and it was the arbitrary nature of
power and infringement of law by those called to uphold it that troubled critical Russians most.

The most powerful of the states bureaucrats in the provinces was the governor, who controlled a plethora
of responsibilities in provincial administration and these were increased by the "Temporary Regulations"
of 1881, which allowed for states of emergency to be decreed. This gave governors extraordinary powers
of imprisonment, exile, surveillance, to close businesses and schools, suspend town and Zemstva
meetings. Once more governors were very rarely reprimanded for abuses of office, and opponents
referred to the tyranny in which provincial affairs were managed. Once more their responsibilities were so
wide that they could not possibly dispense with them efficiently.

Russia was also becoming to some extent a police state. Under Alexander II the "Third Section" was
charged with the surveillance of political suspects and the ferreting out of disloyal thoughts, this was
abolished in 1880 but contrived to function under the Ministry of Interiors Department of Police and
expanded to about 50,000 men towards its end. Their work was assisted by the "Okhrana" who carried out
political intelligence and counter-revolutionary operations, and enjoyed independence from other
government agencies. The Okrhana was exempt from the authority of governors and at times even
ignored the ministry of interior. However, they failed to paralyse the radicals or silence malcontents who
held clandestine meetings and circulated literature. Thus the instruments of repression although at times
devastating and ruthless were not as formidable as they were thought to be. The ordinary Police too were
limited in their effectiveness, both numerically and in discharging their numerous and often unpleasant
duties, such as checking internal passports, law and order, collection of government taxes and the
executive arm of local government, and in each of the districts within a province a police chief occupied
the post of sub-governor.

The relatively liberal censorship regulations of 1865 were amended in 1873 to provide for Ministerial
prohibition in cases of urgent necessity. This necessity had arisen 564 times by 1905, and in 1882
"Temporary Regulations" were adopted to muzzle the press, from outright suppression to warning and
fines. The liberal paper "Golos" was banned in 1883 and 82 periodicals suffered penalties from 1900-
1904.

Local Government was also a major form of conflict in the period. The setting up had been largely
pragmatic in the 1864 Zemstva Statute and the Municipal Councils of 1870. From 1890-1905 the
restrictive sides of the reform were seen most clearly. From the outset they were limited in their ability to
tax and expand work in the village, central government could veto the election of Zemstva and Municipal
Officers and censored publications of their proceedings.The Minister of Education and Interior impinged
on their autonomy. In the 1890's Zemstva's began to emerge as centres of opposition, and because these
legal bodies were denied freedoms they provided a breeding ground for members of the revolutionary
underworld.

Zemstva expenditure amounted to 40% to 50% of services previously funded from central government
(troops, police). There were counter reforms of Zemstva's in 1890 and Municipal Councils in 1882

4
whereby elected members became government officials and subject to the approval of the governor who
was given increased authority to discipline them and veto their decisions. At a time when growing
population and urbanisation characterised developments, such political interference hindered the work of
local governments in many areas, state obligations for billeting troops, and police subsidies consumed
from a third to half the budget which was already relatively lower than western Europe. Moreover the
Zemstva's had no nation-wide organisation.

Chapter 5 Peasants and Nobles. The problems of Rural Russia

The structure of authority in the countryside looked exceptionally democratic on the surface, electing and
paying its elder, setting local dues and land rights, apportioning state taxes, and responsibility to the
government organs of the district for maintenance of order. However the elected officials accepted their
posts with more resignation than joy, and it denied peasants the statutory safeguards of the civil code of
1864. The government with Tolstoi at Interior created the office of Land Captain in 1889, who could
impose fines and imprison miscreants, suspend village assemblies and decide on issues which were
debated. Applicants for new post appointments were invariably hereditary nobles, and despite the increase
in their numbers, they were unable to prevent the agrarian riots of 1902 and 1905. After a decade since
1881 in which the plight of the peasants receded into the background, the drought and crop failure of
1891 caused famine, and the suffering of peasants awoke privileged Russia from its apathy and signalled
a re-examination of the states agrarian policy. The problems were multiple; the fiscal policies of
Vyshnegradskii, to much tax and redemption payments, not enough land. In 1894 the Ministry of
Agriculture was formed, agricultural schools were encouraged and special conferences like Witte 1902
Special Conference on the Needs of Agriculture. However government response was to do little more
than offer palliatives rather than to get to the root of the problems.

What were the problems? Land shortage after emancipation (average losses being upto 25% whilst the
population grew 25% between 1877 and 1897), the average size of the Allotment declined from 13.2
desiatinas in 1887 to 10.4 in 1905 and average Allotment size decreased 47% from 1860-1900. The
Redemption Payments payable for 49 years were a reminder of the servile status of the peasantry and a
constant drain on the Agrarian economy. There was low productivity in which the answer was
capitalisation, intensive farming methods, crop diversification and better access to markets, but the
mounting indebtedness of village communities meant this capital simply wasn't there. The tax burden was
great for peasantry with a head tax, salt tax and land tax, peasant allotments paying up to 90% of all direct
tax.

Bunge attempted to alleviate peasant distress 1881-1887 by lowering peasant taxes some 25%, but this
brought only modest and short lived benefits. During Vyshnegradskii's Ministry 1887-72 fiscal pressure
again was put on the peasants with an increase on land tax and collection of arrears and whilst this
lowered the state deficit and brought surplus by 1890, Witte followed his predecessors policies so that
from 1860-1900 indirect taxes rose 4.5 times and direct taxes doubled. Once more the village Mir was
seen to be carrying out state policies and peasant dependence on it was reinforced by a law of 1886, and
after 1889 in the Land Captain, and the work of the Mir was a vital part of the cause of rural poverty. It
prevented the application of rationale policies and increased output, inhibited individual initiative and
perpetuated antiquated farming methods (three field system and strip farming). The peasantry lacked
education incentives and capital. The government did set about creating rural agricultural schools and
established a peasant land bank in 1883, and although this encouraged some modest improvement the
population increase and the impact of rising taxes forstalled any improvement in the general problems of
Russian agriculture.

Despite a pro-gentry policy in agrarian Russia from 1881 onwards they to suffered from the general
problems of agrarian Russia. During the period the size of their estate declined, and remained as
backward in farming methods as the land of the peasants, and by the turn of the century many estates
were still without combine harvesters. In 1885 a gentry land bank was established and despite lending 707

5
million rubles by 1904 this did not halt trends going back to 1861, debt, loss of land, and their waning
importance as a class.

Chapter 6. Progress and Poverty.

In 1860 Russia was the least developed of the major states. The great reforms were a precondition for
industrialisation, but did not set in motion a continuos march to economic modernity. For about a quarter
of a century after 1861 the rate of industrial growth remained relatively slow because the lack of a clear
economic policy by government. Bunge 1881-87 failed to provide the impetus because of his priority of
balancing the state budget which collapsed with foreign policy initiatives in the Balkans 1885-86 and
expansion in Asia. Vyshnegradskii attempted to balance the budget by taxing the peasantry harder to
produce a budget surplus and exporting grain, and whilst a budget surplus resulted, the 1891 famine was
attributed to his fiscal policies. It was only when Witte became Minister of Finance that a coherent
economic policy of industrial expansion was adopted. Witte advocated a speedy industrialisation and
created a climate conducive to industrial development by committing government policy and resources to
that purpose. In the decade 1893-1903 a higher proportion of public funds were dedicated to
industrialisation, in which the state played a leading role in supplying both capital and contracts, and
securing foreign investment through loans and private investment. In the years 1896-99 Russians invested
111.8 million roubles against 450.7 million from foreign investors. This investment facilitated growth in
mining, railroads, heavy industry, credit and commerce, and the state guaranteed dividends to investors
keeping control very much in it's own hands.

Railroads were of major importance in creating an economic and transport infrastructure. In 1855 there
were 850 miles, by 1885 17,000 miles and by 1905 40,000 miles of track, which included the vast Trans-
Siberian line not quite complete but serving economic, strategic and military purposes. The effects were
limited in that Russia was still relatively undeveloped, but there was a system of railway industry to
support it and it accompanied growth in heavy industry particularly iron and steel, coal, oil and
machinery. Dramatic growth rates were in part due to the low base from which embryonic industries
began to emerge and on average per year the economy grew 7-8%, which was considerably high in
international comparison, and Russia had become the 5th largest industrial power by 1924. However the
world-wide economic depression of the turn of the century, followed by agrarian riots, the Russo-
Japanese war and revolution ended the expansion and optimism temporarily.

The increased industrialisation brought into being an increase in the urban working classes. In 1860
industrial workers formed 0.76% of total population, in 1900 it was 1.28% (1.7 million) and although
negligible in quantity this increase was significant since it brought a new threat to the political, economic
and social stability of the state. The police were first to see the threat. There was an illegal strike of 6,000
at the Morozov textile plant in 1885 which had the effect of labour legislation of 1886 which curbed the
powers of employers by abolishing money ties, setting guidelines of labour contracts and enlarging the
role of the public authorities in labour disputes. These measures were only gradually extended and failed
to satisfy may of the workers demands, and indeed the policy of government took a dualistic approach of
offering concessions along with repression. In the aftermath of the Morozov strike 600 strikers were
deported, in 1897 the Minister of Interior directed local authorities to use extra- judicial ways of dealing
with strikers and a special factory police force was established in 1899. These measures were a response
to a new wave of labour unrest. In January 1897 30,000 textile workers walked out in St Petersburg over
working hours which were reduced to 10 and a half, although a working week of 54-60 hours remained
the norm up to 1905. Clearly the authorities feared the growth in the industrial proletariat but
revolutionary Marxists welcomed it since along with economic demands, workers were beginning to
sound political notes. The May Day celebrations in St Petersburg a clear indication of the emerging link
between economic and political demands. In 1894 a Union of Workers was established in Moscow, in
1895 the Union for Liberation of the Working Class in St Petersburg with similar groups establishing
themselves in other industrial centres. In March 1898 the Russian Social Democratic Workers Party was
formed but met with severe repression. In January 1905 120,000 men women and children marched on

6
the Winter Palace demanding improvement in wages, working and living conditions and political rights
only to be dispersed by the bullets that sparked the 1905 revolution and left a legacy of "Bloody Sunday".

On the other hand the Russian bourgeoisie never developed into a homogeneous class. The government
bestowed them with capital and projects to stimulate their economic activity from which they made
healthy profits. The government tolerated and encouraged the development of syndicates and cartels to
maintain prices and meet foreign competition. For many enterprises the treasury was the largest and most
important consumer. However at the time there were those who began to resent the extent of control the
state had in economic activity, but not until 1905 did these critical notes take on political overtones and
the formation of political parties. Their essential conservation and narrow social basis kept them small
and ineffectual in political terms, with perhaps the exception of some Municipal councils like St
Petersburg and Moscow. The most effective and typical organisation of the Russian bourgeoisie was the
pressure group. In cities there existed joint grouping of businessmen and manufacturers and in 1896 the
National Congress on Industry and Trade met and led to the foundation of a Permanent Council of
representatives establishing itself in 1906.

Urbanisation also played a part in threatening the stability of the Tsarist state. By 1897 European Russia
had 52 cities with St Petersburg 1.2 million and Moscow 1 million being the largest, and over 6,000 rural
settlements with populations over 2,000. It was in the urban areas that the educated classes lived and
educational institutions predominated. In 1897 24.5% of the rural population was illiterate but 57.5% of
the cities were literate, which included Russia's professional elites. They were active in Russia's
intellectual life and in Municipal government and it was they who formed the main centres of Russian
liberalism before and after 1905.

Thus with Russia's entry into the ranks of industrial powers, she was faced with all the problems she had
inherited from an earlier stage in her history, as well as those that industrialisation itself was creating.

Chapter 7 Politics and revolution

The revolutions that convulsed Russia in 1905 and again in 1917 were urban revolutions. Peasant protests
made contributions to their long-term causes and eventual success. Economic development set in motion
forces that threatened social and political stability, forces the autocracy could neither accommodate or
neutralise, and after the relatively quiet of the 1880's there was renewed revolutionary activity in the
1890's and early 20th century. What the great reforms began, industrialisation and urbanisation continued
by creating a diversified society with a diversity of needs. These changes made even more intolerable the
unshakeable absolution of Tsardom, which according to Tolstoy in an open letter to Nicholas II in 1902
had become 'a superannuated form of government'. The economic and social dynamics of Russia made
the autocracy anachronistic. However revolutionary groups even up to 1905 failed to achieve their aims
and government repression was in the short term at least successful.

The "Peoples Will" had shown their impotence when after the assassination of Alexandra II, they failed to
either disorganise the machinery of government or rouse the masses to implement change. The populism
of the 70's placed their faith and appeal in the people (narod) which in Russia meant essentially peasants,
but they repeatedly refused to behave as their revolutionary mentors expected. This is highlighted in the
'Going to the People' of 1874 when 3,000 students left for the country side. The majority where rounded
up by the police. This served to discredit the theoretical base of revolutionary Populism. The formation of
Land and Liberty in 1876 signalled a change from Populisms belief in the narod to the intelligentsia, and
the adoption of terrorism against the state was designed to disable government machinery and stimulate
mass action. The silence which greeted the assassination of Alexander ll discredited both movements, and
all "People's Will" could summon was the futile demand for political liberty to Alexander lll. The
assassinations marked the decline of organised revolutionary populism and highlighted the unsolved
problems of the revolutionary movement, notably the relationship between revolutionaries and people to
whom they were dedicated. The successful repression of "People's Will" called into doubt both the
potential of the masses and the utility of terror. It signalled a period of reflection.

7
There was a revival of revolutionary energies in the 1890's stimulated in part by the 1891 famine and the
industrialisation of the period. In particular the 90's witnessed the rise of Marxism to contest the
intellectual and moral authority of Populism in revolutionary circles. In this, Plekhanov's break with Land
and Liberty was the impetus for the development of Marxist revolutionary groups. In 1883 he found the
first organisation of Russian Marxist's, the Liberation of Labour group and wrote extensively in his
Geneva exile. He argued that it was wrong for the revolutionary intelligentsia to cut itself off from the
masses and to rely on revolutionary instincts of the peasants. He advocated that Marxist's collaborate with
all opponents of autocracy for the winning of general political and civil liberties. In 1895 Martov began
the work of politicising the workers in the increased strikes of the period and founded in St Petersburg the
"Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class". However Lenin believed in a party far
tighter in organisation and didn't believe the trade unionists could achieve a wider political consciousness.
This fundamental difference between Martov and Lenin was postponed by exile from 1896. The strike
movement continued despite exile of revolutionary leaders, to whom they were suspicious in any case.
However the exiled leaders welcomed the formation of the Russian Social Democratic Workers Party in
1898 . From 1900 Lenin edited the revolutionary Social Democratic journal Iskra and in "What is to be
done?" 1902, in order to guide the movement. The divide in Russian Social Democracy begun in 1903
with the split between Lenin's Bolsheviks and Malatov's Mensheviks at the Party Congress. However two
years of strikes and demonstrations culminating in Bloody Sunday of 1905 were not caused and little
utilised by Mensheviks and Bolsheviks who were preoccupied with theoretical and intra-party squabbles.
The embryonic workers movements continued inspite of rather than because of them. There were only
12,000 active Social Democrats on the eve of the 1905 revolution, dominated by the middle class
intelligentsia and a largely theoretical doctrine.

In competition to the Social Democrats were the Social Revolutionaries founded in 1901, and emerged
out of the populist movement but now they included the industrial working class in their conception of
narod. Thus they had a broader base than the Social Democrats. They still advocated terrorism and
succeeded in the assassination of a Grand Duke, two Interior Ministers and some 139 other officials,
although this was not accepted by all members. It was Chernov who was the outstanding thinker and
leader of the Social Revolutionaries, but he failed to bring all of the diverse assumptions into a hardened
doctrine and only had 50,000 formal members by 1906. The Social Revolutionaries still assigned an
important role to the peasants stimulated by the widespread peasant disorders of 1902 and for this they
were taunted by the Social Democrats who only adopted a modest agrarian platform in their 1903
programme.

In the years after 1900 there was also the emergence of a more vigorous political liberalism, with
prominent leaders, journals, roots in local government and industry and in the professions. Russian
liberalism was moderate in origins and significant segments always remained so hoping to persuade the
monarchy of the constitutional argument, other segments began to realise the intransigence of Tsardom.
The autocracy consistently opposed calls for an elected Constituent Assembly and even a Union of
Zemstva's, and the counter reforms of the 1880's offended liberal opinion, such as attacks on the press and
courts, limitations of the Zemstva's powers, the loss of university autonomy and the appointment of Land
Captains. In the aftermath of the 1891 famine and Nicholas II's rebuff of representative assemblies in
1895, there was an impetus to the renewal of liberal activism. The formation of a Zemstva union was
again prohibited, the advocates began to meet in regular private conferences. In 1899 Beseda was
established, a society of elected Zemstva deputies which included a determined number of
constitutionalists with Shipov (Moscow Zemstva) as its most prominent member. New restrictions and
punishments rained down from the autocracy limiting taxing powers of Zemstva, curbing independence
of the Moscow law society, and the autonomy of Finland was curtailed. Liberalism had to run left and in a
conference of Zemstva leaders in 1904 the majority pronounced in favour of a constitution, a freely
elected assembly which would control the state and the actions of its officials. A vigorous liberalism
revealed itself in other ways since in 1902 "Liberalism" a liberal journal was published from Germany
and in January 1904 A Union of Liberation was founded. Liberalism domination by the Union of

8
Liberation had become to accept revolution, and its appeal to a broader spectrum would be a decisive
factor in the temporary and limited defeat inflicted on the autocracy in October 1905.

Chapter 8 Empire Abroad, foreign policy till 1905.

Almost without exception Russian statesmen urged caution and restraint in foreign affairs after the loss of
the Crimean War. The shame of defeat was only partially redeemed by victory in the Balkan campaign of
1877-78 after the Treaty of San Stefano was over turned by the Treaty of Berlin 1878. The post Crimean
reforms were far from having cured the Empires grave deficiencies, in supply and transport, army and
command, economic backwardness.

Russia had sought agreement with the Crimean powers for common pressure on Turkey to secure
religious and national rights of the Sultans Slavic subjects in the Balkans. Only when that effort failed,
because of Turkish recalcitrance and British reluctance, had Alexander II felt compelled to declare war on
Turkey in April 1877. The waverings that accompanied Russia's decision are informative, lack of money,
railways and the opposition of European powers particularly Austria, Germany and Britain who all had
interests in the Balkans. In the event the war plan of 1877 made it clear that occupation of Constantinople
would be a purely military and temporary measure, to reassure the powers that Russia knew her limits for
operations in the area.

Caution and constraint did not mean passivity and withdrawal, since the maintenance of the Empire
power and honour was the first duty of the Tsar. There had been no annexations in Europe after the
Napoleonic Wars, yet there were acquisitions in the Far East and in Central Asia where Russia was not
constrained by powerful neighbours. Yet Europe remained the decisive testing ground for Russian foreign
policy and this was forcefully impressed on Alexander II in the build up to the Turkish Wars of 1877/78.
The experience of this war, while partially recovering Russian prestige also heightened awareness of the
domestic and foreign limitations in Russian manoeuvres.

A shared conservatism and resistance to revolutionary nationalism in Poland, along with broader
commercial interests meant that in the aftermath of the Crimean War Russian foreign policy sought the
friendship of Austria and particularly Germany. Their separate and collective anxieties led to diplomatic
and military agreements designed to preserve the status quo in the Balkans and central Europe, and
culminated in 1873 in the "Three Emperors League". However none of the partners could long forget
their underlying incompatibilities; the friction in South East Europe where Austria's Slavic neighbours
sought Russian backing, and suspicion of Germany over their role in the Treaty of Berlin. Indeed
Germany sought a closer "Dual alliance" with Austria in 1879 in fear of Russia drifting out of Germany's
orbit. However, Alexander and Russia's options were too limited to negotiate an alliance with France (for
whom Republican governments were held in contempt) and in both 1881 and 1884 Russia signed a
formal Treaty of alliance with Austria and Germany which provided for neutrality if one were at war with
a fourth power, co-operation over the Balkans, the closure of the Straits and Austria's right to annex
Bosnia and Herzegovinia. In signing Alexander III had shied away from risky initiatives in foreign
affairs, and although there was high tension in the Balkans where Bulgaria's leader was replaced with an
Austrian protégé (1885-87), and crises with Britain over Russian moves in the direction of Afghanistan
(1885), caution and compromise remained the necessity of Russian conduct. This necessity was
compounded by a 25% reduction of the military budget in 1882 with expenditure not reaching the 1881
level until 1891.

It was left to diplomacy to defend the country's interests as best it could. The events in Bulgaria proved
itself unequal to the task, and indeed Serbia in 1881 and Romania in 1883 feeling aggrieved and
abandoned by Russia, had moved closer to Austria. Russian interference in the affairs of Bulgaria had
alienated pro-Russian feeling and when in 1885 Eastern Romelia revolted against the Turks they
appointed Alexander of Battenburg (who had annoyed Russia by granting a constitution) to become their
leader. Whilst the Russians engineered an officers conspiracy which eventually led to the abdication of

9
Battenburg, they could not ensure the successor. Anti Russian sentiment had been aggravated and Prince
Ferdinand of Coburg, an Austrian subject, was elected as the new leader. This was the loss of a Balkan
friend and an affront to Russia who had witnessed a severe diplomatic failure.

The Bulgarian crises had profound effects. Russia had been given again a demonstration of the
inadequacy of their own resources and how little they could place trust in the Alliance of the Three
Emperors. Despite denunciations of the role of Austria and Germany, Alexander III resisted demands to
cut the Germany tie and pursue rapprochement with France with whom she distrusted the Republican
governments legitimacy and stability. A secret Russo-Germany agreement called the Reinsurance Treaty
was signed in June 1887 in which the two powers promised to remain neutral in case either became
involved in a defensive war against a third power. However the writing was on the wall since the
Bulgarian affair, the existence of the Dual Alliance and the closing of German financial markets to Russia
in summer 1887. With the emergence of William II of Germany, Bismarck was dismissed and the
Reinsurance Treaty allowed to lapse.

The 1894 alliance with France became the cornerstone of Russia's military and foreign policy and saved
her from isolation, and was a response to deteriorating relations with Germany and the existence of the
Triple Alliance (Austria, Germany, Italy). It did not preclude reconciliation, since a tariff treaty was
concluded with Germany in 1894 and accord reached with Austria over the Balkans in 1897, by 1902
Germany received 41% of Russian exports and supplied 35% of their imports. However by January 1894
France and Russia concluded a detailed and binding military and political alliance which obliged each
other to act if attacked by Germany. The treaty also benefited Russia in that significant French loans were
negotiated and there was more freedom of manoeuvre in European issues. By 1895 half of Russian
securities were in French hands and a quarter of French investment in Russia. In 1894 an increase in the
army was budgeted for and in 1897 a naval construction programme adopted which still had its
limitations because of the Russian purse and led to the abortive attempts of Nicholas II to introduce
disarmament in the Hague conferences of 1899 and 1907.

Russian attentions turned to the Far East to secure commercial and military prestige. The construction of
the Trans Siberian Railway was the first signs of such a move where Witte felt confident with regard to
the economic penetration of China and the Pacific coast. However the Sino-Japanese war, 1894-95,
brought home to the Russians both the risks and opportunities facing them, and territorial acquisitions
brought the Japanese uncomfortably close to Russia and northern Manchuria. In June 1896 the secret
Treaty of Li-Lobanov, Russia pledged herself to guarantee China's territorial integrity and then infringed
it by receiving permission to build the Chinese Eastern Railway. This was followed in 1898 by exacting a
lease of the Liaotung Peninsula and permission to build a naval base at Port Arthur. However after
pressure from China, Japan and Britain, Russia was forced to agree in 1902 to withdraw its troops from
Manchuria. However failure to act quickly and the establishment of a Far Eastern Committee in St
Petersburg cast a shadow over Russo-Japanese relations, this went on until February 1904 when after
securing international backing Japan attacked Port Arthur and gave her command of the seas and safety to
their troop convoys. The fall of Port Arthur in December 1904 and defeat at the Battle of Mukden, and the
annihilation of the Russian Baltic fleet at the Battle of Tsushina in May 1905, led to a catastrophic and
embarrassing defeat. The defeat had a number of causes; military and naval weaknesses and poor
leadership, problem of communications in supplies for Russia over such large distances, technological
military backwardness, the lack of military reform since the Russo-Turkish war. Russia's experiment in
imperialism and the abandonment of moderation, was ended just in time to contain upheavals at home and
limit losses abroad in the Treaty of Portsmouth. In this Manchuria was restored to China, Russian
surrender of lands to Japan, Korea declared independent but no indemnity to be paid.

Chapter 9 Empire at Home: the Non-Russians.

The Russian Empire was a conglomerate of over 100 ethnic groups, cultures, creeds, and tongues. Yet by
the autocracy it was treated as an undifferentiated mass, and in the search for legal administrative

10
uniformity and applying the principle that the Empire was a unitary Russia rather than a multinational
state, it was inevitable that there would be friction between conquerors and natives. Indeed the more the
principle was challenged by the facts and demands for local autonomy, the more vigorously it was
asserted. Even where the imposition of Russian rule had been welcomed ethnic and political tensions,
religious and economic conflicts continued to arise.

The 1897 census reveals that out of 122.6 million people in the empire, 55.7% were non-Russian's, also
some comfort for the autocracy could be drawn from the fact that there was a preponderance of Slavic
elements 73.12%. The Slavic elements included Great Russians 44.3%, Ukrainians 17.81%, Poles 6.1%,
Belorussians 4.68%. The census also counted 13 million Turkic people 10.8% whose Muslim faith and
Turkic languages facilitated cultural and political awakening, 5 million Jews, 3 million Finns, 1.7 million
Germans, 1.3 million Georgians, 1.4 million Latvians, 1.2 million Lithuanians, 1.1 million Armenians, as
well as a variety of smaller groups.

Located for the most part in strategically sensitive border areas, these peoples could not be dealt with as
the official theory implied, neither were they relentlessly victims of repressive policies aimed at levelling
differences. The autocracy had neither the means or the ruthless consistency to achieve what it thought
desirable. When policy was proceeded rigorously against subject nationalities, it did so because it
perceived a threat to its security and a challenge to its legitimacy.

The Ukrainians were Orthodox and shared a common origin with the Great Russians, but were desperate
to cultivate their own identity although there was no thought of an independent Ukrainian state. Although
the authorities took a lenient view towards the Ukrainian cultural study, there was never a disposition to
concede the uniqueness of the Ukraine, indeed the word was unknown in law and shunned in official
usage. Not until 1905 was Ukrainian accepted as a language in its own right rather than merely a dialect
of Russian. There were aspects of repression in the period; Dragomanov was dismissed from his
university post for advocating regional autonomy in 1875 and in 1876 Russia was made the official
language and Ukrainian prohibited. This stimulated a Ukrainian nationalism which found expression
through the Revolutionary Ukrainian Party founded in 1900, Ukranian National Party 1902 and the
Ukrainian Democratic Party 1905. For all that they contributed to the opposition they failed to survive the
renewed government suppression which befell them in the aftermath of the 1905 revolution.

The Poles had a long history of a once powerful state whose existence Russia had terminated by 1795,
and cherished their nationality and Catholicism more than their Slavdom. Since the rebellion of 1831
against the Russians they had suffered political vigilance from the autocratic administrative machinery,
and this was the background to the rebellion of 1863 along with the aftermath of the Crimea and the
general stimulus to nationalism in Europe. The rebellion was severely suppressed and its aftermath saw
an intensification of Russification, with direct government from St Petersburg, Russian language became
the medium in secondary schools 1866 and primary schools 1885, the property of the Church was
secularised, the Uniate Church abolished and its flock converted to Orthodoxy, and an Orthodox
Cathedral was built in Warsaw in 1894. There was emerging opposition the Polish Socialist Party was
organised in 1893 and a Social Democrats Party of Poland in 1894 and in the universal assault on
Tsardom that took place in 1905 they were both active parts in strikes and demonstrations, although
forced into retreat in the aftermath.

Finland incorporated in 1809 enjoyed a degree of self rule and freedom unmatched in any other part of
the empire, and it was further enlarged by Alexander the II in the 1860's. This relative autonomy gave
them a highly developed degree of natural self consciousness and it made them particularly resistant to
Russia's demands in the 1890's for closer control. A revision of the Finnish criminal code in 1890 and the
postal systems was largely agreed to, but some felt that the principle of consulting the Finnish Diet had
been breached. In 1899 laws became even more threatening to Finnish autonomy, and were implemented
by a new governor Bobrikov who imposed a new military service law and that when this was opposed by
a petition of 500,000 the Tsar instructed that the Finnish Diet could only express opinion rather than
decision in matters of general Imperial concern. The Language Manifesto of 1900 and conscription law of

11
1801 were clear signs of advance stages of Russification. There were demonstrations that led to Bobrikov
being given dictatorial powers in 1903 although he was assassinated by resistance fighters in 1904 the
laws were revoked in October 1905, but the Finns never acquired the autonomy they once held under the
autocracy.

In the three Baltic States of Estand, Livland and Kirland which were characterised by a landowning class
that was characteristically Lutheran Christian, attempt to strengthen Russian presence in these districts
were resumed in the reign of Alexander the III together with measures of administrative and cultural
Russification. The Russian legal system was introduced in 1889, the introduction of the Russian language
at all but the lowest levels of government, and the official encouragement or the missionary zeal of the
Orthodox Church. In the disturbances of 1905 the Baltic States witnessed the population rise against both
German landlords and Russian soldiers before order was restored.

The Georgians and Armenians had a highly developed sense of national identity, yet they had welcomed
Tsarist rule against the threat of Muslim Turkey and Persia. Even here the Russians exacerbated ethnic
and social tensions which made Transcaucasia an arena of struggle against the autocracy which gave to
the revolutionary movement some of its most determined members including Stalin. Russification of
language and administration had predominated since the 1870's and the response was in the form of a
Social Democratic movement that was revolutionary but disavowed purely nationalist aims. The
Armenian national Renaissance also disavowed nationalist intentions since they were scattered, like the
Georgians throughout Transcaucasia, and it sought generally to widen the cultural, religious and
economic opportunities that Russia held for them. In the 1880's the Russian authorities sought to
strengthen their interests through closing Armenian schools, and confiscating properties of the Armenian
Church. Armenian reaction was furious and unanimous. By 1909 much of Transcaucasia was close to
open revolt, and Nicholas II was forced into a policy of reconciliation in 1905-7.

St Petersburg looked on central Asia as a market for goods, a source of cheap labour and a place of
settlement for the land poor peasants of Great Russia. Sporadic rising of the 1880's and the 1890's had
been the first signs of economic and religious protest, but the Muslims of central Asia found it difficult to
define what their role within the Romanov state should be as did the Tartars of Transcaucasia.

However no group suffered as much from popular and official prejudice as did the Jews, which grew
more virulent in the period 1881-1917 and contributed to the exodus of over two million Jews. The legal
economic and social situation of no other ethnic or religious minority was as precarious as theirs, and it
suffered terribly from anti Semitic legislation and violence. The Jews had their own faith Judaism, spoke
Yiddish and their religious practice made them a self contained national caste. The Russian authorities
permitted the Jews only to live in the so called Pale of Permanent Settlement and even then they did not
enjoy rights of natives and were excluded from state employment. In 1881-82 anti- Jewish riots broke all
(pogroms) in the Pale which led to the loss of life and property and also a hardening of the autocracy's
anti-Semitic legislation. The May laws of 1882 with further restrictions on Jewish citizenship, and a
veritable flood of legislation between 1887-1901 and had the effect of blocking any way to achieve status
within the social political structure.

This encouraged some Jews to join revolutionary movements (such as Martov and Trotsky) and fighting
for full human rights with non Jewish comrades for an egalitarian and socialist Russia. The Bund was
founded in 1897 as a Jewish workers movement with 35,000 in its ranks by 1905. The Bund's founders
considered itself to be an integral part of the Social Democratic movement and not a nationalist
movement since the Jews were essentially a dispersed minority, but by 1901 had begun to declare the
Jews as a nation. The Social Democrats dismissed the Bund's ideas as nationalist and Non Marxist. There
was also the growth of Zionism which unlike the clandestine Bund was tolerated because it shunned
radical politics and directed all its energies at emigration, however they too were banned by Pleve in
1903.

12
There can be no question, however, that Jewish anger and militancy were on the increase and reached
new heights after the pogrom of Kishinev in Bessarabia in April 1903 which was blamed on the
government. In 1905 over 600 Jewish communities were affected by pogroms and at least 1,000 Jews
killed, and fully revealed the pathological dimension of Russian Judeophobia. While it had murderous
consequences for tens and thousands of Jews, the pogroms proved useless for those who wielded it and an
embarrassment for more rational defenders of the monarchy.

Chapter 10. The Ambiguous Revolution.

The spectre of revolution in Russia up to 1905 had been held at bay by the failure of the peasant
riots, workers strikes, the constitutional and nationalist movements, to join or coincide. The trust
of the autocracy in minor concessions and physical force also served to keep the opposition
divided. It was not the fall of Port Arthur that galvanised the political opposition and brought about
it's coalescence with the mass movement of social protest, but Bloody Sunday. Neither was the
opening event of what would become the Revolution of 1905 initiated by the Socialist parties, but
by a former prison chaplain and the Assembly of Russian Factory Workers of St Petersburg
which he had founded with official permission. On 9th January he led a demonstration to the
Winter Palace to present a petition to Nicholas II which incorporated parts of the Liberal
programme and labour legislation: a Constituent Assembly, responsibility of Ministers to the
assembly, civil liberties and equality before the laws, and a range of rights for the urban working
class. Many of these demands were the goal of respectable society who greeted with revulsion
the shooting of approximately 1,000 demonstrators, of which 150 were killed.

Mensheviks and Bolsheviks played no part in the events of the 9th January, but both proclaimed
the beginning of the revolution. It was a priest who had built a police sponsored organisation of
8,000 with a broad following, when both branches of the RSDWP in St Petersburg only had 2,000
members between them. Whilst the events of Bloody Sunday stirred the Russian body politic and
agitated the urban masses, it failed to pressure the government in to adopting measures to end
the political and social crisis. The Liberal opposition was demanding a transformation of the
political order and the adoption of a constitution with a representative government and this fused
with the economic grievances and increased militancy of the workers. The government
responded to Bloody Sunday by placing St Petersburg under martial law and General Trepov
restored an outward calm to the capital over the next few days, and he received a delegation of
34 deputies from a number of factories to show the autocracies benevolent interest in the welfare
of working men. The deputies were told that their striking brothers had been deceived, but would
be treated with compassion if they remained faithful to "Autocracy, Nationality, Orthodoxy". On
29th January a Commission of Enquiry was set up to determine the causes of industrial unrest
chaired by Shidlovskii a member of the Senate and Council of State. However this was hastily
dismantled when the government refused to concede to Menshevik demands that the worker
members of the Commission should have freedom of speech, that meetings should be open to
the press and that similar bodies be established in other industrial centres.

Such official insensitively became the stimulus for an epidemic of strikes influenced by the radical
intelligentsia to form as yet illegal trade unions and strike committees. In April and May Councils,
or Soviets, of strikers began to appear in the Urals, They were amongst the first of about sixty
such workers assemblies (including St Petersburg Soviet of October) which arose during 1905, to
co-ordinate strike action and assume quasi-governmental functions where the authorities were
temporarily in retreat. The SD's and SR's sought to use and direct these Soviets as a new
weapon of mass militancy.

Rural turbulence was later in coming and more sporadic, springing from a number of general
causes and expressing itself in the burning and looting of manors. It developed an unprecedented
degree of organisation and political articulateness. Villagers were assembled in Moscow in May
and instead of declaring support for Tsar and Country complained of their lack of land and rights,
and that the state was incapable of meeting these needs. In July the "All Russian Peasants
Union" was established and convened in secrecy with over 100 delegates from 22 provinces, and

13
the increasing receptivity of the peasants to political radicals led to the setting up of "bureaus of
co-operation". It rejected the autocracy's land policy, and declared the need for redistribution by a
Constituent Assembly and democratically elected local government. This symbolised a waning of
peasant isolation, traditionalism and conservatism.

In February the Tsar promised, and in July began to discuss how worthy persons enjoying the
confidence of the people may take part in a preliminary consideration of legislative projects.
However the offer of a Consultative Assembly accompanied by an Imperial Manifesto condeming
trouble-makers was ill received. The Union of Liberation and the Union of Unions (the latter
headed by Miliukov and formed in May of 14 organisations), now demanded the Constituent
Assembly elected by universal, direct, equal and secret vote (the so called four-tail franchise),
and these demands were embraced by the Peasant Union and some Zemstva and municipal
representatives. On August 6 the Law for the Election of a Consultative Assembly (the State
Duma) was published, but offered so little and came so late that it inflamed public opinion whose
argument was that the vote for the "Bulygin Duma" did not contain the four-tail formula and
discriminated against non-Russians, the poor, women and town dwellers. However the moderate
wing of liberalism accepted the new institutions, the Union of Unions boycotted it and the
Socialists refused participation and called for a general strike as a prelude to the armed uprising
that would bring about the democratic revolution (for which they had neither sufficient numbers,
unity or weapons).

However the great October strike which forced the government into retreat and major
concessions became general precisely because the workers, whilst being controlled by no
political group, had adopted the slogans of Liberals and radicals. The strike began on 7 October
in Moscow by railway workers which immediately limited the government's ability to move troops,
and it was joined by postal employees, telegraphers, printers, industrial workers and professional
middle class groups, and they were supported by provincial and municipal governments in some
areas. However, they were divided as to their ultimate goals, their unity was a temporary
phenomenon induced by the euphoria of the moment. The temporary uncontested domination of
the political arena was the result of indecision and disarray in government circles. "For a brief
moment the forces clamouring for liberty and social justice felt as one as they faced the same
State."

The government's problem was viewed as being one of physical security, of how to end this
madness by the sobering application of force. Most of the army was still in the Far East and some
units were infected with the rebellious mood. Despite denouncing the Liberal movement in
February, Witte submitted a general survey of the situation to the Tsar on 13 October along with
suggestions for dealing with it. He now argued that "Russia has outgrown the existing regime,
and is striving for an order based on civil liberty", and that to close the breech (the gap between
the State and society), he proposed a series of steps which echoed parts of the Liberal
programme. It included guarantees for a range of civil liberties, the establishment of institutions to
participate in legislative programmes and the acceptance of a Duma. However there was no talk
of a constitution or in the supremacy of the legislature. Nicholas wavered, considered the
alternatives including repression and yielded only when his most trusted military advisers were
sceptical of drastic measures. On the 17th October he signed the "October Manifesto" which he
hoped would put an end to the disturbances and the general strike. On the 19th October the
Council of Ministers was re-established with broadened powers and Witte as Chairman. Russia
now had a Premier and a Cabinet whose policies were to coordinate the report and the
Manifesto. The report granted the full range of civil liberties, extended the franchise to those
omitted by the Bulygin Law, established that no law could take effect without the approval of the
people's elected representatives and that government officials were to be held accountable. The
Manifesto appeared to transform Russia into a Constitutional Monarchy. "The joy which greeted
its publication was less the celebration of a final triumph than of the first battle won in a continuing
campaign".

14
The contradictions which marked the Russian State structure and conduct during its pseudo-
constitutional period, were rooted in confusion as to the meaning of Nicholas's Manifesto and the
accompanying Witte Report. This confusion was evident in the continued revolutionary acts of
urban crowds, attacks on the symbols of Tsarism in non-Russian areas, the repression of these
by Tsarist authorities (supported by the Black Hundreds), and the fact that several governors
believed it to be a hoax since the regular organs of government had not been involved in the
decisions of October. Lev Tolstoi found no difficulty in assessing the Manifesto; "There's nothing
in it for the people", and peasants who asked their land captain for more meadows would have
agreed. However this is not to dismiss that there was nothing in the Manifesto and Report for the
politically active and concious who Witte had hoped to reach.

Confusion and distrust characterised the response of the politically concious and this was
highlighted in the coming weeks and months as Witte revealed how conditional his commitment
to Liberal institutions and civil liberty actually were. Lenin and Trotsky called it a scrap of paper
that left the autocracy and its institutions intact. The Liberals with Miliukov as leader of the
Kadets, argued that it did not contain the minimum concessions, particularly that of a Constituent
Assembly, which the Tsar could still take away. The more moderate Liberals, "Octoberists",
accepted the Manifesto and pledged their support to the government but argued that until a new
Duma could appoint a cabinet, old Ministers should make way for new. Witte responded to this by
dismissing some of the most unpopular Ministers ie Pobedonostev, but retained the Head of
Department of Police, Durnovo, as the Minister of the Interior, with whom both Kadets and
Octoberists were unwilling to serve. Witte thus demonstrated that he was unwilling to initiate a
genuine sharing of power with any of the political forces mobilised in 1905. He did not concede to
a Constituent Assembly and rejected further Liberal demands before the meeting of the Duma.
Witte's resistance was stiffened by the spread of violence, by Socialist calls for insurrection, and
by recognition amongst some Liberals that the State needed to act decisively in rural regions of
open revolt ie Polish and Baltic provinces and south central Russia, who plundered noble estates
and refused to pay taxes and rents.

The rebelliousness of the proletariat did not match that of the peasants in duration. The St
Petersburg Soviet called off the general strike on 19th October, but continued demands for the
eight hour day, and after calling another general strike on November 1st and declaring a fiscal
boycott of the government, the police arrested the head of St Petersburg Soviet Nosar, his
deputy Trotsky, and 256 Soviet delegates. In Moscow there was a poorly armed uprising
encouraged by Bolsheviks, but repressed in December with the cost of 500-1000 lives. The
government gradually recovered both nerve and strength. It extended martial law to 41 provinces
and sent punitive expeditions to the countryside, and it was no doubt encouraged by public
support to act decisively, as is evident by the decision of the Moscow City Duma to side with the
authorities against the workers. The Octoberists too, condemned open rebellion with Miliukov
arguing that "continuous revolution only serves the aims of reaction"

Against this background of violence, division in the opposition camp, of the workers' exhaustion
and employers' opposition to them, the bureaucracy prepared the laws that were to ratify the
Liberals revolution and to limit it. The Press Rules of November 24th ended preliminary
censorship but empowered the censors to fine or imprison those responsible for seditious
material, and all the capitals dailies that had supported the Soviets were confiscated. In March
and April 1906 the rules governing public meetings left a great deal to the discretion of the
authorities who had to approve them. However the regulations for the election, organisation,
rights and duties of the Duma, were of the greatest importance. The Electoral Law of December
11th did extend the suffrage to all classes but without making it direct, equal or universal with vast
categories of society left without the vote, which was still cast and counted by class and property
groups (curias). Miliukov called it "the source of all future conflicts." The date (27th April) and the
structure of the new organisation were announced in February 1906. It emerged that the official
deliberations was not a parliament. The Duma was restricted in a variety of ways; it was denied
constituent functions, the executive was obliged to call it for only two months of the year, there
was to be an upper house of 200 members with half appointed by the Tsar and designed to be a

15
break upon the more democratic lower chamber. Indeed the upper house, the Council of State,
became known as "the graveyard of Liberal hopes", since no bill could become law without its
consent and that of the Tsar, whose veto was absolute. On 23rd April 1906 the new Fundamental
Laws were announced by which; the Tsar retained the title autocrat with absolute authority,
possessed the initiative on all legislative matters and the sole right to change the Fundamental
Laws, and could issue emergency decrees. The Duma was primarily an arena for discussion,
amendment and approval of proposals from the Ministries, and the power over finance was
blunted by exempting military, naval, and imperial court expenditures from discussion which
accounted for one third of the budget. Ministers were to serve at the pleasure of the Tsar, and
were not absolutely obliged to respond to the Duma and could not be made to resign by a vote of
censure. "There can be no disagreement that the laws fell short of the high hopes of October."
However, a constitutional regime of sorts had come into being and the Fundamental Laws
defined the boundaries the sovereign had set for it.

The elections returned a decidedly oppositionist and largely radical majority, making likely a clash
between the Duma and the old regime. Goremykin was now made the Chairman of the Council of
Ministers, and he had neither the talent or the inclination for an accommodation with the Duma,
and tried to deal with it by ignoring it, and when this was no longer possible, by lecturing it on its
rights. From the start he and Nicholas agreed to let the people's representatives know their place.
On 27th April Nicholas gave the Duma its inaugural address, and asked it to clarify the needs of
the peasantry and promote popular enlightenment. The Duma could not accept such a timid
programme in the context of popular expectation and competition from revolutionary Socialists, so
in the Duma's "Reply to the Address from the Throne" it insisted on direct elections, universal
suffrage, civil liberties, exceptional and martial law, the abolition of the State Council and full
legislative power to the Duma. The Duma considered its most immediate task to be the
satisfaction of peasant land hunger and asked for the requisitioning of Church, Crown and State
lands. It also asked for the rights of wage labourers to associate and organise, for free universal
education, reform of local government, and for allowing non-Russians to follow their own ways of
life. The reply concluded with a plea for an amnesty of political prisoners. Such a reply was a
counter address and sure to be rejected at least in its totality. On 13 May Goremykin read a
declaration to the Duma, and characterised its demands as inadmissible or untimely because
they violated the Fundamental Laws, the Imperial prerogative and the security of the State, and
he listed areas that the government was working on and those it would consider. On the key
issues however not a single conciliatory word was said. The Duma had been told clearly it was
not a co-equal branch of government, and that it should stick to its subordinate role. The Duma
passed a vote of censure on the cabinet and demanded that it be replaced by one enjoying the
confidence of the Duma. The cabinet neither resigned, submitted substantial legislation, nor
responded to the Duma's demands. The Duma was closed on the 8th of July, and new elections
announced which the government expected to produce a more tractable assembly. Government
and Socialists alike wondered what tactics the Kadets, so intransigent in the First Duma would
follow in the second.

Moderates within the Kadet Party, including Maklakov, disapproved of its programme as too
radical, and this group was instrumental in dropping the appeal for a Constituent Assembly,
refusing an alliance with the SD's, and in wishing to compensate owners of expropriated land,
and to guarantee private ownership once redistribution had taken place. However the task of
persuing peaceful parliamentary action was made more difficult by Socialist participation in the
elections and by its abuse. When the new Duma met on 20th February 1907 it contained 54 SD's
(18 Bolsheviks), 37 SR's, 104 Trudoviki (Labourites) and 16 Popular Socialists, and the Kadets
98 which meant that they could no longer dominate, and depended either on the left or the
Octoberists (54) to the right. Stolypin the new premier was unable to bridge the gulf between the
government and the non-revolutionary opposition. The agrarian and other decrees he issued
were designed to create accomplished facts, which it would be more difficult for the Duma to
undo when they were submitted for ratification. The Tsar upheld the field courts martial system
dealing with anti-government crime, and by April 1,144 people had been executed. In the year
following the October Manifesto 7,000 persons were fined, 2,000 expelled from regions and

16
21,000 bannished to distant provinces which highlighted that such violations were justified by the
government as a matter of self preservation against its claim that 4,000 officials had been killed.

Stolypin presented a programme in March 1907 to a hostile Duma which outlined the terms on
which he was able to extend the hand of co-operation to the Duma's moderates. The Kadets were
divided, but it was Stolypin's agrarian decrees of November 1906 that stood in the way of an
arrangement and also caused angry outbreaks from the left, and eventually led to the dissolution
of the Duma. All opposition projects for land reform contained the principle of confiscation, and it
was this whether compensated or not, that Stolypin found unacceptable. There was no middle
ground between Stolypin's programme and the plans for socialisation (Trudoviki and SR's),
municipalisation (Mensheviks) or nationalisation and direct seizure (Bolsheviks) of land offered on
behalf of peasants who themselves were to distribute it equitably. The government countenanced
only voluntary redistribution of gentry land, by sale to the peasant land bank on terms favourable
to the seller and Nicholas and Stolypin complained that the Duma was being used to issue calls
to riot and rebellion.

Monarchists and rightists urged the dissolution of the Duma, and on June 1st Stolypin demanded
that the parliamentary immunity of the SD deputies be lifted because some had conspired to
prepare for revolution and the order was issued by government on 3rd June 1907. It was
accompanied by an Electoral Law which reduced the rights of whole categories of voters. The
number of elections in the peasant and workers areas was halved and from now on 1% of the
population chose close to two thirds of the Duma's electors.

When the 3rd Duma met in November 1907 (the only one to last its full term of 5 years), the
opposition consisted of 19 SD's, 13 Trudoviki and 54 Kadets and joined by 28 Progressives and
26 representatives of non-Russian nationalities. The government was supported by 154
Octoberists, 97 Conservatives and moderate rightists (who formed the Russian Nationalist Union
in 1910) and the extreme right with 50 members. Stolypin's coup d'etat violated the Fundamental
Laws and created a realignment of political forces. "Checked first in its proletarian, then in its
peasant, and finally in its parliamentary phase, the revolution was over". Stolypin had sensed and
hastened its end.

17