Secondary Sources

Adams, Arthur E., editor

Adams, Arthur E. 1965. Imperial Russia after 1861: Peaceful Modernization or Revolution? Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Co.

Adams, Arthur E., ed. 1960. The Russian Revolution and Bolshevik Victory, Why and How? Boston: Heath.

Allworth, Edward, editor

Carrère d’Encausse, Hélène. 1967. Central Asia: A Century of Russian Rule. Edited by Edward Allworth. New York: Columbia University Press.

Allworth, Edward. 1971. Soviet Nationality Problems. New York: Columbia University Press.

Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice. 1973. The Nationality Question in Soviet Central Asia. Edited by Edward Allworth. New York: Praeger.

Allworth, Edward, and Columbia University Center for the Study of Central Asia. 1988. Tatars of the Crimea : Their Struggle for Survival : Original Studies from North America, Unofficial and Official Documents from Czarist and Soviet Sources. Durham: Duke University Press.

Allworth, Edward. 1989. Central Asia, 120 Years of Russian Rule. New ed. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

Amari [Zetlin, Mikhail Osipovich]

Zetlin, Mikhail Osipovich [Amari]. 1958. The Decembrists. Translated by George Panin, preface by Michael M. Karpovich. New York: International Universities Press. https://search.worldcat.org/en/title/64322985

STUDENT REVIEW = The Decembrists [deals with] the events that led up to the December 14th, 1825, uprising [and describes] what happened to those who were involved. Starting with a group of upper class military commanders who had come back from fighting Napoleon in Paris, and how they sought to better Russian through organizing secret societies, and their eventual violent mutiny of the new Tsar.

The secret groups that were set up started in social gatherings where revolutionary thoughts were discussed amongst those elites who had returned from Paris. in January, 1821, the groups had it first meeting in Moscow. This meeting was called The Congress of the Union of Common Weal. This event was significant because it was the first nationwide secret political congress in the history of Russia, However, the ending decision of the congress was to abolish the congress. However, one of the leading members, Pestel, wanted to keep the movement alive. He became the leader of the Southern Society, and began to continue the work of the secret society. There was also another society that was set up without any knowledge of the previous societies. This was called the Society of united Slovs, and it wasn’t until a member of the Southern society attempted to recruit a member of the United Slavs that the groups became aware of each other’s existence. However, none of these groups did much more than talk or plan. It seemed that the groups were all talk, despite some of the members eagerly volunteering to assassinate the Tsar, Alexander. It wasn’t until Alexander’s death, that anything actually happened.

On November, 19th 1825, Alexander died of malaria. The next person up to be the Tsar was his brother Constantine. However, Constantine did not want the title. But another brother, Nichols who was third in line for the throne, did not know about this, and he ordered all of the soldiers to pledge allegiance to Tsar Constantine. After finding out about Constantine’s lack of desire for the throne, he gained control. This was when the groups decided to put their plan into action. On December 14th 1825, Nicholas ordered the soldiers to now pledge allegiance to him. But the high ranking officers involved in the secret societies decided that they were going to convince their troops to not take the pledge and fight in the name of Constantine against Nicholas. They mutinied against the man who wanted to be Tsar, in the name of the man who turned down the job. The ordeal turned into a stand still between the mutineers, and those who were loyal to the New Tsar. Just as the members of the secret society assumed, Russians did not want to kill Russians. Eventually artillery was used from Nicholas’s side, and it was over. All of the conspirators were rounded up and arrested.

Nicholas took his time interviewing and recording everything from his new prisoners. Many of them told him whatever he wanted to hear, but many held out with the names of the fellow conspirators. Nicholas then set up a committee called “The Secret Committee to Investigate the Members of the Criminal Society” in odder to get the the bottom of what had happened. In the end, the main five figures involved (including Ryleyev, Pestel, Sergei Muraviov-Apostl, and Kakhovsky) were sentenced to death, and the rest were sentenced to hard labor in Siberia. Oddly enough, the death sentence had been outlawed in Russian, but they were able to find a heinous crime loop hole. Russian must have been out of practice, because three of the four ropes snapped, requiring them to be hung again(which was also against the law).

Those sent to Siberia had many troubles as well. The first prison they were sent to was very hard for the Decembrist. they were not used to hard work, and being locked in small dark rooms. However, they were soon transferred to Chita, where Nicholas had sent General Leparsky to look after them. This was a much better place, and was almost comfortable. Slowly, as the years passed, they were released, but still required to live in Siberia. It was not until the death of Nicholas, that his son, Alexander II, pardoned the Decembrist and let them leave(but not to enter Moscow or St. Petersburg). At this point there were only fifteen of them left alive. On February 17th, 1892, the last of the Decembrist died, but their story, and ideas lived on.

The uprising of the secret societies, or Decembrists, accomplished very little in comparison to what they wanted to achieve, but many people looked up to what they did, even Nicholas on his death bed had wished he was made some changes that they had wanted. When the remaining Decembrists returned from Siberia, they were seen as political heroes, and they were, [they laid] the groundwork for many future revolutions.

Andreev, Andrei Matveevich

Andreev, A. 1971. The Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies on the Eve of the October Revolution, March-October, 1917. Translated by J. Langstone. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Anweiler, Oskar

Anweiler, Oskar. 1968. “The Political Ideology of the Leaders of the Petrograd Soviet in the Spring of 1917.” In Revolutionary Russia, edited by Richard Pipes, 114-142. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Anweiler, Oskar. 1979. “The Ideals of Revolutionary Democracy.” In The Russian Revolution: Disorder or New Order?, edited by Daniel R. Brower, 8-15. St. Louis: Forum Press.

Anweiler, Oskar, and Ruth Hein. 1975. The Soviets: The Russian Workers, Peasants, and Soldiers Councils, 1905-1921. [1st American ed.]. New York: Pantheon Books.

STUDENT REVIEW =
First an expansion on what a “Soviet,” is in the Russian experience. They were councils of delegates elected by workers. The first appeared during the 1905 revolution, then disappeared (via persecution) until reappearing in 1917. One could interpret them as a grassroots movement of an experiment in direct democracy; although the Soviets were dominated by the Socialist parties, they were not the creation of the parties. The delegates were subject to instant recall; this was really the only constant electoral rule in the Soviets. Delegates were chosen at the factory level and larger factories were often under represented. The rules for number of workers per delegate varied from place to place. In 1917 soldiers and sailors also formed Soviets; later still and less pervasively peasants did as well. A hierarchy of Soviets was also formed as they proliferated at the municipal, oblast and later national level. The power structure, like the electoral rules, was not well defined; the Petrograd Soviet and the various manifestations of a national Soviet competed for influence. Throughout most of the eight month period of the Provisional Government the Soviets were dominated by moderate Socialist parties who relied on the Provisional Government to carry out the Bourgeois revolution. They assumed a supervisory role, something akin to a veto power, making sure that the Provisional Government advanced the revolution on a sufficiently revolutionary path.

This book can be broken into three parts: the first part examines the intellectual roots of communes and its development in socialist ideology up till 1917. Although Marx embraced the 1871 Paris Commune for its system of government, the council movement (and the local autonomy that came with it) was the ideological domain of anarchists and utopian socialists. Even though Marx believed that the state would wither away, this would happen only a dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin in his earlier works closely adhered to this belief and espoused a strong central government. The other radical socialist parties, the Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries, supported the Soviet movement more that the Bolsheviks did. Even so, the Bolsheviks were prominent in the Moscow Soviet in 1905.
The second section of this book examines the eight month course of the Provisional Government. It continues the intellectual history of the first section by studying Lenin, Trotsky and other Bolshevik leaders’ attitudes towards and writings on the Soviets. When Lenin arrived back in Russia in April of 1917 he published his “April Theses” and put his support behind the Soviets. “All power to the Soviets,” became the Bolsheviks catchphrase. The Soviets alone had the right to rule and should assume all power. This belief certainly was something of a departure for Lenin, and he had to fight to get broad party support for his idea. Other parties still put faith in the Constituent Assembly. The Mensheviks, Kerensky and others thought the Provisional Government would disappear after the calling of the Constituent Assembly.

The Bolsheviks made good populist politicians. Their clever agitations engendered resentment among the working class towards the Provisional Government. They had their most success getting support at the factory committee level, particularly in the traditional urban areas. Eventually the Bolsheviks gained an overall majority in the Petrograd Soviet (they had a large majority among worker delegates, but only constituted a minority of solider delegates) that they used to induce the military revolutionary committee [mlt] (a committee formed by military troops to protect the gains of the revolution from counter revolutionaries) to seize power. This was in the name of the Soviets; the Bolsheviks were not powerful enough to seize power in their name. Still there was immediate reaction against this appropriation of power. Postal and Railway workers went on strike, and counterproductively the Mensheviks and SRs walked out of Soviet meetings. The third section of this book deals with the various ways the Bolsheviks compromised the power of the Soviets after October and set up a dictatorship not of the Soviets or even of the working class, but of the Bolsheviks.

Perhaps because of how dated this work is (mid 1950s) it doesn’t seem to organize itself around a single thesis, or offer much independent analysis, but I think the author’s (never explicitly stated) opinion is that Lenin was willing to flip flop ideologically depending on what he felt was the most advantageous to his gaining power. He didn’t really want all power to the Soviets (indeed after the July days he tried to get the Bolsheviks to change their position once more) but wanted power for himself and for his cadre party.

Ascher, Abraham

Ascher, Abraham. 1953. “The Kornilov Affair.” The Russian Review 12 (4): 235–52.

Ascher, Abraham. 1988. The Revolution of 1905. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

STUDENT REVIEW =
The publication researches preconditions and results, circumstances and personalities, political leaders and parties, and the main “forces” of the revolutionary events of 1905, “birth and growth” of political conscience and culture in masses of citizens.

Political culture in Russia was essentially forbidden at the high institutional level until the Manifesto of October 17th 1905. The social political scene and Russian society was “fragmented,” the “old regime” was “under siege”, the tsar and his ministers were unable to form a united front against the opposition: the intelligentsia and peasants/workers. The political upheaval initiated by perceived weakness of the Russian state due to Russian losses in the 1904 Russo-Japanese War and catalyzed by the Bloody Sunday. The author describes the role of minorities, peasants, soldiers, Cossacks and sailors in revolutionary events (such as the reactionary measures of the government against Poland and Georgia). Strikes throughout the country in October 1905 definitely took on political rather than just economic motives and resulted in the Tsar sharing power. The Manifesto was signed and society exercised civil liberties through election in a representative Duma even though they were not constitutionally protected.

The psychology of the soldiers changed after the Tsar signed the Manifesto. Discipline as a prime virtue or in other words unquestionable loyalty to absolute authority was challenged. Ten days after its signing 4000 sailors in Kronstadt on the Baltic mutinied. An interesting and telling episode happened when a railroad strike stranded thousands of troops in the Far East. When Witte informed the Tsar of this strike the Tsar replied that all strikers should be hung. The Russo Japanese war was a drain on the Russian economy and military manpower and prestige of the regime yet troops who could have helped stabilized the country during the general strike of 1905 were stationed in Poland (250,000) which was more than were in the Far East.

The author describes the roles of different parties. The Conservatives supported the autocrats who in a reactionary way want to preserve the tsarist monarchy and his absolute rule with arbitrary authority. Political murder was not beneath the secret wing of the conservative party: the Black Hundreds. The other players in Russian politics were the Social Democrats who were the agitators organizing strikes in the factories. Influenced by Marxist thought, they were split into the tolerant Mensheviks led by Pavel B. Axelrod who wanted a workers congress to rule the Nation and Bolsheviks with Lenin who wanted a small cadre of committed revolutionaries to lead. Through illegal pamphlets or newspaper journals these groups tried to destabilize the country with the aim of bringing down the tsar and his institution forever. An important party which emerged at this time was the Party of People’s Freedom whose members were called Kadets. By 1906 they had over 100,000 members. Their liberal platform was: Democratic government, progressive taxation, an eight hour day, distribution of land and the monarchy left alone.

The revolution of 1905 was “a turning point” but the tide did recede by 1907 yet Ascher still titles the book The Revolution of 1905. Ascher asks in the introduction: “Was the overthrow of the Tsar by force feasible?” “Was the revolution bound to fail and if so why?” He answers “no”, the military was loyal. The Bolsheviks understood the answers to these questions. With the feedback from the revolution” of 1905, the military lost its loyalty after the signing of the manifesto, and notes on necessary adjustments of organization recorded, the Bolsheviks were in position to advance. 1905 was a year of climax but no resolution. The Empire was near collapse. The revolution had not yet run its course.

Atkinson, Dorothy

Atkinson, Dorothy. 1983. The End of the Russian Land Commune, 1905-1930. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Avrich, Paul

Avrich, Paul. 1967. The Russian Anarchists. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

STUDENT REVIEW =
The book [..] is essentially a history of Russian anarchists both inside and outside of the country, focusing primarily on the periods before, during and after the revolutions of 1905 and 1917. The book begins by describing the political climate in Russia just prior to 1905 and all the gathering forces of resistance to the old order. The book does not really delve into Russian anarchist history prior to 1905, though it does offer brief biographies of both Bakunin as well as Kropotkin.

TThe next chapter is devoted to the issue of terrorism within the Russian anarchist movement during this time. It chronicles how various anarchist elements within Russia resorted to violence in the name of anarchy. However it makes clear the distinction between those who were motivated by ideology as well as those that committed “ex’s” or expropriations and other violent acts for personal gain but in the name of anarchism. The book discusses how in light of this, terrorism was a predominant tactic of many extremist anarchists during and after the 1905 revolution. The terrorism proved ineffective and often indiscriminate and is not considered to have advanced anarchist interests during the period of 1905. With the coming to power of Stolypin, the suppression of anarchists by the government who were both violent and non-violent following 1905 is chronicled. It is discussed how the most common form of dealing with anarchists and other radical elements was through swift military tribunals and prison sentences.

The book discusses the issue of intellectuals amongst Russian anarchists during this period. The general impression given is that there was hostility towards intellectuals or the intelligentsia among Russian anarchists during this time. This is mainly attributed to the view that Russian anarchists saw academia and indeed the entire educational establishment as part of bourgeoisie structure. Furthermore, they saw the contemporary educational system as being an exclusive weapon used against the masses in the class struggle.

Throughout the book there seem to be three predominant schools of anarchy represented among the Russian anarchists of this time. The first of these are the anarchic-individualists. They supposedly were influenced by Nietzsche (a fact I find ironic) and placed individual freedom as the sole goal of anarchy. Next were the anarchic-Syndicalists who were highly influence by the Syndicalists of France. They were anarchists however they placed particular focus on the industrial proletariat in the issue of class struggle and the coming revolution. Last were the anarchist-communists. These (at least in my opinion) were the purest anarchists. They believed in a total societal revolution in which production shifted into public hands, and an egalitarian (and often utopian) society would subsequently develop. A key point I feel where the anarchist-communists differed from other schools of radicalism is they believed that the entire populace was intricate [?involved] in bringing about the coming revolution, and not merely relying on the industrial proletariat.

With the coming of the 1917 Revolution the book discusses the anarchist’s opposition to the provisional government along with the Bolsheviks and other revolutionary factions. Though they did not engage in terror on the scale of the 1905 revolution there were sporadic incidents. During this time though there were thousands of active anarchists throughout Russia they suffered from disorganization and an overall lack of cohesiveness compared to other revolutionary groups (in particular the Bolsheviks). As a result of this, whereas the Bolsheviks gained cohesion and consolidated their influence leading up to the October Revolution, the Russian anarchists were mired in disunity and ideological differences. Every attempt to convene to form some sort of central unity failed.

With the October Revolution, the provisional government fell and the Bolsheviks came to power. Within a few years, all political opposition to the new Soviet regime had been persecuted and suppressed, including that of the Russian anarchists. Avrich’s book covers the first few years of Soviet power as well as their persecution of the Russian anarchists. Overall I found the book to be both an objective as well as a comprehensive account of Russian anarchists both inside and outside of Russia surrounding and during the revolutions of 1905 and 17.

Avrich, Paul. 1970. Kronstadt, 1921. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Kropotkin, Petr Alekseevich, and Paul Avrich. 1973. The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution. Edited by Paul Avrich. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Baron, Samuel H.

Baron, Samuel H. 1958. “Plekhanov’s Russia: The Impact of the West upon an “Oriental” Society.” Journal of the History of Ideas 19 (3): 388–404.

Baron, Samuel H. 1963. Plekhanov; the Father of Russian Marxism. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Baron, Samuel H. 1970. “The Weber Thesis and the Failure of Capitalist Development in “Early Modern” Russia.” Jahrbücher Für Geschichte Osteuropas 18 (3): 321–36.

Barratt, Glynn. 1975. The Rebel on the Bridge: A Life of the Decembrist Baron Andrey Rozen, 1800-84. Athens: Ohio University Press.

Becker, Seymour

Becker, Seymour. 1985. Nobility and Privilege in Late Imperial Russia. DeKalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press.

Blackwell Encyclopedia of the Russian Revolution

Shukman, Harold, editor. 1988. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of the Russian Revolution. Oxford, UK: B. Blackwell.

Bonnell, Victoria E.

Bonnell, Victoria E. 1983. Roots of Rebellion: Workers’ Politics and Organizations in St. Petersburg and Moscow, 1900-1914. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bonnell, Victoria E. 1983. The Russian Worker: Life and Labor under the Tsarist Regime. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bolshevik Visions: First Phase of the Cultural Revolution in Soviet Russia

Rosenberg, William G. 1990. Bolshevik Visions: First Phase of the Cultural Revolution in Soviet Russia. 2nd ed. [Ann Arbor, MI]: University of Michigan Press.

Bond, Brian

Bond, Brian. 1983. War and Society in Europe, 1870-1970. [Leicester]: Leicester University Press, in association with Fontana Paperbacks.

Bowker, Mike

Bowker, Mike. 2007. Russia, America and the Islamic World. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

Bradley, Joseph

Bradley, Joseph. 1985. Muzhik and Muscovite: Urbanization in Late Imperial Russia. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bradley, Joseph. 1991. “Voluntary Associations, Civic Culture, and Obshchestvennost’ in Moscow.” In Between Tsar and People: Educated Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia, edited by Edith W. Clowes, Samuel D. Kassow, and James L. West, 131-148. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Taranovski, Theodore, and Peggy McInerny. 1995. “Russia’s Parliament of Public Opinion: Association, Assembly and the Autocracy, 1906-1914.” In Reform in Modern Russian History : Progress or Cycle?, 212-236. Washington, D.C., New York: Woodrow Wilson Center Press ; Cambridge University Press.

Bradley, Joseph. 2002. Subjects into Citizens: Societies, Civil Society, and Autocracy in Tsarist Russia. [Pittsburgh]: American Historical Society.

Braudel, Fernand

Braudel, Fernand. 1972. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. Translated by Sian Reynolds. First U.S. edition. New York: Harper & Row.

Brock, Peter

Brock, Peter. 2000. Pacifism since 1914: An Annotated Reading List. [2nd ed.]. Toronto: P. Brock.

Brower, Daniel, editor

Brower, Daniel R., ed. 1979. The Russian Revolution: Disorder or New Order? St. Louis: Forum Press.

Brown, Frederick

Brown, Frederick. 2014. The Embrace of Unreason: France, 1914-1940. First edition. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Bukhovets, Oleg Grigorievich

Bukhovets, Oleg Grigor’evich. 1986. “Massovye istochniki po obshchestvennomu soznaniiu Rossiiskogo krest’ianstva (Opyt primeneniia kontent-analiza pri izuchenii prigovorov i nakazov 1905-1907 gg.).” In Istoriia SSSR, no. 4 (july-august), 104-119.

Professor Kimball’s overview:

Bukhovets presents here an analysis of ca. 200 documents = peasant judgments and instructions drawn up for peasant delegates elected to the new State Duma or for public distribution. In these documents, Bukhovets identified 1120 discrete expressions of peasant attitude on some matter that illustrated “social consciousness” in Russian villages in the era of the 1905 Revolution. It becomes clear that Bukhovets might better have said “political consciousness”.

Bukhovets taxonomized these 1120 discrete expressions of attitude into 177 categories of “social consciousness”. He calls these 177 categories “variables”. Some variables were frequently expressed, many appeared only once among the 200 documents. The 29 most frequently mentioned variables (16% of the 177) represented 43% of the total 1120 discrete expressions. These 29 stand in some clear dominant position among the 177 varieties of peasant concern.

Here are Bukhovets’ first 17 “variables” in descending order of frequency:

1. Appeal to the Duma [ID] to defend with firmness the interests of the narod [people, the whole people, the nation]
   2. Amnesty for all political criminals
   3. Expression of faith in the Duma and solidarity with it
   4. Expression of hostility to the government, the state apparatus as a whole
   5. Necessity of support for Duma in its struggle with the government

Points 1-5, the most frequently expressed concerns, all pertain to the need to redefine the political relationship between the state and the people. These concerns are institutional and political in nature, rather than social or economic.

6. “Land and Liberty”
   7. Four-tailed electoral procedures [i.e., election of officials by universal, equal, direct, and secret ballot]
   8. Konstatatsiia [verification, guarantee condition] of those poor, hungry, or in the damaging condition of slavery
   9. Abolish capital punishment
   10. Democratic freedoms
   11. Konstatatsiia of those with little land
   12. Demand land only in accordance with the slogan “Land and Liberty”
   13. Universal free public education [The decline in frequency is abrupt, with Point #13 appearing less than half as often as Point #1 above]
   14. Replace indirect taxes with progressive income-related [podokhodnym] tax
   15. Abolish police, land captains [zemskikh nachal’nikov (ID)] and security patrols [strazhnikov]

Points 6-15 initially shifted focus to economic issues (6, 8, 11, and 12), though they remained intertwined with significant institutional and political concerns. The slogan ‘Land and Liberty,’ rich in meaning and steeped in revolutionary tradition, encapsulates these ideas. Over the previous half-century, this slogan was popularized by Nikolai Ogarev and subsequently adopted by two political movements. At its core, the simplest and most direct interpretation of ‘Land and Liberty’ is the pursuit of ‘economic security’ and ‘civil rights.

16. Appeal to struggle for “the people’s cause” [narodnoe delo], “the good of the people” [blago naroda], etc
    17. Abolish the formal heritable social structure [soslovnogo stroia]

Point #17 was a direct challenge to autocratic social and service hierarchies. Although it appeared one-third as often as Point #1, it was a leading concern among villagers. In the political culture of the late empire, no more comprehensive statement of Russian ‘social consciousness’ could be made. The list continues with Point #18, which appeared one-quarter as often as Point #1.

Bukhovets offered a sophisticated statistical analysis, using regression tables that yielded numerical results to several decimal points. His goal was to create something like a precise meta-document of peasant outlook and demand, an “ideal type” or scientific-feeling composite of village discontent and hope.

Yet he glossed over the fact that 795 of the 1120 discrete expressions of concern (71%) related to political institutions and procedures. Social and economic issues were vigorously put in the documents but were less frequent.

Bukhovets in fact employed vague, even faulty, readings of the larger social/political environment from which and into which these documents sprung. For example, consider the way Bukhovets’ concept of peasant “illusions” [illiuzii] distorted his taxonomy of narrative content. The concept of illusion allowed him to denigrate certain ranges of village outlook, especially ambitious institutional demands, thus to bolster his presumptions about what was more solid or realistic. Bukhovets seems unable to absorb the heavy commitment to recognized 19th-century liberal political ideas in these peasant documents. In the colloquial expression, they “do not compute” for him. This echoes a long tradition of doctrinal pre-judgment of political platforms or goals in Russia. Reform-era Interior Minister Valuev often described a political position he disliked as “a thing impracticable” [nechto nesbytochnoe]. Nicholas II spoke at the beginning of his reign “of senseless dreams” [o bessmyslennykh mechtaniiakh] entertained by liberal activists. When Mensheviks accused Lenin of senseless dreams he replied, “We must dream” [Nam nuzhno mechtat’].

Bukhovets, O. G. 1988. “The Political Consciousness of the Russian Peasantry in the Revolution of 1905-1907: Sources, Methods, and Some Results.” Russian Review 47 (4): 357.

Burbank, Jane

Burbank, Jane. 1986. Intelligentsia and Revolution: Russian Views of Bolshevism, 1917-1922. New York: Oxford University Press.

Burdzhalov, Eduard Nikolaevich

Burdzhalov, Ė. N., and Donald J. Raleigh. 1987. Russia’s Second Revolution: The February 1917 Uprising in Petrograd. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

*1971:MVA|_Vtoraia russkaia revoliutsiia: Moskva, front, periferiia|

Burdzhalov, Ė. N. 1971. Vtorai︠a︡ russkai︠a︡ revoli︠u︡t︠s︡ii︠a︡: Moskva, front, periferii︠a︡. Moskva: “Nauka”.

Carr, Edward Hallett

Carr, Edward Hallett. 1933. The Romantic Exiles: A Nineteenth-Century Portrait Gallery. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Co.

STUDENT REVIEW =
The Russian political émigrés of the nineteenth century are often overlooked when studying the evolving political culture of Europe during the nineteenth century. This is not necessarily done intentionally; focus is given to the names that affected the modern political culture, which often leaves these émigrés on the sidelines. [This study] attempts to shed light on some of the notable Russian émigrés giving the majority of his attention to Alexander Herzen. Carr uses Herzen’s life as a vehicle to give background on where these émigrés came from and how the related to each other.

The Romantic Exiles is a great title for this work as it sheds light on the two key points Carr attempts to get across. Alexander Herzen as well as the major émigrés he encounters is portrayed in this work, at least partially, as products of romanticism. The title can be taken literally to a point, as much of the work focuses the love lives of the various exiles, and how this, in part, affected the theories and ideas promoted by the various émigrés. Carr uses George Sand and her works as a frame for their lives and their romantic ideals. This focus on the personal lives of these émigrés should not be understated; as this seems to be the focus of the work. The work gives little into the interpretations of these Russian émigrés’ works or ideas.

The focus on the personal lives of the émigrés is to such a point it seems to be more of a biography of Alexander Herzen, rather than a study of the exiles as émigré writers. That being said Carr does present Herzen’s life in a readable and enjoyable manner. One thing to be gathered from this work is that historical people were in fact people, with lives, friends, and families. The émigrés are not distant figureheads associated with a theory or cause but live real lives with real problems. This is something that is lacking often when we think and talk about history today, we always need to realize that leaders and historical people are people.

The focus on the personal lives shifts in the last third of The Romantic Exiles to the heart of the matter, giving an explanation, to a point of the ideas of the émigrés. It also shifts from being focused, almost entirely, on Herzen to the larger Russian émigré community, giving due time to Bakunin, Ograev, and Nechaev. The chapter that focuses on Bakunin and Nechaev’s collaborations is quite fascinating and is, in my opinion, the best written section of the book.

This look into the lives of The Romantic Exiles gives us a few, but important, keys to the lives of the émigré writers from Russia in the mid nineteenth century. It portrays these towering historical figures as people, people with problems like the rest of us. It also puts these émigrés as thinkers spawning from romanticism of their generation which gives context to their ideas and allows for a more informed understanding of their ideas. This work shines as it shifts from the life of Alexander Herzen to his ideas and the émigrés associated with him.

Haslam, Jonathan. 1999. The Vices of Integrity: E.H. Carr, 1892-1982. London: Verso.

Professor Kimball on Jonathan Haslam and Edward Hallett Carr:

Renowned as the historian of Soviet Russia, founder of the ‘realist’ approach to the study of International Relations, and author of the classic Trevelyan lecture series What Is History?, E.H. Carr’s biography, as detailed by Haslam, reveals how closely the historian’s understanding of statecraft was shaped by his own formative experiences at the center of political events. Seconded from Cambridge to the Foreign Office during World War I, initially to ensure trade with Allied Tsarist Russia and later to administer the Allied blockade of the new Soviet Republic, Carr also attended the post-war Paris peace talks on behalf of the British. He witnessed firsthand the unfolding drama of the October Revolution, which would become the focal point of his life’s work. Stationed at the British Embassy in Riga during the late 1920s, Carr immersed himself in the study of the Russian language and literature, culminating in his sparkling account of nineteenth-century revolutionaries, The Romantic Exiles, published in 1933.

During World War II, both at the Foreign Office and as a writer for The Times, Carr became an influential opinion-maker, using the platform of Printing House Square to advocate for a more egalitarian policy in the reconstruction of the post-war world. Although his open-minded stance toward the Soviet Union cost him academic positions for a decade after the war, Carr used this relative freedom to embark on his pioneering epic of Soviet history. In his account of the creation of Carr’s extensive 14-volume series on Soviet history, Haslam unveils the work of a major historian at his craft.

Carr, Edward Hallett, and Paul Avrich Collection (Library of Congress). 1937. Michael Bakunin. London: Macmillan and Co.

Carr, Edward Hallett. 1940. The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939; an Introduction to the Study of International Relations. London: Macmillan and Co., Limited.

Carr, Edward Hallett. 1949. Dostoevsky (1821-1881) a New Biography. [London]: Allen & Unwin.

Carr, Edward Hallett. 1950. Studies in Revolution. London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd.

Carr, Edward Hallett. 1950. A History of Soviet Russia. London: Macmillan.

Carr, Edward Hallett. 1961. The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917-1923. New York: The Macmillan Company.

Carr, Edward Hallett. 1969. The Interregnum, 1923-1924. Harmondsworth: Penguin. https://search.worldcat.org/en/title/102742

Carr, Edward Hallett. 1958. Socialism in One Country, 1924-1926. New York: Macmillan.

Carr, Edward Hallett. 1969. The October Revolution: Before and After. [First American edition]. New York: Knopf.

Carr, Edward Hallett, and R. W. Davies. 1971. Foundations of a Planned Economy, 1926-1929. [1st American ed.]. New York: Macmillan.

Carr, Edward Hallett. 1979. The Russian Revolution: From Lenin to Stalin. 1st American ed. New York: Free Press.

Carr, Edward Hallett. 1982. Twilight of the Comintern, 1930-1935. 1st ed. New York: Pantheon Books.

Haslam, Jonathan. 1999. The Vices of Integrity: E.H. Carr, 1892-1982. London: Verso.

Carrère d’Encausse, Hélène

Carrère d’Encausse, Hélène. 1988. Islam and the Russian Empire: Reform and Revolution in Central Asia. Berkeley: University of California Press.

STUDENT REVIEW =
While Russia and Western Europe received most of the attention during World War I and the1917 Revolution, a new world of political culture was coming into being in Central Asia. This is one of the central themes that Helene Carrere d’Encausse discusses in her book Islam Under the Russian Empire. While looking at how Central Asia and the Muslim peoples under the Russian Empire, focusing mostly on the people of the Emirate of Bukhara and Turkistan. Through her book, describes life in pre-Russian Bukhara and the developments of this region of the world as the Russian Empire rises, falls, and gives birth to the Soviet Union.

d’Encausse starts with a description of Bukhara before the Russian invasion was ever even a thought in the minds of the Bukharans. She describes the various inheritance laws, which were most often based on traditional and Islamic practices, as well the lives of the various classes. Much of Bukhara’s lands were roaming groups of nomadic peoples, but diversity was strong everywhere in the Emirate of Bukhara. Within the towns and cities lived peasants in an almost serf-like manner. Most, if not all, of the peasants were in debt to the various higher classes, including merchants, land barons, all the way up the emir, the ruler of Bukhara. The majority of these upper-class citizens were Uzbek Sunni’ Muslims, although a skilled artisan could make their way to the status of elite with time and impressive feats. The economy of this jewel in Central Asia was mainly based on agriculture; and due to growing population, frequent draughts and lack of properly irrigated lands, was a very difficult economy to sustain. As Russia made its way east into Central Asia building its empire, Bukhara was on the verge of political collapse with many of the population disliking the emir.

After the Russian conquest and annexation of Central Asia, Bukhara became a vassal state to the Russian Empire, keeping most of its traditional, Islamic law. While the emir and other nobles tried to keep good face with the Russian nobles that lorded over them, Russian businessmen penetrated into markets in Central Asia, finding a lot of promise the production of cotton, which soon became Bukhara and Turkistan’s key exports. Eventually, after being subjugated under the emir and the Russians, the people became unsettled. In describing the unrest of the people in Bukhara, d’Encausse looks at the various reformists that lived in Bukhara, Turkistan, and all throughout Central Asia. These reformists were known mostly as jadidists. Most of these reformists outcries concerned the strongly religious education taught in the madrasas of the time, but nationalism was also important ideal to reformists.

Secret societies of jadidists and political parties filled with intelligentsia start popping up in Central Asia around 1905, as Russia fights in the feudal Russo-Japanese War and revolution strikes. d’Encasse describes the roles of these various groups and parties as Russia’s grip on Bukhara and Turkistan slipped during the bumpy years of 1915 to 1917 and how the revolutionary spirit took hold of these groups. The emir denies their pleas for reform and after February revolution, these jadidists joined Russian political parties, one of the key groups being the Bolsheviks.

With the help of jadidists and other reformists, the soviets took a strong hold in Bukhara and eventually began to undermine the emir. As the Bolshevik Revolution and the Civil War unfolded, the Bukharan emirate fell, and the People’s Republic of Bukhara came into being. Soon after this new state was created, though, the purges began and those of any religious knowledge began starting to disappear. Stalin’s policies on ethnically divided regions eventually were the undoing of Bukhara as a proud Islamic state. The removal of the many different peoples, especially the Uzbeks, turned the Islamic state into an artificial, Soviet territory.

Chamberlin, William Henry

Chamberlin, William Henry. 1934. Russia’s Iron Age. Boston: Little, Brown.

Chamberlin, William Henry. 1987. The Russian Revolution, 1917-1921. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Champagne, Duane

Champagne, Duane. 1992. Social Order and Political Change: Constitutional Governments among the Cherokee, the Choctaw, the Chickasaw, and the Creek. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Clark, Christopher M.

Clark, Christopher M. 2013. The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914. First U.S. edition. New York: Harper.

Claude, Inis L.

Claude, Inis L. 1956. Swords into Plowshares: The Problems and Progress of International Organization. New York: Random House.

Clements, Barbara

Clements, Barbara Evans. 1979. Bolshevik Feminist: The Life of Aleksandra Kollontai. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Clowes, Edith W

Clowes, Edith W. 1988. The Revolution of Moral Consciousness: Nietzsche in Russian Literature, 1890-1914. DeKalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press.

Clowes, Edith W., Samuel D. Kassow, and James L. West, editors

Clowes, Edith W., Samuel D. Kassow, and James L. West. 1991. Between Tsar and People : Educated Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Cohen, Aaron J.

Cohen, Aaron J. 2008. Imagining the Unimaginable: World War, Modern Art, & the Politics of Public Culture in Russia, 1914-1917. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Colodny, Robert G.

Colodny, Robert G. 1989. “The U. S. Political Culture of the 1930s and the American Response to the Spanish Civil War.” Science & Society 53 (1): 47–61.

Cooper, Sandi

Cooper, Sandi E. 1991. Patriotic Pacifism: Waging War on War in Europe, 1815-1914. New York: Oxford University Press.

Coquin, Grancois-Xavier, editor

Coquin, François-Xavier, Céline Gervais-Francelle, and Université de Paris IV: Paris-Sorbonne Institut d’études slaves. 1986. 1905, La PremièRe RéVolution Russe: Actes Du Colloque International. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne: Institut d’études slaves.

Craig, Gordon

Craig, Gordon Alexander. 1956. The Politics of the Prussian Army 1640-1945. New York: Oxford University Press.

Craig, Gordon Alexander. 1978. Germany, 1866-1945. New York: Oxford University Press.

Craig, Gordon Alexander. 1995. “No More Parades.” in The New York Review of Books, 1995, April 20th.

Crisp, Olga, and Linda Edmondson, editors

Crisp, Olga, and Linda Harriet Edmondson. 1989. Civil Rights in Imperial Russia. Oxford [England], New York: Clarendon Press ; Oxford University Press.

Cross, Samuel, editor

Cross, Anthony, ed. 2012. A People Passing Rude: British Responses to Russian Culture. Cambridge: OpenBook Publishers.

Cunningham, James W.

Cunningham, James W. 1981. A Vanquished Hope, the Movement for Church Renewal in Russia, 1905-1906. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Daly, Jonathan

Daly, Jonathan W. n.d. “On the Significance of Emergency Legislation in Late Imperial Russia.” Slavic Review 54 (3): 602–29.

Daly, Jonathan. 1999. “The Security Police and Politics in Late imperial Russia.”In Russia under the Last Tsar : Opposition and Subversion, 1894-1917, edited by Anna Geifman, 217-240. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Daly, Jonathan. 2002. “Political Crime in Late Imperial Russia.” The Journal of Modern History 74 (1): 62–100.

Daly, Jonathan W. 1998. Autocracy under Siege: Security Police and Opposition in Russia, 1866-1905. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press.

STUDENT REVIEW =
On July 3rd 1826 Nicholas I created Russia’s first Security policing program (Pg.12). Originally created to try and combat terrorist threats towards the government, Daly […] goes in depth into the actual infrastructure and its inner workings about it’s operations, personnel, security Bureaus which were dispersed throughout Russia. […] The Bureau itself begins as a very small operation that included only a handful of officials (16), operating with only around four thousand military personnel at their disposal. Russia’s security police were referred to as the Third Section of his Imperial majesty’s own Chancellery (1826-1855). The Third Section consisted of Gendarmes soldiers, which essentially is a military body that is charged with policing the public and ensuring the safety of its nation’s population.

Only lasting for around thirty years the Third Section of his imperial majesty’s own Chancellery was disbanded and absorbed into the Department of State Police which fell under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior. No longer directly under the Tsar himself, they now were authoritatively transferred to the deputy of the minister. Daly is able to go in depth and discuss the different types of policing that the security police were not only responsible for such as execution of court orders, tracking fugitives, riot control, and the detainment of “unusual” criminals. The Security police towards the latter part of the 19th century began integrating old techniques and merging them in with newer types of policing that would enable police to keep better tabs and control over possible revolutionary threats. From surveillance, using plainclothes to create subtlety to the implementation of secret informants, Security police had to adapt to the ever growing revolutionary movement. […] Sergei Zubatov […] from 1896-1902 was the head of security in Moscow [and] was widely known for being able to integrate traditional policing methods with new, sophisticated methods.

Danilov, Viktor Petrovich, editor

Danilov, V. P., and N. A. Ivnit︠s︡kiĭ. 1989. Dokumenty Svidetelʹstvui︠ut: Iz Istorii Derevni Nakanune I V Khode Kollektivizat︠S︡Ii, 1927-1932 Gg. Moskva: Izd-vo polit. Lit-ry.

Danilov, Viktor Petrovich. 1990. Kooperativno-kolkhoznoe stroitelʹstvo v SSSR, 1917-1922 : dokumenty i materialy. Moskva: “Nauka”.

Danilov, Viktor Petrovich. 1977. Krestʹi︠a︡nskie khozi︠a︡ĭstva, kolkhozy i sovkhozy SSSR v 1924/25-1927/28 gg. Moskva: Akademii︠a︡ nauk SSSR, Institut istorii SSSR.

Danilov, Viktor Petrovich. 1994. Krestʹi︠a︡nskoe vosstanie v Tambovskoĭ gubernii v 1919-1921 : “Antonovshchina” : dokumenty i materialy. Tambov: “Redakt︠s︡ionno-izdatelʹskiĭ otdel”.

Danilov, Viktor Petrovich. 1996. Mentalitet i agrarnoe razvitie Rossii, XIX-XX vv. : materialy mezhdunarodnoĭ konferent︠s︡ii, Moskva, 14-15 ii︠u︡ni︠a︡ 1994 g. Moskva: ROSSPĖN.

Danilov, Viktor Petrovich. 1963. Ocherki istorii kollektivizat︠s︡ii selʹskogo khozi︠a︡ĭstva v soi︠u︡znykh respublikakh : sbornik stateĭ. Moskva: Gospolitizdat.

Danilov, Viktor Petrovich. 1998. Sovetskai︠a︡ derevni︠a︡ glazami VChK-OGPU-NKVD, 1918-1939 : dokumenty i materialy v 4 tomakh. Moskva: ROSSPĖN.

Danilov, Viktor Petrovich. 1973. Sovetskoe krestʹi︠a︡nstvo: kratkiĭ ocherk istorii, 1917-1970. Izd. 2-e, dop. Moskva: Politizdat.

Danks, Catherine

Danks, Catherine J. 2009. Politics Russia. 1st ed. Harlow, England: Pearson Longman.

Dubnow on Jews in Russia

Dubnow, Simon, and Leon Shapiro. 1975. History of the Jews in Russia and Poland from the Earliest Times until the Present Day. [New York]: Ktav Pub. House.

Dubnow, Simon. 1891. Ob izuchenīi istorīi russkikh evreev i ob uchrezhdenii russko-evreiskago istoricheskago obschestva. S.-Peterburg: A.E. Landau.

Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne

Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne, Jean Mendoza, Debbie Reese, and Beacon Press. 2019. An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States for Young People. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press.

Durman, Karel

Durman, Karel. 1988. The Time of the Thunderer: Mikhail Katkov, Russian Nationalist Extremism and the Failure of the Bismarckian System, 1871-1887. Boulder, New York: East European Monographs ; Distributed by Columbia University Press.

STUDENT REVIEW =
[This book] is a chronicle of Imperial Russian domestic politics as well as the Kremlin’s foreign policy from 1858-1887. Durman posits accurately the grand influence prominent journalist Mikhail Katkov possessed over the citizenry of Russia and thusly the policies of Russia. Katkov arrived at the burgeoning of Russian journalism and came to dominate public opinion. Katkov was the editor of the most successful Russian circulation of the era Moscow News which achieved 6,000 subscriptions and was read at many venues to the lower classes.

An early proponent of reform but through a manner similar to the English parliamentary system “Only the English have learned the art of making reforms without revolution” (Katkov qtd in Durman, 18). Katkov became a staunch defender of conservative Russian values as an extremely “Patriotic” russophile during a time of discontent with the established order in Russia. Katkov rose to prominence in the aftermath of the Polish Uprising of 1863-65 during which his vitriolic calls for the Russification of all peoples under her dominion led the ideal of Pan-Slavism in Russia into a more aggressive pro-russian foreign and domestic policy. With his name in the limelight Katkov wielded public opinion on a range of foreign policy issues from the various questions such as the Eastern Question to the role of Russia in European politics and her position in the Balkans.

Katkov was feared as well as admired by the Russian political elite. His sway of public opinion could benefit them as well as harm them and it did so in many occasions. Russia’s entry into the Holy Alliance with Prussia and Austria was highly condemned by Katkov as he feared Prussian conspiratorial designs towards pacifying Russia’s sphere of influence. Katkov through the writing of Durman was both an instrument of the Tsar and his ministers as well as an independent actor for fomenting russian nationalistic sentiments. Katkov’s relationship with the ruling elite of Russia was complicated to say the least. His campaigns wrought unwanted pressures on the Tsar’s ministers. Statist to the maximum, Katkov managed to even make those in power of the state anxious of his editorials. Katkov maintained this balancing act throughout his career. Katkov was ultimately an enshrined hero of Russian nationalists and created an image of Russian nationalism abroad that has continued to this day.

Edelman, Robert

Edelman, Robert. 1980. Gentry Politics on the Eve of the Russian Revolution: The Nationalist Party, 1907-1917. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Edelman, Robert. 1987. Proletarian Peasants: The Revolution of 1905 in Russia’s Southwest. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Wider political control was not really under his purview. When he discusses key peasant actions, he notes calls for civil rights, among other demands, but ultimately concludes that these were too vague to act upon. Following Emmons, he argues that such demands likely reflect external interference. The Trudoviki’s influence was dismissed, as ‘agitators from a variety of political groups were active in the countryside before and after 1905. Yet no single group led or controlled peasant actions. When the moment came, the peasants mobilized themselves. Their actions were spontaneous, and their militancy was largely self-generated. Peasants articulated, but did not emphasize, political goals such as constituent assemblies, universal suffrage, and the freedom to organize politically. Their primary concern was the land question, and when the Duma finally began operating as part of Russia’s new semi-parliamentary system, they viewed it primarily as another institution to which they could address their demands on what was, for them, the central issue.’

What definable interest groups acted differently? How does this distinguish key peasant actions from those of the Constitutional Democrats or other political movements? Rumors were more influential than agitators. German reading was spread to non-German speakers. The rural press played a role in disseminating information. Village councils still had a strong influence, which accentuated tensions between members of the village community and key peasant actors who were not aligned with them. © Professor Kimball

Eklof, Benjamin

Ben, Eklof and Christine Ruane. 1991. “Cultural Pioneers and Professionals: The Teacher in Society.” In Between Tsar and People: Educated Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia, edited by Edith W. Clowes, Samuel D. Kassow, and James L. West, 199-214. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Eklof, Ben. 1986. Russian Peasant Schools: Officialdom, Village Culture, and Popular Pedagogy, 1861-1914. Berkeley: University of California Press.

STUDENT REVIEW =
Eklof’s work exhibits a comprehensive analysis of Russia’s institutional and cultural response to the issue of addressing popular peasant education in light of the Emancipation of 1861. Under the subtitle “Officialdom, Village Culture, and Popular Pedagogy, 1861-1914”, Eklof explores a variety of both top-down and bottom-up narratives of the educational experience of the Russian peasant. From national decrees, regional zemstvo policies, local village controls, and individual accounts from pupils and teachers alike, Eklof examines the education of the peasant masses in such a way that the entire Russian social and political demographic is contextually addressed. Of note is Eklof’s examination of the Russian peasant teacher, whose experiences during this time have more to do with issues pertaining to being introduced and accepted into Russian village culture than the actual practicalities of pupil education.

In 1862, Russian author Ivan Turgenev published Fathers and Sons, a quote from which is spread across the first page of the Introduction: “The Russian peasant is in truth that mysterious unknown…Who can understand him? He does not understand himself!” The Russian peasant was thus introduced to the masses. [mdn=] Throughout history, the Russian peasant has been portrayed as illiterate, incapable of modern or progressive thought, stagnant in their station. Eklof’s introduction attempts to break away this binding mold of the peasants pre-condition. Established is a less sensationalized view of the peasants not as a child-like connotation needing constant paternal guidance, but as an independent and spirited social group capable of possessing a rooted sense of ambition in the form of a long tradition of Russian village culture. Bound in the traditions of expelling the yokes of serfdom, the village culture is portrayed by Eklof as being wary of attempts by the Russian national government to instill education reforms. The concept of “education as progress” did not fully take hold in peasant village culture until the 1890’s, some thirty years after Emancipation, a decade in which zemstvos were given a much broader mandate of controlling the educational framework of peasant curriculum and instruction.

Part One, “Institutions and Sponsors”, begins with a broad overview of historical trends in the Russian education system. For an inexperienced researcher of Russian history, the first chapter outlines the education policy aspects of Russian authoritative political culture under the reigns Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Alexander I, and Nicholas I. Amidst various reforms and reactionary measures, a running trend of subverting education opportunities for peasants remained constant. Providing education for peasants lingered as a fear of the ruling political culture in the years pre-Emancipation for reasons amounting to keeping the Russian peasant classes within their Petrine station. Education provided the peasant with “notions and to a style not appropriate to their situation” (see pages 24-26). Rudimentary education was deemed reasonable for the lower Russian classes, but the ability for a peasant to excel beyond the three R’s in education institutions was rare. Possibilities for Russian universal education did not become readily apparent until the Emancipation of the serfs in 1861.

Eklof’s focus on both the 1864 Education Stature and the Zemstvo Statute of the same year provide a running parallel theme for the rest of the work. Local self control of education measures exerted through the zemstvo would become the most effective means of instituting measurable gains in student cognitive progress, outlined in Chapter 13 “Mere Learning: The Cognitive Results of Schooling.”

As a source for potential research topics, Eklof’s work provides a sufficient background for an extensive array of topics in the history of education in Russia. The experiences of Russian teachers in the peasant education system is a fascinating story, a narrative which is described in detail in Part Two, “The Outsider in the Village: Russian Teachers.” Part Three, “Peasant Pedagogy and the Emergence of a School System” explores the conditions in the Russian peasants’ classroom from the perspective of pupils and teachers. A comparison topic could emerge exploring the modern academic calendar in contrast with the Russian school year, discussed in Chapter 11, “The School Calendar: Rhythm and Intensity.” In Part Four, “The Results of Schooling”, Eklof examines the curriculum of the Russian peasant schools and just what a graduate of a peasant primary school might expect in terms of continued education in Chapter 15, “Beyond Primary School.”

The focus given to the role of zemstvo in providing a role of vital local government guidance to peasants is what drew my attention most in Eklof’s work. Emerging trends of local control and self-administration gives the reader a broader understanding of preceding political conditions that existed before both the 1905 and 1917 Revolutions. For a researcher looking for a quick introduction to the zemstvo, reference to Chapter 2, “The Great Reforms and the Zemstvos” is encouraged. I enjoyed Eklof’s work, and if a fellow researcher is debating a topic in the history of Russian education, or peasant culture in general, Eklof’s book is an excellent work that has a broad introductory scope.

Eklof, Ben, and Stephen Grant, editors

Eklof, Ben, and Stephen Frank. 1990. The World of the Russian Peasant: Post-Emancipation Culture and Society. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Emmerson, Charles

Emmerson, Charles. 2013. 1913: In Search of the World before the Great War. First edition. New York: PublicAffairs.

Emmons, Terence

Emmons, Terence. 1968. The Russian Landed Gentry and the Peasant Emancipation of 1861. London: Cambridge University Press.

Emmons, Terence. n.d. “The Beseda Circle, 1899-1905.” Slavic Review 32 (3): 461–90.

Emmons, Terence. n.d. “Additional Notes on the Beseda Circle, 1899-1905.” Slavic Review 33 (4): 741–43.

Emmons, Terence. 1974. “The Russian Landed Gentry and Politics.” The Russian Review 33 (3): 269–83.

Emmons, Terence. 1977. “Russia’s Banquet Campaign.” The California Slavic Studies, Edited by: Nicholas V. Riasanovsky , Gleb Struve and Thomas Eekman, vol. 10, 45-86.

Emmons, Terence. 1983. The Formation of Political Parties and the First National Elections in Russia. ACLS Humanities E-Book.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Emmons, Terence, and Wayne S. Vucinich, editors

Emmons, Terence, and Wayne S. Vucinich. 1982. The Zemstvo in Russia: An Experiment in Local Self-Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Emmons, Terence. 1968.”The Peasant and the Emancipation.” In The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia, edited by Wayne S. Vucinich, 41-71. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Engelstein, Laura

Engelstein, Laura. 1982. Moscow, 1905: Working-Class Organization and Political Conflict. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

STUDENT REVIEW =
FFirst, we must understand what life was like in urban 1905 Russia. Engelstein gives the statistics as 60% of the Moscow textile force housed in a factory with more than 500 workers, and 75% in St Petersburg under the same conditions. By no means was the number of Russian people who lived under these circumstances negligible.

In addition to factory workers, the working class also included laborers, pharmicists, railroad workers, soldiers, clerks, printers, and numerous others. These people, both men and women, shared a life marked by 13-18 hour days, and were unable to vote, hold political office, or gather legally for political purposes.

According to Engelstein, the political action of 1905 begins with the intelligentsia, not with the working class. Social Democrats, working under the principles of Marxism, have been trying to motivate the working class population to revolutionary political action with limited success. Before 1905, Social Democrats (and Anarchists) had engaged in a public awareness movement which included sending young radicals to “teach” groups of laborers.

The fruits of this labor seem to be a politically aware minority among Russian workers, but certainly not the revolutionarily active majority which the Social Democrats had hoped for. Lack of central organization, fear of state violence, and unfamiliarity with strike politics seemed to keep most of Russia’s working class away from the politics of the labor movement.

Engelstein cites the formation of Zubatov Councils as one reason for the changes in Russia’s work force. Zubatov Councils were typically paternalistic groups formed by the state as an outlet for worker’s grievances. These councils were unintentionally politicized when Father Gapon lead a group of members in a peaceful march towards the winter palace. The marchers were armed with a list of grievances to be addressed. In this incident, state forces fired on the marchers and onlookers without discretion, wounding or killing at least 1,000 in the crowd. This act of state repression helped to politicize the workers and gain sympathy for the cause among the Russian majority. This was January of 1905.

But politicized workers are not necessarily organized workers, as Engelstein points out here. The sporadic outbreaks of strikes in January and February of 1905 fizzle due to lack of organization, experience, and unity. It seems that each person is striking for a different reason.

The September and October strikes are the prelude to the December Uprising. The September strikes are initiated by printers, without planning by intellectuals. Demands center around hours and wages. Engelstein states that these strikes have no political motivation. However, in the ranks of strikers are men and women familiar with strike tactics from January involvement. In the streets, the strikers mix with students and middle class citizens, all of whom are the targets of state sponsored violence. Under these circumstances, Engelstein argues that the strike movement snowballs.

In October, an important group of diverse workers joins the strike movement: the railroad workers. Within the railroad workers as a whole, the blue and white collar workers are united as a striking body. This striking body has the power to paralyze Russia, as Engelstien argues. Moreover, the railroad union has Social Democrats, Social Revolutionaries, Anarchists, and assorted other liberals at the helm, all co-existing.

The December Uprising is a natural event, considering (as Englestein has) the factors of a newly politicized working class, a sympathetic population, and the attempted quashing of the labor movement by an increasingly conservative city council, and the random violence of the Black Hundreds.

Erickson, Edward J.

Erickson, Edward J. 2001. Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Erickson, Edward J. 2003. Defeat in Detail: The Ottoman Army in the Balkans, 1912-1913. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

*2007:LND,Routledge|_Ottoman Army effectiveness in World War I: A comparative study|>Erickson.EFFECTIVE| ((UO|

Erickson, Edward J. 2007. Ottoman Army Effectiveness in World War I: A Comparative Study. London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Erickson, Edward J. 2012. Gallipoli & the Middle East, 1914-1918: From the Dardanelles to Mesopotamia. London: Amber Books.

Erlanger, Steven

Erlanger, Steven. 2014. “The War to End All Wars? Hardly. But It Did Change Them Forever.” In The Great War. The 100-year Legacy of World War I. “The Learning Network : Teaching and Learning with the New York Times.” New York Times Company. 2009.

Evtuhov, Catherine

Evtuhov, Catherine. 2011. Portrait of a Russian Province: Economy, Society, and Civilization in Nineteenth-Century Nizhnii Novgorod. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Fainsod, Merle

Fainsod, Merle. 1935. International Socialism and the World War. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Fainsod, Merle. 1958. Smolensk under Soviet Rule. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Fainsod, Merle. 1965. How Russia Is Ruled. Rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Fainsod, Merle. 1963. “Bureaucracy and Modernization: The Russian and Soviet Case.” In Bureaucracy and Political Development, edited by Joseph LaPalombara, 233-267. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Fallows, Thomas Stuart

Fallows, Thomas Stuart. 1990. “Forging the Zemstvo Movement : Liberalism and Radicalism on the Volga, 1890-1905.” Dissertation.

Farnsworth, Beatrice

Farnsworth, Beatrice. 1980. Aleksandra Kollontai: Socialism, Feminism, and the Bolshevik Revolution. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Farnsworth, Beatrice, and Lynne Viola, editors

Farnsworth, Beatrice, and Lynne Viola. 1992. Russian Peasant Women. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fischer, Ben B.

Fischer, Ben B. 1997. Okhrana: The Paris Operations of the Russian Imperial Police. [Washington, D.C.?]: Central Intelligence Agency.

STUDENT REVIEW =
The publication consists of a preface written by Fischer which describes the story of the Okhrana in Paris and the recovered files. The rest is a series of organized essays written for the CIA counterintelligence by an unknown author. All of these articles had previously appeared in the journal called Studies in Intelligence, which was published by the CIA. These articles are detailed descriptions of the Okhrana’s operations in Paris and all of the actors involved. Finally, the conclusion consist of a letter and the preface that inspired it which discussed the idea the Joseph Stalin was an Okhrana agent.

The preface, which is by Ben Fischer, discussed a number of issues surrounding Okhrana and the CIA. He also makes a number of conclusions with regard to the Tsarist regime and the Bolsheviks. One of Fischer’s first points states that the opening of the Paris Okhrana in 1883, “a sign of both success and failure on the part of the tsarist authorities”(pg 1). The statement made reflects that Fischer believed it was more of a failure on the part of the tsarist than a success of the revolutionaries. France, especially Paris, had become a haven for the many Russian revolutionaries that had been thrown out of Russia, and these revolutionaries were able to take advantage of the west’s liberties to conduct anti-regime activities.

The main body of the book consist of seven different articles written by an unknown CIA analyst. The articles are all interrelated and discuss stories of the Okhrana, its agents, and the Bolsheviks counterintelligence operations. One of the articles testifies to a Okhrana double agent during World War I. An agent named Dolin had Russian revolutionaries and the Germans convinced that he was working for them, while all along working for Okhrana. The author makes certain conclusions about the success of this operation and the fruits that it bore. The agent was able to dissuade German and Bolshevik attacks on Russia while also would give, “Okhrana regular information on the enemy’s intentions, methods, and program”(pg.80). This article and statement testifies to the instructiveness of these articles and the usefulness that the CIA had for the Okhrana files.

At the end of the publication there are to texts that discuss the idea that Josef Stalin was an Okhrana agent. They both only have circumstantial evidence that Stalin was a deep cover agent. This idea had been around for a long time and many hoped that the publication of these files would shed some light. Unfortunately the Okhrana kept no official record of their deep cover agents, so even if Stalin was ever an agent there would be no mention of him in Okhrana’s files in Paris or St. Petersburg. This publication provides a lot of insight into a subject that is typically very difficult to research. It provides a simple preface discussing the Okhrana and what it did while also providing detailed and interesting stories that are entertaining and educational.

Fischer, George

Fischer, George. 1958. Russian Liberalism, from Gentry to Intelligentsia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Fitzpatrick, Sheila

Fitzpatrick, Sheila. 1970. The Commissariat of Enlightenment : Soviet Organization of Education and the Arts under Lunacharsky, October 1917-1921. Cambridge [England]: University Press.

Fitzpatrick, Sheila, American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies Research and Development Committee, and Columbia University Russian Institute. 1978. Cultural Revolution in Russia, 1928-1931. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Fitzpatrick, Sheila. 1979. “Stalin and the Making of a New Elite, 1928-1939.” Slavic Review 38 (3): 377–402.

Fitzpatrick, Sheila. 1979. Education and Social Mobility in the Soviet Union, 1921-1934. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.

STUDENT REVIEW = Sheila Fitzpatrick examines the Russian Revolution in a new way from the popular historical interpretation. Fitzpatrick extends the revolution into Stalin’s reign from the February Revolution of 1917. From the 1860s to after the Civil War were all stepping stones toward the Revolution that all connected and linked together. Fitzpatrick even claims that revolution tendencies and legacies continued until the fall of the Soviet Union.

Fitzpatrick began her analysis of the Russian Revolution with the early stages starting in the 1860s with the Emancipation of Serfs. The Serfs and Peasants didn’t feel this was adequate enough and they felt they were entitled to more land than they had received. In 1864 Zemstvos began. These were “Elected local government bodies that were institutionally quite separate from the state bureaucracy and frequently in conflict with it” (Fitzpatrick, 23). The people of Russia were beginning to have a say in the happenings of the area, but this power began to become a conflict with the national government. The national government needed the money that the Zemstvos had collected from taxes and felt the Zemstvos had obtained too much control. Throughout the 1860s legal reformations occurred. Through these an independent court system was created. In the 1870s there was an upsurge of revolutionary terrorism. The plans thickened to destroy the autocratic Russia. These events set the stage for revolutionary ideals.

What could be considered as the first revolution had occurred in 1905. Fitzpatrick however just sees this as another step in the revolution that already had begun to surface. This entailed of urban revolution, peasant uprising and labor strikes. This appeared to be a faiure according to revolutionists “From the revolutionary standpoint it was no gain to have a façade of legal political institutions and a new breed of self important, chattering liberal politicians. It was also deeply, almost unbearably disappointing for the revolutionary leaders to return to the familiar dreariness of émigré life” (Fitzpatrick, 35). Fitzpatrick sees this as a failed attempt at a revolution and this could lead to why she does not view it as an entirely separate revolution. The presence of revolution and necessity for reform still lingered after this and lead to the next set of uprisings. After these event the stage was set for a revolution.

In February of 1917 the autocracy collapsed. A dual power of soviet and provisional government had taken over. This was another stepping stone through the revolution. “The February coup d’etat passed off so smoothly that even then one felt a vague presentiment that this was not the end, that such a crisis could not pass off so peacefully” (Fitzpatrick, 46). This revolution was not the end but only the beginning to the current revolution.

The October Revolution of 1917 was the Bolsheviks unlawful seizure of power. This was the led to the new soviet regime and laid the foundation for Stalinism. It also led to the Russian Civil war between the Anti-Bolsheviks and the Bolsheviks. This civil war devastated the economy, it depleted privatization and created inflation. The Bolsheviks found victory in the war and began their reign in Russia.

The Bolsheviks’ rise to power revolutionized many Old Russian policies. A new economic policy was put in place, the NEP. This permitted a revival of legal private trade. The intentions were to restore the devastated economy. When Stalin gained power the NEP was taken out and a Five Year Plan of centrally planned economy was put into place.

After Lenin’s death in 1924 the Communists needed to find a new leader, thus entered Stalin. Stalin’s rise to power also maintained the feeling of revolution. Stalin enforced the First-Five-Year plan and this called for lower grain prices. The Peasants were not pleased with this and Stalin forced peasants to still sell grain. He did this by barn searches and confiscated any grain found on farmer’s property, this lead to unhappy peasants.

Fitzpatrick presents the idea that there is only one Russian Revolution from 1917 to 1932. The setting included the events that occurred from 1860 to 1917. The revolution ended in 1932 with the success of the First-Five-Year plan and the somewhat stability of the economy. The revolution however maintained a legacy and revolutionary tendencies until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Fitpatrick, Sheila, editor

Fitzpatrick, Sheila, Alexander Rabinowitch, and Richard Stites. 1991. Russia in the Era of NEP : Explorations in Soviet Society and Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Foglesong, David S.

Foglesong, David S. 1995. America’s Secret War against Bolshevism: U.S. Intervention in the Russian Civil War, 1917-1920. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

From 1917 to 1920, Woodrow Wilson’s administration sought to oppose the Bolsheviks through various covert means. Drawing on both American and Russian archival material, David Foglesong chronicles both sides of this secret conflict, revealing a new dimension to the early years of U.S.-Soviet rivalry. Wilson was ambivalent about socialism and revolution before 1917, which influenced the social and cultural origins of American anti-Bolshevism. The principles of self-determination, idealistic public sentiment, and congressional restrictions forced Wilson to rely on secretive methods to influence the course of the Russian Civil War.

The administration provided covert financial and military aid to anti-Bolshevik forces, established clandestine spy networks, concealed the true purposes of limited military expeditions to northern Russia and Siberia, and delivered ostensibly humanitarian assistance to soldiers fighting to overthrow the Soviet government. In response, the Soviets developed and secretly funded a propaganda campaign in the United States, aimed at mobilizing public opposition to anti-Bolshevik activities, promoting American-Soviet economic ties, and securing diplomatic recognition from Washington, D.C. © Professor Kimball

Footman, David

Footman, David. 1945. Red Prelude: The Life of the Russian Terrorist Zhelyabov. New Haven, [Conn.]: Yale University Press.

STUDENT REVIEW = The main purpose of the book […] was to give a background to the political party Narodnaya Volya that arose in the 1870’s. The book begins by giving background stories of the key members of the party. The book also outlines key people that were involved in the organizing and shaping of the ideals in which the members followed. The book is an attempt to explain why Zhelyabov and his friends abandon their original policy of reform and become revolutionary terrorist. This book also tries to explain what they did, how they did it, how the felt, and what happened to them. This book is written in terms of point of view and experience, instead of merely stating the facts of what happened on what day and who did it.

One of the key people of this book is Andrei Zhelyabov. He grew up in a poor family attended school at the University of Odessa. From the time he was a student he was active in student activism and critical thinking of the government. In 1879 he was known as an “illegal” because of his activities. Before becoming involved in the Narodnaya Voyla he was married and had a son but once he became apart of the Executive committee he abandoned them in order to protect them.

An important aspect, and due in large part to the popularity of the party, was their ability to appeal to different levels of society. They especially appealed to the student population and the working population. They accepted all who were willing to fight for change and overthrow the Emporer. Although, they may have had a lot of support that does not necessarily mean that they were active in the party. There were only about twenty who played an active role in the terrorism acts.

The main ideals of the party were outlined by Zhelyabov, “Therefore it was the duty of the Social Revolutionary party to overthrow the government and bring about a state of affairs in which such a struggle was possible. In other words the first duty of the wary was to secure political liberty, and with this it would unite with all elements capable to of political activity.” (Footman, 100) they strongly believed that only through socialist principals could humanity attain liberty, equality, fraternity, general maternity, and well-being. Zhelyabov became the leader and put into action terrorist acts against the Emperor. But that is not to say that they were only against the Emperor, they were actually against all of the wrong doing that he had done to people and they only way to end this was through killing him.

The party is known for the attempts to assassinate the Emperor Alexander II. They tried several times, once through placing dynamite on a railway and having it explode when the Emperors train passed by. But the switch didn’t ignite the dynamite. There was also another attempt to assassinate the Emperor in Petersburg but this also was unsuccessful. Finally the party was able to assassinate the Emperor on March 1. They used hand grenades, but also had a huge mine set up underneath a road. This attempt was successful and greatly rattled the country. After the assassination six individuals were arrested and tried in a court. Zhelyabov quickly admitted to planning the assassination but he was not actually involved in the actual event. While in court Zhelyabov tried to explain why they had done what they had, that it was not only to kill the Emperor but to bring justice to the people. All six were hung.

This book in important because he highlights all the different people involved, it gives a background to their lives and how they became to be apart of the party. One of the key aspects of this book is how much planning and time went into the preparations for the final event. Members set up false shops, broke people out of prison, collected funds, recruited new members, and falsified names and passports. This was not just a group of people who met once and then decided to kill the Emperor. They carefully planned and made preparations for their final event. But the key fact about the Narodnaya Volya is that they were more than just a group of people that wanted to murder Alexander II. They wanted justice brought and to end the atrocities that Alexander II had brought upon the people. They believed that he only cared for the rich and everyone else fell by the wayside. This book highlights how this new party was passionate and stopped at nothing to achieve their goal.

Footman, David. 1962. Civil War in Russia. New York: Praeger.

Frank, Stephen P. and Mark D. Steinberg, editors

Frank, Stephen, and Mark D. Steinberg, eds. 1994. Cultures in Flux: Lower-Class Values, Practices, and Resistance in Late Imperial Russia. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Freeze, Gregory L.

Freeze, Gregory L. 1969. “A National Liberation Movement and the Shift in Russian Liberalism, 1901- 1903.” Slavic Review 28 (1): 81–91.

Freeze, Gregory L. 1999. “Church and Politics in Late Imperial Russia: Crisis and Radicalization of the Clergy.” In Russia under the Last Tsar : Opposition and Subversion, 1894-1917, edited by Anna Geifman, 269-298. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Frieden, Nancy Mandelker

Frieden, Nancy Mandelker. 1981. Russian Physicians in an Era of Reform and Revolution, 1856-1905. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Friedgut, Theodore H.

Friedgut, Theodore H. 1994. Iuzovka and Revolution / 2 Politics and Revolution in Russiaś Donbass : 1869-1924. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Pr.

Frierson, Cathy

Frierson, Cathy A. 1993. Peasant Icons: Representations of Rural People in Late Nineteenth Century Russia. New York: Oxford University Press.

Frierson, Cathy A. 1997. “‘I Must Always Answer to the Law…’ Rules and Responses in the Reformed Volost’ Court.” The Slavonic and East European Review 75 (2): 308–34.

Frierson, Cathy. 1987. “Crime and Punishment in the Russian Village: Rural Concepts of Criminality at the End of the Nineteenth Century.” Slavic Review 46 (1): 55–69.

Fröhlich, Klaus

Fröhlich, Klaus. 1981. The Emergence of Russian Constitutionalism, 1900-1904 : The Relationship between Social Mobilization and Political Group Formation in Pre-Revolutionary Russia. The Hague, Boston: M. Nijhoff ; Distributors for the U.S. and Canada, Kluwer Boston.

STUDENT REVIEW =
Klaus Fröhlich examines the emergence of a liberal-minded civil society which culminated in the Constitutionalist movements and the 1905 revolution, and seeks to answer the question of how this could have happened in the Russian political context—that is, one without a precedent of parliamentary or other democratic institutions. In this situation, we might be reminded of similar political developments in industrial Germany, and the author does indeed point out the parallels in how social/political mobilization came after industrialization and resulted in top-down reforms (seen to a much more limited extent in Russia). [mdn=] The author also cites the ideas of German sociologist Max Weber, particularly the sentiments of anti-bureaucratization (in the case of Russia, anti-autocracy as well) fueled by the demands of the (bourgeois: urbanized, educated, professional pedigree) bürgerliche Intelligenz class that had the most at stake economically in such a modernizing society run by an autocracy that granted them little to no political power.

The individuals behind the Constitutionalist movement acted in the context of the “public movement”—a broad term to encompass the activities of those involved in developing a Russian civil society following the 1860’s wave of political reforms (such as the establishment of the zemstvo system of self-government that run certain, often specific and technical, matters in provincial rural areas), with the focus on “small deeds” liberalism involving public works and pushing for marginal liberal reforms in a legal manner to limit the hindering effects of the autocracy. This mitigated the tendency in Russian politics towards drifting to the extremes of reactionary and revolutionary parts of the spectrum, and one of our author’s main themes is stressing the degree of careful political maneuvering that was necessary for the Constitutionalists to succeed in gaining popular support while avoiding the overt wrath of and crackdown by the government.

The primary forum for Constitutionalist ideas in the period before the 1905 Revolution was the journal Osvobozhdenie(Liberation), in which former “legal Marxist” Peter Struve pushed the Constitutionalist ideals (of autocracy abolishment, support for individual liberties free from violent police crackdowns, non-class representation) without calling for specific practical, organizational political action for fear of seeming too radical and non-inclusive. Although this created conflicts for the editor in the form of criticisms from fringe supporters of being too vague, abstract or non-political, the author notes that in its time the journal was indeed widely respected (or at least read) by moderates and radicals alike, as well as government officials and conservatives who saw it as a key voice of legitimate public opposition to the autocracy that demanded their attention. In facing charges of being too cowardly or too revolutionary from both sides, Struve’s editorial stance allowed a fluid and “liberal” approach to the eventual formation of the Union of Liberation in Russia. We can see one result of this in an early conference of liberals at Lake Constance Germany (where, it should be noted, all such open meetings took place at first and where the editorial office of Osvobozhdenie was located) in which the conference resulted in what Fröhlich notes as a good degree of trust and harmony on a burgeoning program of supporting a constitutional order that would eventually abolish the autocracy.

While many in the Constitutionalist movement, and primarily Struve, saw the importance of the working class and their inclusion in and support for this liberal movement, we must be reminded that many saw it as their duty as the most educated and able to dictate the terms of a Constitutionalist program in the best interests of all Russians. The essential economic privilege and high social profile that many Constitutionalists enjoyed meant that many were at first wary of involving lower-classes to an extensive degree, yet by the Second Congress meeting of the Union of Liberation in 1904, enough shifts within the movement had occurred (owing much to the gradual and open-ended approach espoused by Struve) that universal suffrage and “protection of the interests of the working masses” were now stated as key objectives of the movement (remarkable change given that at this same time the Union chose to make its existence known publicly). Thus, a movement that was initially comprised largely of educated urbanites from the metropolitan centers St. Petersburg and Moscow and members of the so-called 3rd Element (public servants that commonly comprised the zemstvo—teachers, physicians, agronomists, statisticians, etc.) now opened its doors to the voice of the proletariat, in large part due to the desire to undermine the effectiveness of more dogmatic and revolutionary socialist forces. The political ideals that drove Constitutionalist luminaries are familiar enough to those of us raised in the Western traditions of parliamentarianism and individual liberty: What was different in the case of Russia was the need for a gradual approach to Constitutional order through the elevation of guaranteed civil and political liberties over the power of the autocracy as well as its subordinate bureaucracy. This would lead, as Pavel Milyukov put it, to a political order evolving under the “laws of political biology” of representation-thru-Constitution, despite the widely-recognized crisis of “backwardness” in Russia. He saw this tendency as being inherently symptomatic of the development of higher culture and as “indifferent to national peculiarities” as the use of the alphabet, printing press, or electricity. (78) While history as cited here by Milyukov seemed to be on the side of the Constitutionalists, subsequent events and revolutions would perpetuate the legacy of Russia as a political pariah.

Another key theme that Fröhlich emphasizes in detailing the rise of the Constitutionalist movement, and one of its key strengths, is its flowering in tight-knit, domestic settings that involved politically subversive, but non-violent and undogmatic activity. The settings for many early meetings were political salons and homes, out of the public eye by necessity. Gradually this close circle of “friends”, as Fröhlich repeatedly refers to them, expanded to cooperation across physical boundaries through primarily journalistic endeavors (no less than 3 political journals including Struve’s Liberation are detailed as having a critical effect in the political mobilization of the movement) and the building of a rapport between those in the relatively indistinct “moderate” spectrum of Russian politics that would culminate in the Union of Liberation. The author also notes that the generation of those born in the 1860’s and raised in the era of industrialization along with increasing social mobilization (most constitutionalists were between the ages of 40 and 60) played a huge factor in mobilizing these individuals to demand political reform by the turn of the century. This once again reflects the notions that the rise of a “middle class” (bourgeois, bürgerliche Intelligenz, etc.) as seen in the West would lead to the unraveling of old autocratic orders restrictive to individuals and their rights. In short, the answer to the “how” and “why” of political group formation in Russia lay within the circumstances of this generation and their opportunity at social and political mobilization.

Fromkin, David

Fromkin, David. 2004. Europe’s Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914? 1st ed. New York: Knopf : Distributed by Random House.

Fromkin, David. 2009. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Second Holt paperbacks edition. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Fussell, Paul

Fussell, Paul. 2000. The Great War and Modern Memory. [25th anniversary ed.]. New York: Oxford University Press.

Galai, Shmuel

Galaĭ, Shmuėlʹ. 1973. The Liberation Movement in Russia, 1900-1905. Cambridge [England]: University Press.

Gal’perin, Grigorii Boris

Galʹperin, G. B. 1975. Pervai︠a︡ rossiĭskai︠a︡ revoli︠u︡t︠s︡ii︠a︡ i samoderzhavie: (Gosudarstvenno-pravovye problemy). Leningrad: Izd-vo Leningradskogo un-ta.

Documents of Russian History, 1914-1917, edited by Frank Golder. 1927. New York: Century.

Gaman-Golutvina, Oksana Viktorovna

Gaman-Golutvina, O. V. 2006. Politicheskie ėlity Rossii: vekhi istoricheskoĭ ėvoli︠u︡t︠s︡ii. Moskva: ROSSPĖN.

Gammer, Moshe

Gammer, M. 1994. Muslim Resistance to the Tsar: Shamil and the Conquest of Chechnia and Daghestan. London: F. Cass.

Gammer, M. 2006. The Lone Wolf and the Bear: Three Centuries of Chechen Defiance of Russian Rule. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

STUDENT REVIEW =
This is a chronicle of “Three Centuries of Chechen Defiance of Russian Rule”. The Chechens have traditionally inhabited the Caucasian mountains and its lowlands. The geographic area of the Caucasus is especially rough with forests and hazardous mountains making the land especially inhospitable. These labyrinths of dense forests and dangerous mountaintops have presented a nearly unbeatable challenge to any would-be invader- even in the 21st century.

A central theme that Gammer explores in his historical analysis is the repeated attempts at achieving unity among the Caucasian clans in an effort to resist Russian conquest. Alone the fiercely independent clans had little chance of halting the conquests of their large, expansive neighbor to the north. Islamic spiritual leaders, often sheikhs, realized early on “that in religious reform lay the one chance of preserving their cherished liberty and independence.” (Gammer, 27) The first to attempt this endeavor was Sheikh Mansur, who preached that through Sufi’ism and Sha’ria unity could be achieved and the Russians beaten back. He resisted Russian conquest using these means for a number of years though was eventually forced to surrender. His status as “’the first to preach and lead’ the struggle against the ‘Russians in the Caucasus’” made him a national hero among the Chechens. He set the trend for spiritual leaders to lead military resistance by waging gazavat, a form of Islamic holy war, against the Russian invaders and later, against the Russian occupiers. A more prominent symbol of Chechen defiance of Russian conquest was Imam Shamil who emerged some 30 or 40 years after Mansur. His military exploits won him renown and his name still maintains its legacy of defying Russia (notably through the emergence of Shamil Basayev, a more recent example of a Chechen spiritual leader attempting to unite the tribes to resist- and adopting the name of a more famous rebel before him).

Gammer’s insight into the relationship between Islam and the Chechens’ struggle offers valuable information that sheds light on the current situation in the Caucasus. While Islam became ingrained in the psyche of those struggling to resist Russian rule, it was not until later in the 20th century that Islam’s firm tie to Chechen nationalism and identity was completed. Using increasingly harsh methods to subjugate the restless Chechen and Ingush populations, Joseph Stalin “Carried out what so many Russian generals… had suggested but never dared to do.” (Gammer, 165) He deported nearly the entire ethnic populations of the Ingush and Chechen people far into Kazakhstan, where the harsh environment killed off many. It was in this extreme environment that “ethnic solidarity” was maintained through the various branches of Islam adhered to by the deported ethnicities. When sent back to their homelands in 1956 this fundamental tie between ethnic identity and religion was already firmly cemented. To this end Moshe Gammar sheds light on the current conflict by exposing the centrality that Islam plays in the national struggle of the Chechens, an event likened to Poland’s “national solidarity” being inexorably tied to Catholicism.

Russian intervention has been a central component of Chechnya’s recent history. Gammer makes note of this and puts the actions of Chechens in the appropriate context: they are simply responses to actions initiated by Russia. “It is Russia as the great power, neighbour to a small people, that has dictated the events and the agenda for more than three centuries. The Chechens have mainly reacted to Russia’s moves and policies, not initiated their own.” (Gammer, 219) The evolution of Chechen nationalism shows this point most clearly. Islam became integrated into Chechen nationalism when the first resistance leaders used it to lead their armies against Russia, becoming firmly entrenched in the national psyche as it proved its use once again in resisting Russification in the inhospitable areas of Kazakhstan. Russia has been always been a menacing neighbor to the Chechens, looming as a backdrop against which all of Chechnya’s actions are decided. To the Chechens freedom does not mean a certain type of governance aside from self-governance. Freedom to the Chechens is in an absolutely negative light, meaning simply freedom from Russian intervention. This is why people like Sheikh Mansur and Imam Shamil have been able to reach such a colossal stature among Chechens, as they embody this natural longing for a people to dictate their own actions in accordance with their own will, not the will of their more-powerful neighbors and occupiers. Chechnya represents an interesting challenge to democracy and Russia. By examining the Chechens we can see the evolution of democracy in an area concerned almost solely with their own emancipation from another’s rule. This poses special challenges to the maturation of democracy in an area driven forward primarily by the worst of external factors – war.

Getzler, Israel

Getzler, Israel. 1967. Martov : A Political Biography of a Russian Social Democrat. Cambridge, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press ; Melbourne University Press.

Getzler, Israel. 1983. Kronstadt 1917-1921: The Fate of a Soviet Democracy. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]: Cambridge University Press.

Gill, Graeme J.

Gill, Graeme J. 1990. The Origins of the Stalinist Political System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gill, Graeme J. 1979. Peasants and Government in the Russian Revolution. London (etc.): Macmillan (for) the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Gleason, Abbott

Gleason, Abbott. 1980. Young Russia: The Genesis of Russian Radicalism in the 1860s. New York: The Viking Press.

Gleason, Abbott, Peter Kenez, and Richard Stites, editors

Gleason, Abbott, Peter Kenez, and Richard Stites. 1985. Bolshevik Culture; Experiment and Order in the Russian Revolution. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Griffin, Roger

Griffin, Roger. 2007. “1914: The Beginning of a Beginning [The Meaning of ‘Sacrifice’ in the First World War].” In Modernism and Fascism: The Sense of a Beginning under Mussolini and Hitler, 153-159. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Griffiths, Gordon

Griffiths, Gordon, and International Commission for the History of Representative and Parliamentary Institutions. 1968. Representative Government in Western Europe in the Sixteenth Century: Commentary and Documents for the Study of Comparative Constitutional History. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Guroff, Gregory, and Fred V. Carstensen, editors

Carstensen, Fred V. 1983. Entrepreneurship in Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union. Edited by Gregory Guroff. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Haimson, Leopold

Haimson, Leopold H. 1955. The Russian Marxists & the Origins of Bolshevism. ACLS Humanities E-Book. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Haimson, Leopold. n.d. “The Problem of Social Stability in Urban Russia, 1905-1917 (Part One).” Slavic Review 23 (4): 619–42.

Haimson, Leopold. 1965. “The Problem of Social Stability in Urban Russia, 1905-1917 (Part Two).” Slavic Review 24 (1): 1–22.

Haimson, Leopold, editor

Haimson, Leopold H. 1979. The Politics of Rural Russia, 1905-1914. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Hamburg, Gary Michael

Hamburg, Gary Michael. 1980. Land, Economy, and Society in Tsarist Russia : Interest Politics of the Landed Gentry during the Agrarian Crisis of the Late Nineteenth Century. [Ann Arbor]: [Mich.[etc.].

Hamburg, G. M. 1979. “The Russian Nobility on the Eve of the 1905 Revolution.” The Russian Review 38 (3): 323–38.

Hamburg, Gary M. 1984. Politics of the Russian Nobility, 1881-1905. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Hamburg, Gary M. 2005. “The Revival of Russian Conservatism.” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 6 (1): 107–27.

Hamburg, Gary M. 1992. Boris Chicherin & Early Russian Liberalism, 1828-1866. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

STUDENT REVIEW =
Until quite recently Boris Chicherin has been largely neglected by historians in their narratives of Russian political culture in the 19th Century. Compared to populist socialism and Slavophilism, the two main currents of Russian thought leading during this period, Russian liberalism appealed to neither a large section of the intelligentsia nor the broader masses. Despite its political shortcomings, however, it played a vital role in the great ideological debates leading up to the Peasant Emancipation, leaving behind a bulk of largely neglected material that has become part of an increasingly relevant “liberal tradition” in Russia. G. M. Hamburg in Boris Chicherin and Early Russian Liberalism: 1828-1866 attempts to remedy this perceived “oversight” by concentrating on the political thinking of its most prolific early commentators.

Expectedly, Hamburg starts off his study of Chicherin by giving a brief account of his childhood. Chicherin was born in Tambov, a provincial town southwest of Moscow, in 1828. He was of was of noble origins and spent his childhood in like manner. Before dedicating himself to scholarship, Chicherin spent his time among Moscow high society, frequenting elaborate balls and lavish dinner parties. Chicherin it seemed was on his way to becoming a ‘superfluous man’. Fortunately, he found his way at Moscow University, coming under the spell of the great Westernizer historian T. N. Granovsky and later the readings of Hegel; both of which having a profound influence on Chicherin’s philosophy of history as well as his more mature political writings.

Hamburg spends considerable time delineating the early ideological movements in Russia that would later color Chicherin’s later thinking. Chicherin was at once a Westernizer, Hegelian and to a certain extent classical liberal, though his interpretation of Russian history steered him away from out and out liberal solutions to Russia’s problems. Indeed Hamburg seems most comfortable defining his political philosophy as ‘conservative liberalism’.
[EUA & mdn=]
According to Chicherin modern Russia was defined first and foremost by the state, which until recently didn’t hinder progress but spurred it forward. The Eurasian steppe demanded concentrated government not only to resist foreign invaders but help facilitate basic social functions across vast areas. When one speaks of Russian society then, he or she is speaking not of an organic, self-perpetuating unit as was the case in Europe but a product of the state. The only actor in Russia capable of imposing meaningful reform then was the state.

These views were first laid out by Konstantin Kavelin in his largely overlook essay entitled Survey on the Juridical Life of Ancient Russia (1847). In it Kavelin advanced the theory that (1) the Russian state was a beacon of individual liberty and progress and (2) that the Petrine Transformation represented not a deviation from the policies put in place by the great Muscovite autocrats, as the Slavophiles contended, but their logical continuation. Hamburg necessarily deals with the political thought of Kavelin. Like Chicherin with whom he collaborated often, Kavelin would play a central role in the debates leading up to the Peasant Emancipation, where the term “Russian liberal” was for the first time used in Russian political culture.

Their theory of the Russian state – described today as the “statist school” of Russian historiography – tended to play down the role of representative democracy and the peasant commune (or obshchina) in Russia’s historical development. Chicherin believed Russia wasn’t “ready” for the former while pushing for the abolishment of the latter, seeing it as barrier to Russia’s progress along liberal lines. This view enraged populist socialists, who regarded the obshchina as the foundation for Russia’s future purely communal existence. Hamburg does an exceptionally good job of highlighting this early divide within Russian political culture.

Alexander Herzen of course played a crucial role in providing an outlet for these great early debates in his Free Russian Press, of which Hamburg goes into great detail, and to absolutely wonderful effect. These make for the most illuminating passages in Hamburg’s study – Chicherin’s run in with Herzen is especially notable, setting the tone for the rest of his work.

At worst then, Chicherin might be viewed as an apologist, even defender, of Russian autocracy, as many of his contemporaries in fact did. His political philosophy left him little immediate hope for democracy, clearly placing too much stock in the ability of the state to facilitate meaningful change. Yet Chicherin, and Hamburg would certainly attest, should not be judged too harshly. He was after all in favor of reform and left behind a considerable body of work in defense of his statist position; work that would ultimately become the basis for the political thought of later more robust liberal thinkers such as Paul Miliukov and Maxime Kovalevsky))

Hamilton, Richard F. and Holger H. Herwig, editors

Hamilton, Richard F., and Holger H. Herwig. 2003. The Origins of World War I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonio

Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. 2001. Empire. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Hardy, Deborah

Hardy, Deborah. 1987. Land and Freedom: The Origins of Russian Terrorism, 1876-1879. New York: Greenwood Press.

Hart, Peter

Hart, Peter. 2016. Voices from the Front: An Oral History of the Great War. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hart, Peter. 1998. The I.R.A. And Its Enemies: Violence and Community in Cork, 1916-1923. Oxford, New York: Clarendon Press ; Oxford University Press.

Hart, Peter. 2008. The Somme: The Darkest Hour on the Western Front. 1st Pegasus books ed. New York: Pegasus Books.

Hart, Peter. 2011. Gallipoli. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hart, Peter. 2013. The Great War: A Combat History of the First World War. New York: Oxford University Press.

Haskell, Thomas L., and Richard F. Teichgraeber III, editors

Haskell, Thomas L., and Richard F. Teichgraeber. 1993. The Culture of the Market: Historical Essays. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press.

Hastings, Max

Hastings, Max. 2013. Catastrophe 1914 : Europe Goes to War. First American edition. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Hausmann, Guido

Hausmann, Guido. 2002. Gesellschaft Als Lokale Veranstaltung: Selbstverwaltung, Assoziierung Und Geselligkeit in Den Städten Des Ausgehenden Zarenreiches. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Kimball, Alan. 2007. “Gesellschaft Als Lokale Veranstaltung: Selbstverwaltung, Assoziierung Und Geselligkeit in Den StäDten Des Ausgehenden Zarenreiches. Ed. Guido Hausmann. BüRgertum: Beitrage Zur EuropäIschen Gesellschaftsgeschichte, No. 22. GöTtingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2002. 485 Pp. Notes. Tables. Map. €69.00, Paper.” Slavic Review 66 (4): 758–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/20060410.

Two imperial decrees, issued in 1870 and 1892, adjusted the city councils (gorodskaia duma) to both strengthen and limit urban self-administration. This book, authored by German and Russian scholars, argues that the deficiencies once attributed to Russian cities and these decrees are, in fact, largely the deficiencies of outdated ‘Western’ interpretive concepts. We can no longer overlook the actual bodies of self-organization and self-realization among the diverse urban populations. Nor can we continue to ignore the roles of the poor, women, national minorities, and religious communities. It is time to move beyond the premise that ‘civil society’ depends solely on the dominance of a unified, isolated, or independent ‘middle class’—the reified ‘bourgeoisie.’

The chapters explore various topics, including the Moscow City Duma between 1870 and 1916; the elites of Moscow (owners of grand homes); women who supported health and charitable institutions (representing approximately 80 leading Moscow merchant families); the social composition of city officials from 1893 to 1917, featuring 30 biographies of mayors in cities like Moscow, Odessa, Kiev, Riga. © Professor Kimball

Henze, Charlotte E.

Henze, Charlotte E. 2011. Disease, Health Care and Government in Late Imperial Russia: Life and Death on the Volga, 1823-1914. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

STUDENT REVIEW =
Charlotte Henze looks to discuss how Russia was afflicted by cholera for much of the 1800s and early 1900s and what role government had in the spread of the disease. To better gain a frame of reference, Henze uses a case study from the southern Russian city of Saratov, which was particularly ravaged by cholera, but not unique in how the politics of cholera played out within the city.

Cholera is mostly a disease of sanitation and proper hygiene. [frequent ref. to mdn=] In today’s modern times we do not see very many outbreaks of cholera because of our relatively advanced sanitation measures. In Russia, and the rest of the Westernized world, however, modern sanitation was not widely in effect when the first worldwide outbreak struck in 1823. Because of the lax sanitation and hygiene measures cholera, therefore, was able to rapidly infect the populous. In Russia, however, cholera remained a savage disease, and it killed over 2 million people between 1823-1914 in four major epidemics. Cholera claimed more lives in Russia than it did in any other country. Despite the fact that Russia had, as Henze notes, the most prolific anti-cholera campaign out of any other European country, it was unable to successfully fight the disease as effectively as other nations.

This book looks to explain the reasons why Russia failed to stop cholera’s lethal wrath. Henze argues that a lack of willingness to modernize was the driving force that caused Russia’s cholera epidemics to be so devastating. Although the fundamental reason cholera was so brutal was because of an unwillingness to embrace modernity, other issues were involved including a fear of government from the peasantry, an economically driven government, an unwillingness to listen to the medical community, and a breakdown in communication between the Imperial government and local authorities.

The book begins with a brief history of cholera in Russia and how the disease’s progression compared with the rest of Europe at the time. When cholera first came to Europe in 1823, most of Europe, including Russia, implemented the same disease fighting tactics on cholera as it had done with the plague centuries earlier. For the most part this meant military and government backed quarantine. Because of cholera’s epidemiology, keeping people densely enclosed is the least ideal way to combat the disease. Most European governments soon realized that harsh quarantine efforts were not effective and eased up on the directive, but not Russia. Henze argues that because of Russia’s unwillingness to modernize, the useless quarantine measures were kept in effect.

The people soon became wary of the strict measures, and tried to leave their enclosures. Additionally, the quarantine measures often unnecessarily targeted the country’s poor. This led to mass confusion and fear within the general population, and soon the people began to flee, mostly along the Volga. The flight of the people further perpetuated the disease’s reach and more people became ill as a result.

While these strict quarantine measures appeared to be in good faith to save the populous, Henze argues that it was mostly economically motivated. When it became clear that traditional quarantines were not working, the government decided to ban the sale of wares from businesses, yet, quite paradoxically allowed for ships to continue trading with other nations. Permitting ships to trade with other nations allowed for the government to maintain its income. Many people’s livelihoods were destroyed when they were banned from selling their wares, and this further perpetuated the people’s hatred and fear of the government. This notion of retaining wealth further illustrated, according to Henze, that the government was unwilling to embrace modernity.

Not only was the government keen on retaining its wealth, but it was also unwilling to listen the medical community on ways to combat the disease. While it is true that at the beginning of the cholera epidemics little was known about the disease, by the time of 1892 (the worst years of cholera in Russia) there was a consensus from the medical community that cholera could be treated with better sanitation and hygiene. Despite the advice from European doctors, Russia’s government was unwilling to listen to the advice. Henze argues that this was most likely due to the fact that the government was fearful that this would empower the people in a time when the autocracy was trying desperately to reign in power.

This isn’t to say, however, that the government didn’t have a plan of action when cholera outbreaks did occur, on the contrary, actually. By 1892, Russia’s government had a very specific plan of dealing with cholera. Unfortunately, however, because of Russia’s immense size, it was often difficult for government-backed directives to be properly implemented. When the outbreak of 1892 began, local officials often were hesitant to publicly admit that cholera was in their cities. Naturally, then, they did not implement the government’s directives.

The 1892 cholera outbreak was the worst to date. It was particularly devastating because so many people assumed that the previous outbreaks were the worst to come and couldn’t imagine cholera wreaking more havoc than before. When people were dying in record numbers, Russia slowly began to allow for positive change that helped successfully combat the disease. This was mainly accomplished by empowering physicians and for local governments to implement the doctors’ mandates.

Before the 1892 epidemic, doctors were seen as “servants of the state” and yielded little power. But, in late 1892 the government gave the local zemstva power to rule the medical profession. As a result, the zemstva gave the local doctors the political power needed to effect change. This eventually allowed for the doctors to treat cholera and they helped to stop the savagery of the 1892 epidemic.

Many cities began investing in better infrastructure and sanitation measures as a result of advice from the medical community. It is important to note, however, that the modern sanitation efforts were mostly funded by cities alone and not by the Imperial government. However, the efforts for better hygiene proved to be successful and cholera’s spread was eventually quelled.

Because of cholera’s ease of prevention, when there are epidemics, it is usually a symptom of political failure. Starting from the mid-1800s Russia’s government was in a decline and was desperately trying to cling onto power. This unfortunate political position allowed for cholera to run rife throughout the country in four major epidemics from 1823-1914. Because the government was enacting policy based on trying to “save-face” rather than on trying to save the people, cholera’s spread through the empire was the worst in any European country during that time.

Herrmann, David Gaius

Herrmann, David G. 1996. The Arming of Europe and the Making of the First World War. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Land-based military power played a crucial role in shaping international affairs during a series of diplomatic crises leading up to World War I. While the naval arms race has been extensively studied, recent documentary research in military and state archives across Germany, France, Austria, England, and Italy reveals previously unexplored effects of changes in the strength of European land armies during this period. This research not only contributes to debates about the causes of the war but also provides an account of how European armies adopted new weaponry in the decade before 1914, including quick-firing artillery, machine guns, motor transport, and aircraft. However, they failed to fully integrate these technological advancements with outdated military tactics and strategies. A widely recognized strategic error was the assumption that the war would be brief.

Changes in the balance of military power help explain why the war began in 1914. After its defeat by Japan in 1904-1905, Russia was initially incapable of waging a European war. However, by 1912, Russia had regained its capacity to fight, sparking an unprecedented land-armaments race. As a result, when the July Crisis of 1914 unfolded, the heightened atmosphere of military competition made war far more likely than it would have been a decade earlier. © Professor Kimball

Hildermeier, Manfred

Hildermeier, Manfred. 1978. Die Sozialrevolutionäre Partei Russlands: Agrarsozialismus Und Modernisierung Im Zarenreich (1900 – 1914). Köln [etc.]: Böhlau.

Hildermeier, Manfred. 1989. Die Russische Revolution 1905-1921. 1. Aufl. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Hochschild, Adam

Hochschild, Adam. 2011. To End All Wars: A Story of Loyalty and Rebellion, 1914-1918. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Hogan, Heather

Hogan, Heather. 1993. Forging Revolution: Metalworkers, Managers, and the State in St. Petersburg, 1890-1914. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Holquist, Peter

Holquist, Peter. 1997. “Anti-Soviet Svodki from the Civil War: Surveillance as a Shared Feature of Russian Political Culture.” The Russian Review 56 (3): 445–50.

Hough, Jerry F.

Hough, Jerry F. 1994. The Soviet Perfects: The Local Party Organs in Industrial Decision-Making. [Xerographic repr. of 1964 ed., Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard Univ. Press]. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Univ. Microfilms Internat.

Hough, Jerry F. 1986. The Struggle for the Third World: Soviet Debates and American Options. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.

Hough, Jerry F., and Merle Fainsodr

Hough, Jerry F., and Merle Fainsod. 1979. How the Soviet Union Is Governed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Hull, Isabel V.

Hull, Isabel V. 2005. Absolute Destruction: Military Culture and the Practices of War in Imperial Germany. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Hull, Isabel V. 2013. A Scrap of Paper: Breaking and Making International Law during the Great War. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Hunt, Barry and Adrian Preston

Military History Symposium (Canada) Royal Military College,) 1976., Barry D. Hunt, and Adrian W. Preston. 1977. War Aims and Strategic Policy in the Great War, 1914-1918: [Papers]. London, Totowa, N.J.: Croom Helm ; Rowman and Littlefield.

Hutchinson, John

Hutchinson, John F. 1990. Politics and Public Health in Revolutionary Russia, 1890-1918. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hutchinson, John and Anthony Smith

Hutchinson, John, and Anthony D. Smith. 1994. Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Husband, William B.

Husband, William. 1990. Revolution in the Factory: The Birth of the Soviet Textile Industry, 1917-1920. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ignatieff, Michael

Ignatieff, M. 2014. “Foreign Policy Begins at Home: The Case for Putting America’s House in Order by Richard N. Haass Restraint: A New Foundation for US Grand Strategy by Barry R. Posen the Fourth Revolution: The Global Race to Reinvent the State by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge Reforming Taxation to Promote Growth and Equity by Joseph Stiglitz.” New York Review of Books61 (12): 53–54.

Ignatieff, M. 2014. “Are the Authoritarians Winning?” In The New York Review of Books, July 10, 2014.

Istoriia….

1993. Istorii︠a︡ Rossii: 1917-1940: khrestomatii︠a︡. Ekaterinburg.
1994. Istorii︠a︡ russkoĭ ėkonomicheskoĭ mysli. Edited by A. I. Pashkov. Moskva, Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatelʹstvo politicheskoĭ literatury.
1995. Istoriia russkoi kritiki. Edited by B. P. Gorodet︠s︡kiĭ. Leningrad: Izd-vo Akademii nauk SSSR [Leningradskoe otd-nie].

Jasny, Naum

Jasny, Naum. 1940. Competition among Grains. Stanford University, Calif.: Food Research Institute.

Jasny, Naum. 1961. Soviet Industrialization, 1928-1952. [Chicago]: University of Chicago Press.

Jasny, Naum. 1972. Soviet Economists of the Twenties: Names to Be Remembered. Cambridge [England]: University Press.

Jasny, Naum, Betty A. Laird, and Roy D. Laird. 1976. To Live Long Enough: The Memoirs of Naum Jasny, Scientific Analyst. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Johnson, Robert Eugene

Johnson, Robert Eugene. 1979. Peasant and Proletarian: The Working Class of Moscow in the Late Nineteenth Century. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Johnson, Robert Eugene. 1982. “Liberal Professionals and Professional Liberals: the Zemstvo Statisticians and Their Work.” The Zemstvo in Russia: An Experiment in Local Self-Government, edited by Terence Emmons and Wayne S. Vucinich, 343-363. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jones, Adrian

Jones, Adrian. 1997. Late-Imperial Russia: An Interpretation: Three Visions, Two Cultures, One Peasantry. Bern: P. Lang.

Some interpret Catherine’s “emancipation” of the nobility as a confirmation of their status as a “ruling class.” However, Jones disagrees. According to him, the gentry, as a group, did not constitute the ruling class in Russia. The true ruling class comprised the emperor and high state officials, known as the chinovnichestvo. These officials were those who earned or were granted chin (rank) through the Table of Ranks. While aristocrats had an “insider advantage” in obtaining these ranks, they were not the ruling class by virtue of their aristocratic status alone. Instead, those who held official administrative rank were the ruling class, with the degree of “rule” increasing with higher ranks.

Catherine essentially relegated the land-owning gentry (pomeshchiki) to a secondary role. Although they retained lordly authority over villagers in the provinces, and these serfs were bound to them, most pomeshchiki had very few serfs and struggled to prosper. If they wished to return to the capitals and play an active role, they had to pursue state service. While they were no longer legally obligated to do so, economic necessity drove most to seek such positions. As one mid-19th-century public figure remarked, a non-serving pomeshchik was as rare as a white crow. © Professor Kimball

Jones, Anthony

Jones, Anthony. 1992. “Professionalization.” In Russia in Flux: The Political and Social Consequences of Reform, edited by David Stuart Lane, 85-100. Aldershot, England: Edward Elgar.

Jones, Robert Edward

Jones, Robert E. 1973. The Emancipation of the Russian Nobility, 1762-1785. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Josephson, Paul

Josephson, Paul R. 1991. Physics and Politics in Revolutionary Russia. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Julicher, Peter

Julicher, Peter. 2003. Renegades, Rebels and Rogues under the Tsars. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co.

This textbook offers an exploration of tsarist political authorities and their opponents over the 370 years leading up to the collapse of the Romanov dynasty in 1917. The narrative is populated by colorful and menacing figures on all sides—Tsar Ivan IV, Prince Andrei Kurbskii, multiple false Dmitriis, Ivan Bolotnikov, Patriarchs Filaret and Nikon, Archpriest Avvakum, Boyarina Feodosiia Morozova, Regent Sofiia and her elite military police, the Strel’tsy, and several Cossack leaders, including Stepan Razin, Kondratii Bulavin, and Emiliano Pugachev. Later, Sergei Nechaev emerges as “one of the fiercest revolutionary fanatics in Russian history” [189]. The textbook recounts how the terrorists of Narodnaia Volia assassinated Tsar-liberator Alexander II.

The narrative anchors these dramatic events in the context of political institutions and governmental policies. For example, Tsar Aleksei and the disorders of 1648 are examined together, while the devastating schism among Russian Orthodox believers is shown to be closely linked to state policy. Aleksei, the son of Peter I and heir to the throne, met his end under torture due to his dealings with political opposition. High-ranking state officials played a pivotal role in conspiracies against Empress Anna and were involved in the murders of Emperors Peter III and Paul. In the 19th century, officers of the massive imperial armed forces became dominant figures in political opposition. Father Gapon, the labor leader behind “Bloody Sunday,” and Dmitrii Bogrov, Prime Minister Petr Stolypin’s assassin, were both police agents and associates of the terrorist underground. Finally, in the catastrophic era of World War I, Grigorii Rasputin and Empress Alexandra came to symbolize the corruption at the highest levels of the bureaucratic-administrative hierarchy.

Julicher concludes that the rise of an imperialistic military and police state—financially insecure, jealous of its prerogatives, and unwilling to tolerate an independent public sphere—both caused and conditioned these episodes [255-9]. The Old Believers and the terrorists of the Social Revolutionary Battle Organization, despite their apparent differences, both arose from the same larger institutional matrix. The Decembrists and Nicholas I might be thought of as products of the same system.

Julicher’s intended audience appears to be high school students in the United States. The book assumes a basic understanding of “democratic traditions necessary for a modern state” [v]. While “principled dissidents” (a distinction the text does not fully explain) have been harassed and vilified in America and other Western countries, opposition in these regions has been respected and sometimes successful. In Russia, however, such cases are “non-existent” because no “loyal opposition” has been possible. Political powers have treated criticism and resistance as treason, attacking opponents with militant ferocity [5].

The textbook’s casual reference to “traditions” detracts from its more focused emphasis on institutions and policies. Moreover, the use of the term “Western” might create the erroneous impression that military/police statism and extreme resistance are unique to Russia or characteristic only of the “non-Western” world. To properly evaluate these issues, students need to learn more about “democratic traditions” and the fluctuating values of the “West.” For instance, the Thirty Years’ War could provide context for understanding 17th-century Russian politics. Similarly, comparing English treatment of the Irish with Russian treatment of its imperial subjects—and the corresponding resistance—might prove enlightening. Julicher deftly navigates 20th and early 21st-century issues, opening with a brief history of the Soviet Revolution and frequently linking the violence and outrage before 1917 to the extremes of subsequent Stalinism and Communist Party rule. However, the text leaves out the last twenty years, from Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin to Vladimir Putin. These gaps could serve as discussion points for students fortunate enough to study under Julicher or with his textbook.

The publisher, however, deserves criticism for subpar proofreading. Numerous misspellings and typographical errors mar the presentation—for example, “Karakazov” instead of “Karakozov” and “Prizhkov” instead of “Pryzhov.” Although Nechaev plays a significant role in the narrative, he is omitted from the index. Many excellent illustrations are sourced from Russian-language materials, but they are often identified with imprecise transliteration. Moreover, three-fourths of the endnotes lack citations, merely extending the main narrative where students are unlikely to consult them. On the positive side, a well-crafted map [xi] helps locate much of the action and underscores the textbook’s consistent awareness of the frontier’s vital role in the story. The bibliographies reveal Julicher’s reliance on The Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History and guide students to useful additional reading.

Kahan, Arcadius

Kahan, Arcadius. 1965. “The ‘Hereditary Workers’ Hypothesis and the Development of a Factory Labor Force in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Russia.” In Education and Economic Development, edited by C. Arnold Anderson and Mary Jean Bowman, 291-297. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.

Kahan, Arcadius. 1965. “Determinant of the Incidence of Literacy in Rural Nineteenth-Century Russia..” In Education and Economic Development, edited by C. Arnold Anderson and Mary Jean Bowman, 298-302. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.

Kahan, Arcadius. 1965. “Social Structure, Public Policy, and the Development od Education and the Economy in Czarist Russia.” In Education and Economic Development, edited by C. Arnold Anderson and Mary Jean Bowman, 363-375. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.

Kappeler, Andreas

Kappeler, Andreas, and Alfred Clayton. 2001. The Russian Empire: A Multiethnic History. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.

STUDENT REVIEW =
Andreas Kappeler’s book […] is an ambitious attempt at presenting the history of Tsarist Russia from the perspective of the Empire’s ethnic minorities. Other standard texts, such as Nicholas Riasanovsky’s “A History of Russia” or George Vernadsky’s book by the same name, are invaluable for gaining an understanding of the broad sweep of Russian history, including accounts of the reigns of various monarchs, the plight of serfs, and the challenges that the Empire faced in its attempt to modernize and survive the era of liberalization and industrialization. Such accounts, however, can in some ways be called truly “Russian” — or at least Russo-centric — histories. That is to say that even large ethnic minorities such as the Poles and the Ukrainians are treated in a somewhat cursory fashion and they only enter the narrative when they become important to Russians or the Tsarist government. Other, smaller ethnic groups are frequently given an even more summary treatment: in the edition of Vernadsky’s “A History of Russia” on my desk (Fifth Edition), for examples, the country Georgia receives only one mention in the index, and “Georgians” as a people receive two; the Caucasus as a whole warrants only twenty-three mentions in a nearly five-hundred page monograph.

Kappeler’s book, by contrast, seeks to turn this situation on its head. As the title suggests, this is an account of Russian Imperial history that places the Empire’s ethnic minorities at the center, which is not unreasonable given that by the time of the 1897 census (which is given a reasonably thorough treatment — see Kappeler, Ch. 8) Russians comprised only 44% of the total population (Kappeler, 397).

The book begins in the 16th century, when Ivan IV (“The Terrible”) began to conquer the various Khanates that had descended from the Golden Horde and incorporate their territory into Muscovy. By the end of the third chapter, the reader has arrived at the 19th century. Poland, Ukraine, Bessarabia and Belorussia have been added to the Russian lands and Muscovy has become the Russian Empire. [mdn=] The steppe tribes have been mostly subdued and the first expeditions into Siberia have been undertaken. Chapter four pauses for a moment to take stock of the situation, ending with a section entitled “The Character of the Pre-modern Russian Multi-ethnic Empire.”

As Kappeler’s narrative progresses through the 19th century, more and more territory, including the Caucasus and Central Asia, as well as the Far East, are incorporated into the Russian Empire. Unfortunately for Russia, these territorial additions temporally coincided with the awakening of nationalist sentiment in the Empire, which arose first among the Poles and eventually spreading to the Georgians and Armenians as well as the various groups of Caucasian and Central Asian Muslim groups.

The final four chapters of the book, then, detail the challenges that newly self-aware national minorities posed to the stability and cohesiveness of the Russian state, as well as the various means by which the Imperial government sought to defuse or suppress nationalist sentiment. Kappeler does a reasonable job in discussing the inconsistencies in policies toward national groups: some were subject to intense “Russification,”and banned from learning their own languages in schools while others escaped relatively unscathed. Some, like the Jews, became victims of insidious propaganda and violence. Kappeler also shows how these policies varied in degree over time, with some areas like Finland and Poland suffering periods of relative repression only to have restrictions later relaxed.

During the revolutionary period and continuing into the First World War, the national question became even more vital, as national minorities were frequently seen as undermining the stability of the state, even after the so-called “Springtime of the Peoples” after 1905, when national groups were able to form political parties and have representation in the Duma. In large part, this was due to the fact that peripheral areas were frequently the sites of elevated levels of unrest and violence. In the Duma, national groups as a whole represented somewhat less than one-half of the total, and Kappeler points out that in many cases national representatives were unable to even attend proceedings, meaning that their power was further diluted. Nevertheless, Jewish, Ukrainian, and Polish groups were able to have their grievances aired in the Duma, even though their demands were seldom met. Increasing Russian nationalism meant that, by the time of the Third Duma, the institution was explicitly conceived of as a “Russian” institution.

If Kappeler’s book succeeds due to its broad focus — and I would argue that it does, if only for the fact that it fills a gaping hole in general “Empire-wide” historiography on Tsarist Russia — it also fails because of it. Too often the book almost falls into the trap of listing events and its wide sweep means that there is little space for lengthy discussions of particular personalities or policies. This means that the book is mostly useful for getting a general sense of Russian history from a “minority” perspective. Unfortunately, its utility as a jumping-off point for further research is also inhibited by the fact that the vast bulk of its bibliography is in German and Russian. Non-German or Russian-speakers, especially at the undergraduate level, will therefore find themselves frustrated by both the book’s lack of depth and the fact that it provides few clues as to where to go next to pursue more comprehensive research.

These caveats aside, “The Russian Empire: A Multi-ethnic History” is nevertheless a valuable addition to the literature and a useful counterpart to the more Russo-centric accounts of Russian history one finds in other standard texts.

Kassow, Samuel D.

Ben, Eklof and Christine Ruane. 1991. “Cultural Pioneers and Professionals: The Teacher in Society.” In Between Tsar and People: Educated Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia, edited by Edith W. Clowes, Samuel D. Kassow, and James L. West, 199-214. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Kassow, Samuel D. 1989. Students, Professors, and the State in Tsarist Russia. Berkeley: University of California Press.

STUDENT REVIEW =
[This book] details the politics and policies of the University systems under tsarist control. Through this model, Kassow explores the causes behind the revolution, as well as attempts to define the identity of each branch involved. Students centers mainly on the time period 1899 through 1917, but it also delves heavily into the events that lead up to this period of reform.

The book begins by describing the alienation and fear held by the state towards the professorship, and visa versa. As Kassow aptly explains, “The government tended to take a utilitarian view of higher education.” The government saw the university system as an opportunity to train loyal civil servants who would move on to become patriotic members of society, such as lawyers or doctors. Within this structure there were several types of universities such as “closed schools, military academies, specialized institutes, women’s institutes, polytechnic institutes, commercial institutes, private universities and institutes such as Moscow’s Shaniavskii University, and state universities.” The majority of these institutions fell under the rule of the Ministry of Education. By the 1860s, the policies and politics of the Russian education system had become intertwined in the growing dissonant movements.

Kassow describes that the government was unsure as to how to continue to deal with education. Conservatives wanted to turn the universities into closed institutions, while others held up the example of Oxford and Cambridge, where the main goal of the university experience was moral education. Their first attempts at a laissez-faire system of control over the universities through the 1863 Statute was short lived. This was quickly replaced by the University Statute of 1884, which stripped many academic freedoms from the hands of professorship and put them firmly in control of the Ministry of Education. Despite the tightening grip of the government on the education system, it wasn’t until the mid 1900s that schools would completely lose their autonomy and become satellites of the Ministry.

The student movements of the 1850s, leading up to the 1905 revolution are presented as a prominent factor in the evolution of the education system. Kassow describes, “Russian universities were the incubators of a student subculture, a meeting place where thousands of provincial youth, often poor but having little in common with the popular masses and even less with the ruling elite, joined a proud new social group, the studenchestvo, and then left to become teachers, doctors, lawyers, civil servants, or, in a few cases, embittered revolutionaries.” Some individuals within the student body believed that there needed to be a balance between self-interest and the self-sacrificing ideals of the collective. As the 19th century came to a close however, there were a growing number of students who believed that the whole idea behind studenchestvo was false. They saw the role of the student as an individual set on their own path, each being vastly different from one another. In other words, studenchestvo began to be seen as, “an exercise in self-delusion, a last chance to play with idealism and courage before the students became judges, civil servants, and comfortable lawyers.”

Students does an excellent job outlining the knife’s edge that the professorship walked during the 1850s-1910s. Suspected by both the student body (for being too soft) and the government (for planting the seeds of revolution in the mind of the students), the professors strode to define their own roll in the education system. Many of the professors saw themselves as researchers whose success lay in, “the need for academic freedom, secure power within the academic structure, and a free hand in enforcing internal university discipline.” While Kassow asserts that professors wanted academic freedom, they were frustrated by the student movements, and would have been content to stay within the boundaries set by the government, as long the government didn’t completely impede day to day teachings.

Kassow places the student movements, specifically the events which lead to Bloody Sunday as a paradigm shift in Soviet history. “Bloody Sunday was a turning point for both students and the teachers. The scale was much larger than previous uprisings as well as the scope which included the professorship.” In some sense Bloody Sunday forced the hand of the professorship to side with the students. From here Kassow explores the last days under the tsar and the role that higher education played throughout.

This book is an excellent resource to help understand the conflicts of natal and assigned identity within each section of the Universities. I would recommend this book to anyone who is looking for information pertaining to the student movements of 1899-1905. Finally, this book contains a great amount of raw data concerning the make up of university enrollment. A great and insightful read overall.

Katsainos, Charles T.

Katsainos, Charles T. 1951. “The Theory and Practice of Russian Panslavism in the Light of Russia’s Expansion in the Balkans until 1912.” Dissertation.

Kazemzadeh, Firuz

Kazemzadeh, Firuz. 1968. Russia and Britain in Persia, 1864-1914: A Study in Imperialism. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kazemzadeh, Firuz. 2010. Borʹba za Zakavkazʹe: 1917-1921. Stokgolʹm: CA&CC Press.

Kedourie, Elie

Kedourie, Elie. 1966. Nationalism. 3rd ed. London: Hutchinson.

Keegan, John

Keegan, John. 2001. An Illustrated History of the First World War. First American edition. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Keep, John L. H.

Keep, John L. H. 1975. “The Bolshevik Revolution: Prototype or Myth?” In The Anatomy of Communist Takeovers, edited by Thomas Taylor Hammond, 46-60. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Keep, John L. H. 1976. The Russian Revolution: A Study in Mass Mobilization. 1st ed. New York: Norton.

Baron, Samuel H., Nancy Whittier Heer, and American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies Research and Development Committee. 1977. Windows on the Russian Past : Essays on Soviet Historiography since Stalin. Columbus, Ohio: American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies.

Keep, John L. H. 1995. Power and the People : Essays on Russian History. Boulder: East European Monographs.

Keep, John L. H. 1985. Soldiers of the Tsar: Army and Society in Russia, 1462-1874. Oxford, Oxford: Clarendon Press ; Oxford University Press.

Khristoforov, Igor

Khristoforov, I. A. 2002. “Aristokraticheskai︠a︡” oppozit︠s︡ii︠a︡ velikim reformam : konet︠s︡ 1850–seredina 1870-kh gg. Moskva: “Russkoe slovo”.

Kingston-Mann, Esther

Kingston-Mann, Esther. 1983. Lenin and the Problem of Marxist Peasant Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kingston-Mann, Esther, Timothy Mixter, and Jeffrey Burds. 1991. Peasant Economy, Culture, and Politics of European Russia, 1800-1921. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Knight, Amy W.

Knight, A. W., and University of London. 1977. “The Participation of Women in the Revolutionary Movement in Russia from 1890 to 1914.” Dissertation, [Place of publication not identified]: University of London.

Knight, Amy W. 1988. The KGB: Police and Politics in the Soviet Union. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Kochan, Lionel

Kochan, Lionel. 1967. Russia in Revolution, 1890-1918. [New York]: New American Library.

Institute of Jewish Affairs. 1978. The Jews in Soviet Russia since 1917. Edited by Lionel Kochan. Third edition. Oxford [England]: Published for the Institute of Jewish Affairs by Oxford University Press.

Koenker, Diane, and William G. Rosenberg, and R.G., Suny, editors

Koenker, Diane, William G. Rosenberg, and Ronald Grigor Suny. 1989. Party, State, and Society in the Russian Civil War : Explorations in Social History. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

LaFore, Laurence Davis

Lafore, Laurence Davis. 1965. The Long Fuse, an Interpretation of the Origins of World War I. [1st ed.]. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Lampert, Evgenii

Lampert, Evgeniĭ, and Paul Avrich Collection (Library of Congress). 1965. Sons against Fathers; Studies in Russian Radicalism and Revolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

STUDENT REVIEW =
The eighteen sixties was a turbulent decade as the effects of emancipation rippled through society. In Sons Against Fathers, E. Lampert provides an analysis on how people, philosophies and events contributed to the revolutionary thought and the recognition of a need for change immediately after the emancipation of serfs. Although action would not be taken until Russia was on the brink of revolution, the inspiration for revolution was deeply rooted in the discontent from this era. This book dissects some of the main emerging philosophies, and gives context to their formation.

The political setting prior to the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 was “top heavy” with bureaucratic weight. The rigid system left little room for the society to adjust with changing times and a continually expanding world. There was an immense potential for development as Tsar Alexander II ascended to the throne, but with a lack of direction the possibilities were thrown away. Attempting to be proactive, emancipation was granted before it was taken by force. This political move proved ineffective, and hindered government control rather than motivated it to advance Russia into the next steps of reform. With a glimpse of freedom, the government could no longer keep such immense reigns on the public, and the influence of public opinion began to play a greater role.

The immediate reaction to emancipation was a calm somberness as new concerns for society arose, and a need for solutions emerged. With a slowly growing need for industrial workers and an accumulation of debt due to redemption payments, jobless peasants were unable to adapt to their new status. The few gains made on an intellectual level with an increase in public opinion were retracted with the tsar’s subsequent reactionary measures, which inhibited the ability to publish unapproved documents or meet publically. Lampert views this response as not only failing to fix Russia’s growing problems, but it became a “symptom of the disease” itself.

With continuing countryside rebellions and an expansion of Russian philosophical thought, Tsar Alexander’s attempt to consolidate autocratic power merely provoked opposition. Lampert argues that distinctly opinionated groups formed – conservatives, liberals, radicals, and the church. Each division exposed deeply rooted dilemmas, and are all proof of the inadequacies of an unyielding system. Once formed, public opinion expressed through these groups could not be removed from society. The fundamental bases of the formation of these groups allowed a continuing recognition of a need for change, and provided the inspiration for it to take place.

To show the formation of opinions and how they fit into this setting, Lampert describes the intellectual product of the eighteen sixties through three men. Their contributions helped to shape the period, and they each took a stand outside of government consent. The first of these individuals is Nikolai Chernyshevsky. A muckraking journalist who wrote for the Contemporary, Chernyshevsky identified with the characters he wrote about, and appealed to logic as well as emotions. In a time where the influence of literature was crucial for the intellectual and social evolution of Russia, he contributed to the hopes for a revolution, and fueled discontent with the condition of politics. Lampert identifies the draw of people to Chernyshevsky was their ability to relate to his characters – he appealed to understanding on an intellectual level as well as a moral. The topics of his work mirrored the situations of society, and Chernyshevsky was able to make his own impact.

Similar to Chernyshevsky, Nikolai Dobrolyubov was a literary critic and journalist, and wrote for the Contemporary as well. He presented few original ideas due to his close relationship with Chernyshevsky, but he still managed to have an impact of his own. He is known for being a social analyst, and disagreed that a society of sympathizers was ideal. He instead maintained that hope itself would lead to greater understanding. He asserted that history was created by the conflict of the rational progressive and the irrational reactionary, and sided with progress because a stagnant society would be incapable of movement. The driving force of movement would come from the unsteady base of society – the peasantry.

Finally, the last character Lampert discusses is Dimitry Pisarev. Differing greatly from Dobrolyubov, he focused on individual behavior as opposed to inspiring the masses. Labels such as “liberal” and “westerner” failed to characterize men, but instead imposed uniformity on an individual. He believed that a model for mankind would be a “new man,” someone that would not reflect unoriginal principles, but rather have spontaneous and genuine morality. Merely four years after his death, Pisarev’s work was the popular source of debates amongst the younger generation, in part due to the fact that he was a crystallizer of thought, rather than an original thinker. He strongly based his beliefs in science, and as a writer he aimed to teach rather than provoke emotion.

Lampert’s analysis removes the stigma of radical liberalism often associated with these three intellects. By doing this, he is able to provide insight into the true contribution of their philosophies on the rapidly changing political culture. Due to the mass growth of opinion, the eighteen sixties had a continuing im+pact on progressive thinking and presented issues that would challenge conventional attitudes, laying fertile ground for revolution.

Lane, David Stuart

Lane, David. 1969. The Roots of Russian Communism. A Social and Historical Study of Russian Social-Democracy 1898-1907. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Lane, David Stuart. 1992. Soviet Society under Perestroika. Completely rev. ed. London: Routledge.

Lane, David Stuart, editor

Lane, David Stuart, ed. 1992. Russia in Flux: The Political and Social Consequences of Reform. Aldershot, England: Edward Elgar.

LaPierre, Brian

LaPierre, Brian. 2012. Hooligans in Khrushchev’s Russia : Defining, Policing, and Producing Deviance during the Thaw. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

STUDENT REVIEW =
After the death of Stalin, the period of Russian rule under Khrushchev, who much like Stalin used tactics of detainment and punishment as means to garner order and control within Russia. The book itself is divided into: introducing the existence of hooliganism within Russian culture, Private Matters or Public Crimes, the Campaign against hooliganism, the Krushchev-Era campaign to mobilize obshchestvennost (the fight against Hooliganism), and the rise and fall of the soft line on petty crime.

The introduction serves the purpose of the Russian government collectively assimilating all crime under the banner of hooliganism, whether it is murder, animal cruelty, and or domestic abuse. The introduction focuses on the induction of hooliganism in Europe in contrast towards how Russian policies altered its perception on hooliganism over the course of the 20th century. At the start of the introduction, LaPierre suggests the creation of the terminology of hooliganism within Europe: “in modern English, ‘hooligan’ is a term for ‘young street tough or member of a street gang… In the Soviet Union, hooliganism (khuliganstvo) was more than a violent soccer-based subculture. It was a crime: the serious crime of showing disrespect to the values of Soviet Society” P.1-2). Over the course of the Krushshchev era, Russian authorities arrested millions of Soviet citizens for crimes of hooliganism. Much like the Great Fear under Stalin, millions of Russians were arrested for actions deemed to be dangerous against the state. LaPierre suggests that one of twenty-five Russians were arrested for acts of hooliganism, thereby leaving the entire state under constant fear of detainment. Overall, LaPierre introduction offers to find social and rational reasons for the overwhelming acts of hooliganism. By explaining cultural and historical trends of Russian history, LaPierre opts to discover hooliganism not as a new trend emerging during the Krushchev era but rather a continued existence through the Soviet Union.

The first chapter explains the way in which the Soviet government came to rationalize and collectivize hooligans. The chapter identifies numerous ways the Soviet government saw hooliganism, and the initial practices set to discourage hooliganism throughout the state.

The second chapter, explains the evolution of hooliganism during the Krushchev era. The chapter focuses on how hooliganism within Russia evolved from public acts of discourse towards private. This evolution according to LaPierre was a drastic change within Soviet culture as result the borders of prosecution were not clear, therefore leaving prosecuting offenders unclear. What emerged was a more controlled state regarding domestic affairs.

The third chapter explains Soviet authorities attempts to influence and hopefully halt crimes of hooliganism. LaPierre states that the Soviet state instead of becoming a more regulated government against these crimes loosened their punishments, leaving harsher punishments for the more serious crimes. This can be seen with the creation of the term ‘petty hooliganism’ for crimes of cursing and drinking in public. These guidelines of hooliganism offered less severe punishments for the offenders, however, instead of curbing the advancement of hooliganism the creation of petty hooliganism bore witness to millions of Russians charged with the offense.

The fourth chapter explains the emergence of the fight against hooliganism. The chapter focuses on how Soviet citizens opted to fight the system of hooliganism, through grassroots and local efforts. Chapter 5 focuses on the next evolution of Krushchev policy following the first attempt at petty hooliganism. Unlike the first introduction of petty hooliganism, the new ‘soft-line’ approach opted to avoid prison sentences for offenders and rather re-educate and or re-form the criminal. LaPierre uses both the accession and demise of the soft-line punishment: it was created to allow Soviet citizens to return to their work and families faster than before, however, it created a system in which judges and officials used the new policy to not punish severe punishments to create better statistics of crime throughout Russia.

Laqueur, Walter

Laqueur, Walter. 1993. Black Hundred: The Rise of the Extreme Right in Russia. First edition. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Laqueur, Walter. 1968. “Revolution.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, edited by David L. Sills, Robert King Merton, and Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein, 501-507. [New York]: Macmillan.

Laruelle, Marlene

Laruelle, Marlène. 2008. Russian Eurasianism: An Ideology of Empire. Translated by Mischa Gabowitsch. Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Md.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press ; Johns Hopkins University Press.

STUDENT REVIEW =
As has been pointed out in multiple recent monographs on the topic, Eurasianism has long been an under-examined aspect of the history of Russian political thought, at least in monograph form. Marlene Laruelle’s Russian Eurasianism: An Ideology of Empire, is one of the first English language attempts to rectify this deficiency. Having already written on other aspects of Eurasianism, including its origins, Laruelle here seeks to examine more contemporary strains of what she calls “Neo-Eurasianism,” a movement that she argues is distinct from the thought of the interwar Eurasianists.

Laruelle’s primary research purpose in this work is to discover the origins of contemporary Eurasianist theory, and to ascertain what influence it has on contemporary Russian and Eurasian political discourse, and more importantly, how it built its influence. To this end, she first briefly establishes the origins of Eurasianism in the 1920s, before examining three prominent thinkers associated with contemporary Eurasianism, before finally moving into a discussion of Eurasianism’s broader impact within Eurasia itself. This last part focuses on Russian Muslims, Kazakhstan, and Turkey.

For the interwar Eurasianists, geography, and not any other marker of identity, was the most important element of Eurasia and Eurasianism. Eurasianists believed that the common heritage of the steppe united the peoples of the former Russian Empire, and was a more important identifier than nationality, ethnicity, or religion. This ideology was well suited to the world the interwar Eurasianists found themselves thrown into after the collapse of the Russian Empire.

One of the main arguments Laruelle makes is that contemporary Neo-Eurasianists are not, in fact, directly linked to their forbears in the interwar Eurasianist movement. On the contrary, she argues that the original Eurasianist movement was a response to a very specific set of circumstances (Italian Fascism, the Russian Revolution, and the “Decline of the West” theories popular at the time), while the contemporary movement, while formed in somewhat similar circumstances, came into being in a very different ideological context. This argument leads into one of her most interesting contentions, that interwar Eurasianism as a philosophy is not indigenous to Eurasia, rather, it is a “Western” philosophy, that owes more to ideas such as fascism and the philosophy of Hegel. She argues that this is also true of many contemporary strains of Neo-Eurasianism as well. While men such as Alexander Dugin may not agree with the conclusions of work such as Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations, they accept many of its premises, such as cultural determinism.

Laruelle also argues that the Eurasianists were never able to reconcile their desires for a unified Eurasia, as well as their stated respect for other regional institutions, such as “Eastern” religions, with their desire to view Russia, and Russians themselves, as the leading partner in Eurasia. While they argued for Eurasia as a natural, independent construct, they were unable to truly give up their feelings of Russian Nationalism. Contemporary Russian Neo-Eurasianists frequently hold even stronger views on the subject, though Laruelle notes that Dugin has been willing to promote economic Eurasianism within Turkey while downplaying his more Nationalist Russo-centric views. This flexibility (some might say tendency towards contradiction) is part of why Eurasianism remains important, even if in a very different form from its original interwar roots.

Ultimately, Laruelle is successful in showing that contemporary Neo-Eurasianism, while occasionally influenced by the original interwar movement, is a recent ideological development. Just as the interwar Eurasianist movement was designed to meet the ideological requirements of the Russian émigré community, Neo-Eurasianism, both in its Russian and non-Russian forms seeks to meet the needs of contemporary Russia, Kazakhstan, and Turkey. That Eurasianism has been adopted outside of Russia, however, can be seen as a sign of the interwar Eurasianist’s success in crafting a flexible ideology that provides an alternate framework for viewing the world.

Leonard, Carol

Leonard, Carol S. 2011. Agrarian Reform in Russia: The Road from Serfdom. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lerner, Warren

Lerner, Warren. 1970. Karl Radek, the Last Internationalist. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Levin, Alfred

Levin, Alfred. 1963. “Russian Bureaucratic Opinion in the Wake of the 1905 Revolution.” Jahrbücher Für Geschichte Osteuropas 11 (1): 1–12.

Levin, Alfred. 1965. “Peter Arkad’evich Stolypin: A Political Appraisal.” The Journal of Modern History 37 (4): 445–63.

Levin, Alfred. 1940. The Second Duma: A Study of the Social-Democratic Party and the Russian Constitutional Experiment. New Haven, London: Yale University Press; H. Milford, Oxford University Press.

Levin, Alfred. 1973. The Third Duma, Election and Profile. [Hamden, Conn.]: Archon Books.

STUDENT REVIEW =
After the collapse of the Second Duma, Russia was a nation of changing ideas and many fundamentally different political philosophies. Among the large, frustrated peasant base was a growing call for Marxist and Socialist beliefs. Already viewing the parliamentary system as nothing more than a compromise with the people, the Tsar sought to assure that the Third Duma would be a more conservative body cleansed of these “untrustworthy elements” that had caused the dissolution of the previous two Dumas.

With this purpose in mind he issued the Election Laws on June 3, 1907 to vastly limit the elections and, by means of a system of gerrymandering and limiting registration to property owners, create the envisioned conservative Duma. This law decreased the peasantry’s electoral strength by one half. This caused many people of the lower class to become apathetic of the political process now that there was little chance of getting their voice heard.

The Law also had an effect on the political parties of Russia. There was a multitude of different political parties, yet most that were elected to Third Duma seemed to be struggling with the same problem: maintaining stability. While conservatives were struggling with maintaining the status quo, parties like the Octobrists were struggling with maintaining social stability in a time when liberals seemed to be creating a revolutionary situation in Russia. After June 3 1907 popular opposition to the government voiced by the Duma became “unthinkable”. As a result, while many in the Octobrists secretly wished for reforms, they instead spent most of their energy cooperating with the regime and limiting excessive speech that would hurt the image of the Duma. For this reason, among liberals, they were known as the party of “sad necessity”.

Levin states that “Only Social Democrats stayed strongly opposed to the government”. Landlords mobilized under the idea of defeating the ideas of the reformers while many liberal parties struggled with intra-party struggles. Violations at the polls and low turnout from the lower classes aided the conservative victory, to the satisfaction of the Tsar. More than anything, the election and the election results clarified a growing problem in Russia: growing government repression and irreconcilable differences between the peasantry and Russian State.

Lewin, Moshe

Lewin, Moshe, John Biggart, and Alec Nove. 1968. Russian Peasants and Soviet Power : A Study of Collectivization. Translated by Irene Nove. Evanston [Ill.]: Northwestern University Press.

Lewin, Moshe. 1985. The Making of the Soviet System: Essays in the Social History of Interwar Russia. 1st ed. New York: Pantheon Books.

Lewin, Moshe. 1975. Lenin’s Last Struggle: Moshe Lewis. London: Pluto Press.

Lewin, Moshe. 1974. Political Undercurrents in Soviet Economic Debates: From Bukharin to the Modern Reformers. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Lewin, Moshe. 1977. “The Social Background of Stalinism.” In Stalinism: Essays in Historical Interpretation, edited by Robert C. Tucker, 111-136. 1st ed. New York, NY: Norton.

Lewin, Moshe, and Gregory Elliott. 2005. The Soviet Century. London: Verso.

Lewin, Moshe. 1995. Russia–USSR–Russia: The Drive and Drift of a Superstate. New York: New Press : Distributed by W.W. Norton & Co.

Lewin, Moshe. 2001. “Why the world needs to know about the Soviet past. The history of the Russian future.” In Le Monde Diplomatique(English), December.

Lincoln, W. Bruce

Lincoln, W. Bruce. 1994. Passage through Armageddon : The Russians in War and Revolution, 1914-1918. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lipkes, Jeff

Lipkes, Jeff. 2007. Rehearsals: The German Army in Belgium, August 1914. Leuven : Leuven University Press.

Macey, David A. J.

Macey, David A. J. 1987. Government and Peasant in Russia, 1861-1906: The Prehistory of the Stolypin Reforms. Dekalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press.

MacMillan, Margaret

MacMillan, Margaret. 2013. The War That Ended Peace: The Road to 1914. First U.S. edition. New York: Random House.

Maiolo, Joseph

Maiolo, Joseph A. 2010. Cry Havoc: How the Arms Race Drove the World to War, 1931-1941. New York: Basic Books.

Matossian, Mary

Matossian, Mary. 1958. “Ideologies of Delayed Industrialization: Some Tensions and Ambiguities.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 6 (3): 217–28.

Matossian, Mary. 1968.”The Peasant Way of Life.” In The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia, edited by Wayne S. Vucinich, 1-40. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Male, Donald. J.

Male, D. J. 1971. Russian Peasant Organisation before Collectivisation; a Study of Commune and Gathering 1925-1930. Cambridge [England]: University Press.

Masur, Gerhard

Masur, Gerhard. 1971. Imperial Berlin. New York: Basic Books.

Matern, Frederick

Matern, Frederick. 2007. “The Discourse of Civilization in the Works of Russia’s New Eurasianists: Lev Gumilev and Alexander Panarin.” In Post-Communist Studies Programme Research Paper, 002.

May, Timothy Michael

May, Timothy Michael. 2012. The Mongol Conquests in World History. London: Reaktion Books.

The Mongol Empire (c. 1200-1350) can be regarded as the beginning of the modern age and the advent of globalization. Although communications across Eurasia existed prior to the Mongols, they were infrequent and often relied on intermediaries. The rise of the Mongol Empire transformed this dynamic; through their conquests, the Mongols dismantled numerous empires and kingdoms, replacing them with the largest contiguous empire in history. Despite their reputation as a highly destructive force in the premodern world, the Mongol Empire had a stabilizing effect on the social, cultural, and economic life of its vast territories, enabling merchants and missionaries to traverse Eurasia.

This book explores the many ways in which the Mongol conquests acted as a catalyst for change, including advancements in warfare, cuisine, culture, and scientific knowledge. Even as Mongol power waned, its influence persisted. The legacy of the Empire continued to inspire the region, influencing everything from the quest for luxury goods and spices that motivated Columbus’s voyage to the land of the Khan, to the unification of China for the first time in 300 years, and to innovations in art that culminated in the masterpieces of the Renaissance. This book provides comprehensive coverage of the entire empire, rather than adopting a more regional approach. © Professor Kimball

McCaffray, Susan Purves

McCaffray, Susan Purves. 1996. The Politics of Industrialization in Tsarist Russia : The Association of Southern Coal and Steel Producers, 1874-1914. DeKalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press.

McDaniel, Tim

McDaniel, Tim. 1988. Autocracy, Capitalism, and Revolution in Russia. Berkeley: University of California Press.

McDonald, David MacLaren

McDonald, David MacLaren. 1992. United Government and Foreign Policy in Russia, 1900-1914. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674865433.

McKean, Robert B.

McKean, Robert B. 1977. The Russian Constitutional Monarchy, 1907-1917. London: Historical Association.

McKean, Robert B. 1990. St. Petersburg between the Revolutions: Workers and Revolutionaries, June 1907-February 1917. New Haven: Yale University Press.

McMeekin, Sean

McMeekin, Sean. 2011. The Russian Origins of the First World War. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. https://search.worldcat.org/en/title/709670289

McMeekin, Sean. 2011. “Benevolent Contempt: Bismarck’s Ottoman Policy.” In War and Diplomacy: The Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 and the Treaty of Berlin, edited by M. Hakan Yavuz, and Peter Sluglett, 79-97. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

McMeekin, Sean. 2013. July 1914: Countdown to War. New York: Basic Books.

Otte, Thomas G. 2014. July Crisis: The World’s Descent into War, Summer 1914. New York: Cambridge University Press.

McReynolds, Louise

McReynolds, Louise. 1991. The News under Russia’s Old Regime: The Development of a Mass-Circulation Press. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Mearsheimer, John J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton.

Mehlinger, Howard, and John M. Thompson

Mehlinger, Howard D., and John M. Thompson. 1972. Count Witte and the Tsarist Government in the 1905 Revolution. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

STUDENT REVIEW =
The breakdown in Russian politics did not just happen instantly, but was merely a slow erosion of relations with the upper class bourgeoisie, peasantry, and ruling elite. The declining state of affairs in Russia’s political atmosphere led Nicholas II to turn to Sergei Witte to help rescue Russia from its declining state of affairs. Many people are familiar with Witte because his “Witte System” was a mix of financial and economic policies, which were in essence a trial run in state capitalism. People, though, tend to overlook Witte’s role in the Russian government in the early 20th century, which is an interesting time period because of the ensuing elections and new laws being drafted by the Russian government.

One of the main points Mehlinger and Thompson want to emphasize is that the relationship between Witte and Nicholas II was anything but fine and dandy. Witte believed that Tsar Nicholas II only had two options: one was to move along a path of reform and the other was to choose a dictator and try to end the civil unrest by forceful repression. The question of reform and progress has come up many times in Russian history before the early 20th century example. One instance of this comes from Russian serfs and the abolishment of serfdom in 1861. Under Nicholas II and Witte, we now see these former serfs requesting more rights and liberties because of their working conditions and breakdown in government leadership. Witte believed that only by creating situations in which the peasants could exercise their own initiative, could Russian agriculture flourish.

Witte faced many challenges in trying to implement his reform plan because he needed to find a middle ground in policy-making. Witte was caught between two imperatives: one was to see order restored and the other to initiate the reform platform on which he had gained power. The Manifesto of October 17, 1905 saw many mixed reactions between the Russian citizenry, but primarily they were mass demonstrations. Witte’s obstacles were due to some unforeseen circumstances because he far left and right groups would have their qualms about the Manifesto, but he wasn’t expecting such a critical and demanding reaction from the people in the middle. Witte, himself, is at partial blame for this response to the Manifesto because he appointed some leaders that were not going to help his cause and cause more grief instead.

Mehlinger and Thompson use the first chapter of the book to introduce the situation and the man that was ultimately given the responsibility to fix the conditions in Russia, Sergei Witte. They move on to describe the October 17 Manifesto and the first few weeks of Witte’s government, where he puts his government and cabinet together. The reader begins to realize, at this point, that the Russian government was full of factional politics and no matter who Witte relied on, others would have valid arguments against them. The second half of the book deals with the peasant question and the different strategies and reform plans Witte went over to deal with the peasant problem. Additionally, the book deals with the “loan” that saved Russia in 1905, when the Russian government borrowed a half million francs from the French. Mehlinger and Thompson believe that this loan was somewhat a temporary fix to a larger financial problem, which would all come down to the eventual 1917 revolution. The book ends with the actual results of the election to the first duma and how the whole process worked. I found the election process very confusing and jumbled because the authors bring in some groups that were never mentioned, until the election chapters. However, the election data and chapters show how wide the split was between political groups and the importance of the people that voted and/or were eligible to vote in the election.

Overall, one must understand the situation Witte was in. Witte was a man that believed in autocracy, but realized that Russia needed to become more democratic to achieve progress. Mehlinger and Thompson’s book does a good job of emphasizing the role Witte played in running Russian politics and how that led to the elections of the First Duma. In trying to balance inside government influence and doing what was right for the Russian populous, Witte was put in a sticky situation and was basically destined to face criticism, no matter which side he supported more.

Melancon, Michael

Melancon, Michael, guest editor. 1984. “The Russian Revolutions of 1917 in the Eyes of Soviet Historians: Orthodoxy vs. a New Flexibility.” In Soviet Studies in History, vol. 23, no. 1.

Di︠a︡kin, V. S., Oleg Nikolaevich Znamenskiĭ, and N. F. Slavin. 1984. Russian Revolutions of 1917 in the Eyes of Soviet Historians : Orthodoxy vs. a New Flexibility. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Melancon, Michael. 1999. “Neo-Populism in Early Twentieth-Century Russia: the Socialist Revolutionary Party from 1900 to 1917.” In Russia under the Last Tsar: Opposition and Subversion, 1894-1917, edited by Anna Geifman, 73-90. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Melancon, Michael S. 1990. The Socialist Revolutionaries and the Russian Anti-War Movement, 1914-1917. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

Riley, Judith Merkle

Riley, Judith Merkle. 1980. “Scientific Management and German Rationalization.” In Management and Ideology : The Legacy of the International Scientific Management Movement, 172-207. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Meyer, James H.

Meyer, James H. 2014. Turks across Empires: Marketing Muslim Identity in the Russian-Ottoman Borderlands, 1856-1914. First edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Miller, Steven E., editor

Miller, Steven E., Sean M. Lynn-Jones, and Stephen Van Evera. 1991. Military Strategy and the Origins of the First World War. Rev. and expanded ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Mints, Isaak Izrailevich

Mint︠s︡, I.I. 1977. Istorii︠a︡ Velikogo Okti︠a︡bri︠a︡. Moskva: Nauka.

Mironov, Boris Nikolaevich

Mironov, B.N. 1975. Istorik i matematika:matematicheskie metody v istoricheskoi issledovanii. Leningrad: Nauka, Leningr. otd-nie.

Mironov, B.N. 1981. Vnutrenniĭ rynok Rossii vo vtoroĭ polovine XVIII–pervoĭ polovine XIX v.. Leningrad: “Nauka”, Leningradskoe otdelenie.

Mironov, B.N. 1984. Istorik i sot︠s︡iologii︠a︡. Leningrad: Izdatelʹstvo “Nauka”, Leningradskoe otdelenie.

Mironov, Boris. n.d. “The Russian Peasant Commune after the Reforms of the 1860s.” Slavic Review 44 (3): 438–67.

Mironov, B.N. 1999. Sot︠s︡ialʹnai︠a︡ istorii︠a︡ Rossii perioda imperii–XVIII-nachalo XX v. : genezis lichnosti, demokraticheskoĭ semʹi, grazhdanskogo obshchestva i pravovogo gosudarstva. S.-Peterburg: D. Bulanin.

Mironov, Boris Nikolaevich, and Ben Eklof. n.d. A Social History of Imperial Russia, 1700-1917. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Zelnik, Reginald E. 2001. “Book Review: Sotsial’naia Istoriia Rossii Perioda Imperii (XVIII-Nachalo XX v.): Genezis Lichnosti, Demokraticheskoi Sem’i, Grazhdanskogo Obshchestva I Pravovogo Gosudarstva [A Social History of Russia (Eighteenth to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century): The Origin of Individualism, the Democratic Family, Civil Society, and Law-Governed State].” The American Historical Review 106 (5): 1903–4.

Reginald Zelnik’s review captures the complexity and depth of Mironov’s scholarly work. Summarizing such a rich and extensive study is challenging, but a central thread in Mironov’s narrative appears to be this: Russia was, at least potentially, a “normal” European country, though one with significant peculiarities. These included what is often described as the relative backwardness of its economic, social, and political development. According to Mironov, Russia experienced all the key developments in these areas, but they evolved in an “asynchronous” (asinkhronnye) manner. Russia’s peculiarities, while familiar to specialists, are not presented as virtues in the Slavophile sense but rather as obstacles to achieving broad and balanced social modernization—an outcome Mironov clearly values.

Mironov argues that these obstacles could have been overcome with time and carefully traces the sometimes tortuous but rapid processes suggesting that Russia was indeed making genuine progress, albeit incompletely, on the eve of World War I and the revolution. However, he is too honest a historian to ignore the contradictory, more pessimistic evidence of incomplete modernization, continued social tension, and a deepening political crisis. His discussion of the civilizing of the Russian village versus the partial “peasantization” of the Russian city is a case in point, with entire paragraphs seemingly taking opposing positions, leaving the reader with conflicting moods and expectations as they progress through the text.

In the ongoing debate over the influence of a close peasant background on the social and political volatility of industrial workers—a debate that, while somewhat dated, remains significant—Mironov judiciously presents both sides. Ultimately, he leans toward a neo-Menshevik position, suggesting that the peasant disregard for private, individual wealth, and their attachment to collectivist institutions and habits, contributed to the rapid rise of working-class radicalism and indifference to market-based liberalism in the early twentieth century.

For these reasons and more, Mironov’s strong case for Russia’s evolution toward a “normal” European form of social and political life is tempered by an equally strong, if at times reluctant, acknowledgment of significant evidence to the contrary. If, as Mironov concludes, the October Revolution was in some respects an “anti-modernist” rebellion, then the popular resistance to the Europeanizing processes he values weakens the argument for the imminent advent of “normality.” © Professor Kimball

Von Mohrenschildt, Dmitri

von Mohrenschildt, Dimitri. 1978. “Shchapov: Exponent of Regionalism and the Federal School in Russian History.” The Russian Review37 (4): 387–404.

*1981:Rutherford, Farleigh Dickinson UP|>MTU|Toward a United States of Russia: Plans and Projects of Federal Reconstruction of Russia in the Nineteenth Century| ((USA2.cst fdr plt.clt lbx))

Von Mohrenschildt, Dimitri Sergius. 1981. Toward a United States of Russia : Plans and Projects of Federal Reconstruction of Russia in the Nineteenth Century. Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. https://search.worldcat.org/en/title/6862264

Moorehead, Alan

Moorehead, Alan. 1956. Gallipoli. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.

Moyer, Laurence

Moyer, Laurence. 1995. Victory Must Be Ours: Germany in the Great War, 1914-1918. New York: Hippocrene Books.

Munck, Jørgen Larsen

Munck, Jørgen Larsen, and Lavr Georgievich Kornilov. 1987. The Kornilov Revolt: A Critical Examination of Sources and Research. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.

Nechkina, Militsa Vasilyevna, editor

Institut istorii (Akademii︠a︡ nauk SSSR). 1953. Russia in the Nineteenth Century. Edited by M. V. Nechkina.

Nekrich, Aleksandr Moiseyevich

Nekrich, A. M., and Vladimir Petrov. 1968. “June 22, 1941”: Soviet Historians and the German Invasion. 1st ed. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Nekrich, A. M. 1979. Otreshisʹ ot strakha: vospominanii︠a︡ istorika. London: Overseas publications interchange LTD.

Nekrich, A. M. 1978. The Punished Peoples: The Deportation and Fate of Soviet Minorities at the End of the Second World War. Translated by George Saunders. 1st ed. New York: Norton.

Geller, Mikhail, and A. M. Nekrich. 1986. Utopia in Power: The History of the Soviet Union from 1917 to the Present. New York: Summit Books.

Nekrich, A. M., Adam B. Ulam, Harvard University, and National Council for Soviet and East European Research (U.S.). 1990. Restructuring the Soviet Past : The Politics of History under Gorbachev : Final Report to National Council for Soviet and East European Research. Washington, D.C.: The Council.

Neuberger, Joan

Neuberger, Joan. 1993. Hooliganism: Crime, Culture, and Power in St. Petersburg, 1900-1914. Berkeley: University of Calif. Press.

Neuberger, Joan. 1994. “Culture Besieged: Hooliganism and Futurism.” In Cultures in Flux : Lower-Class Values, Practices, and Resistance in Late Imperial Russia, edited by Stephen Frank, and Mark D. Steinberg, 185-204. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Nichols, Robert L., and Theofanis G. Stavrou, editors

Nichols, Robert L., Σταύρου, Θεοφάνης Γ., and Theofanis G. Stavrou, eds. 1978. Russian Orthodoxy under the Old Regime. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Nochlin, Linda

Nochlin, Linda. 1989. The Politics of Vision: Essays on Nineteenth-Century Art and Society. 1st ed. New York: Harper & Row.

Nove, Alec

Nove, Alec. 1986. Marxism and “Really Existing Socialism.” Chur, Switzerland: Harwood Academic Publishers.

Obolonskii, Aleksandr Valentin

Obolonskiĭ, A. V. 1987. Chelovek i gosudarstvennoe upravlenie. Moskva: “Nauka”.

Obolonskiĭ, A. V. 1994. Drama rossiĭskoĭ politicheskoĭ istorii : sistema protiv lichnosti. Moskva: In-t gosudarstva i prava.

Obolonskiĭ, A. V. 2003. The Drama of Russian Political History: System against Individuality. 1st ed. College Station: Texas A & M University Press.

Odom, William E. and Robert Dujarrie

Odom, William E., and Robert Dujarric. 1995. Commonwealth or Empire?: Russia, Central Asia, and the Transcaucasus. Indianapolis: Hudson Institute.

Otte, Thomas

Otte, Thomas G. 2014. July Crisis: The World’s Descent into War, Summer 1914. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Owen, Thomas C.

Owen, Thomas C. 1975. “The Moscow Merchants and the Public Press, ,1858-1868.” In Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, vol. 23, no. 1, 26-38.

Owen, Thomas C. 1981. Capitalism and Politics in Russia: A Social History of the Moscow Merchants, 1855-1905. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press.

STUDENT REVIEW #1 = The prestige of the merchants and manufacturers in Russia steadily grew in the late 19th and early 20th century despite an economy heavily depended on its agriculture. To understand the growth of the industrial elite from the traditional agrarian state, I chose to read Thomas C. Owen’s Capitalism and Politics in Russia. To sum up the overall economic picture prior to 1858, out of a total population of 62 million persons, only 6 to 10 percent comprised of merchants (Owen 2). Yet, in the mid 19th century, a transformation began with the leading merchant families as economic education progressed throughout the generations. To better break down the evolution, Owen’s breaks down the progress into three stages: from the first traditional merchants, to capital merchants and finally after the Revolution of 1905, a class-conscious bourgeoisie.

The traditional merchants struggle in the early 19th century was ultimately a result of lack of education. Unlike the West at this time, the Russian merchants shunned both commercial education and modern management techniques. The furthest point of education was said to end at the book of Psalms. As a result, business practices were backwards, unethical and simply idiotic. Owen’s reported that they kept their business numbers in their heads without any system of bookkeeping. The traditional merchant society as a whole struggled in the early 19th century. In the end, it took a rude awakening for any progress to be made.

The next transformation, to capital merchants occurred in 1854 as the British and the French invaded the Crimea, part of the Russian homeland. The Russians found their fleet of sailing ships to be no match for the British and French steam-powered gunboats. On top of this, Russians lack of railroad to the Crimea prevented any reinforcements from reaching the battlefront (Owen 30). The disastrous war opened the eyes of the merchant elites and it became clear that change was needed. As a result, Russia turned to the Slavophile intellectuals with the goal to modernize Russia’s backwards economy (Owen 43). Following the war, commercial, financial, light industrial and transportation enterprises flourished with governmental aid (Owen 53). As the economy began to improve, the merchants began to wish for their economic independence from the state. However, for their continued prosperity, the merchants increasingly grew dependent on the state because of the protective tariff, financial support for corporations and banks, and subsidies for shipping companies and railroads (Owen 69). Yet, the drive towards self-sufficiency continued while the state’s policies began to shift in the merchants favor.

By turn of the 20th century economic progress continued to prosper due to the states continued support of the railroad systems and increased tariffs. For the first time, merchant children were born into as high of a pedigree as the nobles (Owen 139). However, as the industries capitalized on the success built off the state, trouble began to arise. Issues over labor rights became a hot topic as strikes turned violent throughout many factories across all of Russia. On top of this, by 1904, merchant leaders occupied positions all along the political spectrum across the state government. Success arose because of the state, but new ideology began shifting the playing field.

The beginning of 1905 began fiery times. On January 9, 1905 innocent workers were shot down at a peaceful protest outside of a factory in St. Petersburg. As a result of the fatal shootings, famously known as “Bloody Sunday”, erupted political movement among the merchant elite. The autocratic state did help the merchants rise to power, but at the same time, they felt the states’ tight control was holding them back. Change was near as the liberal elite, all the way to the radical elite, allied together to rid the obstacle of the Russian state towards economic and social progress. The solution outlined was to create a constitutional monarch led by a legislative Duma to ultimately overrule the supreme power. The Tsar was pushed against the wall. As a result, Sergei Witte wrote the October Manifesto to destroy the united opposition by promising a new order based on full civil freedoms (of speech, press, religion, assembly, association, and personal inviolability, universal suffrage, and a Duma with the power to approve or reject legislation and to supervise the bureaucracy (Owen 191). Tsar Nicholas II quickly signed the manifesto. Violent revolution was averted.

Lives were saved as a result of the manifesto. The united politicians were overcome with joy. Owen’s claimed older members in the Duma broke down in tears when they heard the news (Owen 192). The majority of the population believed in the new system as the right step needed towards a progressive, successful future. At first the industrialists targeted to overthrow the Tsar, in the end though, it was they who salvaged his power and his life.

The Revolution of 1905 brought together the generation of merchant leaders, as Owen’s calls as a new “mature, class-conscious bourgeoisie” (Owen 206). However, the bourgeoisie knew their struggle was not over because of the dominant economy of Western Europe. The merchants still had to rely on the state to protect their own markets by the use of tariffs and the continued aid of the developing railroads. It is true they did not become completely independent. However, in the end the merchant elite came together and gained the rights that were needed to prosper into the 20th century.

STUDENT REVIEW #2 =
The merchant class of Russia developed into a class with a bit of political influence. The rise of the merchant class, as well as their influence, acted as a catalyst for many political as well as social struggles within Russia in the period before and during 1905.

Before 1855, the Merchant class of Russia was based upon a system of patriarchal business tradition. The heads of merchant families conducted day to day business based on person to person relationships rather than practical commercial transactions. These men were the head of the family, which meant they had the last say in every matter that had to do with business or the family. Their educational background was based upon Orthodox religion rather than business or commercial practices. An obligation to run for public service and the potential to lose one’s trade license due to unpaid guild fees, discouraged the early merchant class from breaking with traditional business practices, which retarded the estate’s growth. However, a healthy backing and promise of protection from the Russian government helped the Russian merchants not fall to the competition of the European markets.

In 1855 this all began to change. The old, traditional, patriarchal merchant class gave way to the sons of that generation who began to take over the head of the household. These new merchants were better educated, more savvy in the ways of business, and did not hold as true to the distrust of Western commercial technology. This catapulted the Russian merchants into a period of growth and innovation. Over the next 40 years, economic growth continued and the merchant class only grew stronger politically as the government realized that it needed to heed the merchants’ demands, since their economic growth was essential to national power. Signs of an emerging bourgeois were apparent. Merchants were becoming increasingly critical in Russian society because of the money they controlled. They would never become as powerful as the Western bourgeoisies, mainly because of their numbers, but nevertheless had vast wealth.

The increase in industry and economy led to the emergence of a social class new to Russia, the paid laborer. Disputes arose between the lower classes and their employers and soon political lines were drawn. The merchants largely wished to rely on the repressive might of the government to put down disturbances, whereas the liberals were willing to cede concessions to the workers. These struggles and calls for social reform would continue all the way into the early 1900’s and would dominate Russian political culture for 50 years.

“Capitalism and Politics in Russia” was an eloquent portrayal of the rise and development of the merchant class as a social and political force in the mid and late 19^th century. Owen concentrates on the process of change the merchants go through from before 1855 into the early 20^th century, but he also dedicates much of the book to the development of the political ideology within the merchant class and its effects on Russia and her social classes.

Owen, Thomas C. 1995. Russian Corporate Capitalism from Peter the Great to Perestroika. New York: Oxford University Press.

Petro, Nicolai N.

Petro, Nicolai N. 1990. “Russian Nationalism: Toward a New Russian Federation.” The Wilson Quarterly (1976-) 14 (3): 114–22.

Petro, Nicolai N. 1995. The Rebirth of Russian Democracy: An Interpretation of Political Culture. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Peunova, Marina

Peunova, Marina. 2008. “From Dissidents to Collaborators: The Resurgence and Demise of the Russian Critical Intelligentsia since 1985.” Studies in East European Thought 60 (3): 231–50.

Peunova, Marina. 2008. “An Eastern Incarnation of the European New Right: Aleksandr Panarin and New Eurasianist Discourse in Contemporary Russia.” Journal of Contemporary European Studies 16 (3): 407–19.

Pipes, Richard

Pipes, Richard. 1968. The Formation of the Soviet Union: Communism and Nationalism, 1917-1923. Revised edition. New York: Atheneum.

Pipes, Richard. n.d. “Max Weber and Russia.” World Politics 7 (3): 371–401.

Pipes, Richard. 1960. “Russian Marxism and Its Populist Background: The Late Nineteenth Century.” The Russian Review 19 (4): 316–37.

Pipes, Richard. 1963. Social Democracy and the St. Petersburg Labor Movement, 1885-1897. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Pipes, Richard. 1964. “Narodnichestvo: A Semantic Inquiry.” Slavic Review 23 (3): 441–58.

Pipes, Richard. 1968. “The Origins of Bolshevism: The Intellectual Evolution of Young Lenin.” In Revolutionary Russia, edited by Richard Pipes, 26-62. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Pipes, Richard. 1970. Struve: Liberal on the Left, 1870-1905. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Pipes, Richard. 1980. Struve: Liberal on the Right, 1905-1944. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Pipes, Richard. 1981. U.S.-Soviet Relations in the Era of déTente. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Pipes, Richard. 2005. Russian Conservatism and Its Critics: A Study in Political Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press.

STUDENT REVIEW =
This piece was published shortly after Russian Political Scholar Richard Pipes delivered his lectures to an audience at Harvard University. This particular publishing touches on the inevitable tension and reality that was conservatism in Russian Political Culture. Pipes is credited to being one of the main scholars that focuses on this notion of conservatism. And it is important to remember that during the time of the mid-nineteenth century, Russia’s Political scheme (and social structure) was influenced and ultimately defined by this sense of Conservatism among the state.

At the beginning of his lectures, Pipes clearly explains to his audience the definition of “Russian Conservatism,” as contrasted to other familiar worldwide definitions. Where the US state defines conservatism as “applying less government” into the political agenda, the Russian culture during the mid-nineteenth century saw conservatism as applying “more government” into the political scheme. This is the focal point that we must remember when studying the big picture behind Russian political culture leading up to the 1905 and 1917 revolutionary eras.

However, throughout his lectures Pipes jumps to many points that are seemingly supposed to defend this point of Russian conservatism. This makes the lectures hard to follow, read, and draw together for our own understanding. Throughout his lectures, Pipes discusses the role of the individual state powers (including Alexander II), the church, and even the rural classes in response to the increasing autocratic government. This proves as a flaw in his presentation because it makes it increasingly harder to point out the significant points that proved Russian political culture to be what it was. If there were anything that could be rendered in the publication, it would have to be organization. Although, in a lecture setting it would be difficult to organize it in an ideal manner so we must work with what we have.

With every main argument there is a root or theme that ties the whole effort together. And so when studying the big picture behind Russian Political Culture, it is imperative to ask ourselves, “What is the main point we must reference back to when painting the giant picture?” Pipes states this point that Russian conservatism is clearly marked by the increase in government policies in the land. This ultimately led several outbreaks in the rural classes including the rise of the intelligentsia, Litfond, Literary societies, and the Primary Education advocacy groups. And so, Pipes’ lectures serve the purpose of providing us with a landmark of where we can draw back on when explaining the big picture behind Russian Political Culture.

Pisotkin, Mikhail Ivanovich

Piskotin, M.I. 1988. Sot︠s︡ializm i gosudarstvennoe upravlenie: uroki istorii i perestroĭka, otvetstvennyĭ redaktor B.M. Lazarev. 2-e izd. Moskva: “Nauka”.

Poe, Marshall

Poe, Marshall. 2003. The Russian Moment in World History. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Pomper, Philip

Pomper, Philip. 1986. The Russian Revolutionary Intelligentsia. Arlington Heights, Ill.: H. Davidson.

Pomper, Philip. 1972. Peter Lavrov and the Russian Revolutionary Movement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pomper, Philip. 1979. Sergei Nechaev. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Pomper, Philip. 1990. Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin: The Intelligentsia and Power. New York: Columbia University Press.

Porter, Thomas Earl

Porter, Thomas Earl. 1991. The Zemstvo and the Emergence of Civil Society in Late Imperial Russia, 1864-1917. San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press.

Pospielovsky, Dimitry

Pospielovsky, Dimitry, and Leonard Schapiro. 1971. Russian Police Trade Unionism: Experiment or Provocation? London: Weidenfield and Nicolson.

Pospielovsky, Dimitry. 1984. The Russian Church under the Soviet Regime, 1917-1982. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Putnam, George

Putnam, George. 1965. “Russian Liberalism Challenged from Within: Bulgakov and Berdyayev in 1904-5.” The Slavonic and East European Review 43 (101): 335–53.

Putnam, George F. 1977. Russian Alternatives to Marxism: Christian Socialism and Idealistic Liberalism in Twentieth-Century Russia. 1st ed. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Radkey, Oliver H.

Radkey, Oliver H. 1976. The Unknown Civil War in Soviet Russia: A Study of the Green Movement in the Tambov Region, 1920-1921. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University.

Raeff, Marc

Raeff, Marc. 1952. “A Reactionary Liberal: M. N. Katkov.” The Russian Review 11 (3): 157–67.

Raeff, Marc. 1959. “Some Reflections on Russian Liberalism.” The Russian Review 18 (3): 218–30.

Raeff, Marc. 1971. Imperial Russia 1682-1825; the Coming of Age of Modern Russia. [1st ed.]. New York: Knopf.

Raeff, Marc. 1979. “The Bureaucratic Phenomena of Imperial Russia, 1700-1905.” The American Historical Review 84 (2): 399–411.

Raeff, Marc. 1984. Understanding Imperial Russia: State and Society in the Old Regime. New York: Columbia University Press.

Raeff, Marc. 1990. Russia Abroad: A Cultural History of the Russian Emigration, 1919-1939. New York: Oxford University Press.

Raeff, Marc. 1993. “The People, the Intelligentsia and Russian Political Culture.” Political Studies 41: 93–106.

Raeff, Marc. 1994. Political Ideas and Institutions in Imperial Russia. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Raeff, Marc. Marc Raeff papers, 1941-2008. In The Bakhmeteff Archive, Columbia University.

Raleigh, Donald J.

Raleigh, Donald J. 1986. Revolution on the Volga: 1917 in Saratov. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Read, Christopher

Read, Christopher. 1979. Religion, Revolution, and the Russian Intelligentsia, 1900-1912: The Vekhi Debate and Its Intellectual Background. Totowa, N.J.: Barnes & Noble.

STUDENT REVIEW =
The Russian intelligentsia of the late 19^th and early 20^th c centuries was a circle within the educated classes that was committed to creative work, critical thought and the addressing the conditions of the oppressed classes. By the 1890s, the majority of the intelligentsia had moved from populism to Marxism and had adopted a revolutionary stance which included atheism, socialism and within the Kadet Party, constitutionalism. There had been a euphoric response to the revolution of 1905 and the resulting October Manifesto but that response gave way to despair with the autocratic crack down in 1906. The intelligentsia was at a crossroads. No one accepted the status quo of the autocratic state and all were agreed in the goals of social justice but the intelligentsia was split over the tactics to accomplish the transformation of society. The Vekhi essays challenged the religious and philosophical presuppositions of the intelligentsia.

Vekhi (Landmarks) was a small book comprised of seven essays written by previous Marxists who were critical of revolutionary solutions. The writers were: Berdyaev, Frank, Bulgakov, Izgoev, Kistyakovsky, Struve and Gershenzon. Read insists that this was not a conservative book but was often treated as one. The writers attempted to persuade the intelligentsia to re-examine their uncritical faith in the ability of socialism to transform society by changing social structures and institutions. Each writer, in his own way, proposed spiritual change (the individual’s inner life) as the source of revolutionary transformation of society. Most of the writers argued that Marxism was a religious position; the worship of the people, the saving of the people and ultimately (messianic qualities) the perfectibility of the people. This notion was called mangodhood or godbuilders. Vekhi insisted that this ideology of the intelligentsia was as religious, dogmatic, intolerant and fanatical as Orthodoxy. The Vekhi writers can be separated into three groups: the new religious consciousness, Kadet Party, and despisers of the revolutionary underground.

In the first years, Vekhi sparked interest from liberals and socialist. The interest was almost entirely negative. Discussion groups packed meeting halls throughout Russia. Lenin used Vekhi for propaganda purposes. He connected Vekhi with the Kadet Party and accused them of counter revolutionary liberalism which only served the interest of the status quo. By 1910 the interest in Vekhi had waned. Many historians see Vekhi as an attempt to raise the political dialogue and construct an authentic political response to the times; one that acknowledged the religious quality of the Russian people and addressed the class oppression.

There is a great deal of detail in this account. Read describes the various groups in the new religious consciousness. He goes into a lot of detail in his discussion of Berdyaev and Bogdanov and their concept of Godmanhood. He is able to demonstrate the ability Lenin had to keep the party focused and disciplined while being attacked from both the right and the left. Anyone interested in the political thinking of artists in this time period will enjoy reading excerpts from Gorky, Minsky and Merezhkovsky (pp.121-140.)

Read, Christopher. 1990. Culture and Power in Revolutionary Russia: The Intelligentsia and the Transition from Tsarism to Communism. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan.

Read, Christopher. 2002. “In Search of Liberal Tsarism: The Historiography of Autocratic Decline.” The Historical Journal 45 (1): 195–210.

Reichman, Henry

Reichman, Henry. 1987. Railwaymen and Revolution: Russia, 1905. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Reshetar, John Stephen, Junior

Reshetar, John Stephen. 1952. The Ukrainian Revolution, 1917-1920: A Study in Nationalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Reznikov, A.

Reznikov, A. B., and R. A. Ulʹi︠a︡novskiĭ. 1984. The Comintern and the East: Strategy and Tactics in the National Liberation Movement. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Riasanovsky, Nicholas

Riasanovsky, Nicholas V. 1976. A Parting of Ways: Government and the Educated Public in Russia, 1801-1855. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

STUDENT REVIEW =
The early 19th Century is a time period when Nicholas Riasanovsky sees the first signs of divide in the relationship and discourse between Russia’s autocratic government and the nation’s intellectual elites that eventually fed the climate of upheaval and revolution that characterized much of Russia’s 19th and early 20th century political culture. In A Parting of Ways, Riasanovsky traces the origins of this split beginning from the Petrine reforms of the early 18th century when Peter the Great’s westernizing reforms signaled to Riasanovsky the beginnings of modern Russian educated opinion. This period also represented the beginning of enlightened despotism in Russia as tsarist rule became influenced by the European enlightenment and was closely aligned with the growth of the intellectual gentry as both groups shared common progressive goals and outlooks. Being a part of this educated class meant being aware of European ideas and systems and represented only a small fraction of Russian society as both the merchant and peasant classes were excluded from this characteristically aristocratic group.

With the second wave of enlightenment, that occurred in 1801 with the ascension of Alexander I to tsar, hints and promises of serf reform and most importantly a Constitution further increased expectations among the educated gentry. However, Riasanovsky notes the initial rift in the relationship between the government and educated public occurred during the second half of tsar Alexander’s rule as his initial hints at major reforms failed to come to fruition as the ideology of enlightened despotism increasingly became reactionary. This initial rift caused by the inaction to live up to the anticipated reforms was highlighted by the Decembrist societies, whose members were culturally educated leaders of elite military regiments [mlt] who radically responded with revolting force in response to the failed promises of constitutionalism that ultimately resulted in the disastrous 1825 Decembrist revolt. The mutual alignment in the relationship and aspirations between the two sides that characterized the period of enlightened despotism, soon gave rise to subsequent alienation, as reaction and restoration became the official ideology.

Riasanovsky denotes much of his analysis to the reign of tsar Nicholas I whose conservative rule of reaction and restoration further split the discourse and sense of allegiance between the government and the educated public. Nicholas’s rule was termed Official Ideology as emphasis was placed on restoring the three principles of religion, authority, and tradition in efforts to quiet the intellectual segment of Russian society. The policies of Official Ideology under Nicholas’s rule represented an important theme in Riasanovsky’s examination as he highlights the intensive steps token by the Russian autocracy to reassert dominant control over Russian society. Revolutionary events throughout Europe and the 1825 Decembrist Revolt contributed to Nicholas’s desire to restore the divine and unalienable appearance of the autocracy. Among the steps of restoration noted by Riasanovsky included the controlled curriculum in schools that were taught to the tsar’s specifications and education was advised not to exceed one’s social position. Additionally, the Official Nationality ranked the Russian public in order as Christians, loyal subjects, and Russians, reasserting the autocracy’s control over Russian society as well as loyalty to the tsar.

However, the conservative policies of Official Ideology further fueled the alienation of the educated gentry as Riasanovsky notes a changing ideology among the group. Detachment from western European culture and ideas, growing concerns over the system of serfdom serving as the center of the Russian economic system, and a growing university and journalistic system that inspired and spread added criticisms toward the government were among the new concerns of the educated elites that estranged them from the government. Romanticism is also an important ideology that took prevalence in the educated gentry discord as early ideology from the Age of Reason were replaced by romanticism goals that spoke to people’s hopes and became a driving force in calls for revolution and change.

The inaction and policies of restoration on the half of the autocracy and the changing ideology of the educated gentry are reasons cited by Riasanovsky for the severing in the discourse and alignment between the two sides that had existed from the time of the Petrine reforms until the second half of Alexander’s rule. Riasanovsky thus provides the outline and reasoning for the initial rift between the influential Russian educated gentry and the government.

Rice, Christopher

Rice, Christopher. 1988. Russian Workers and the Socialist-Revolutionary Party through the Revolution of 1905-07. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Richardson, Paul E., editor

Richardson, Paul E. 2011. The Best of Russian Life: Fine Readings from Two Decades. Montpelier, VT: Russian Life Books.

Rigby, T. H.

Rigby, T. H. 1979. Lenin’s Government: Sovnarkom 1917-1922. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Riha, Thomas

Riha, Thomas. 1969. A Russian European: Paul Miliukov in Russian Politics. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

STUDENT REVIEW =
This biographical piece serves as a chronicle of the life of prominent political moderate and founder of the Kadet party, Pavel (Paul) Miliukov. Riha allows his readers to glean insight on Miliukov’s career by having his audience view him as a dynamic and complex figure. As the reader comes to know Miliukov in this work, two men emerge: Miliukov the Historian, and Miliukov the Politician. Miliukov’s identity as a Russian European – after the 1917 revolution – is here realized as an amalgamation of his academic and political character.

The beginning of Miliukov’s political career ostensibly began while he attended Moscow University. During that period of time he became chairman of the student court, and found a journalistic home in the periodical Russkaia Mysl. While at the University he also wrote a well received piece (his dissertation) on Peter the Great and the ways in which he came to be Europeanized. He later transitioned into the wider realm of Russian politics whereupon he came to be viewed as a figure of restraint, caution and compromise. He ultimately comes to be viewed by Riha as a politician of moderate tendencies who ‘flip-flops’ between allegiances that best tend to suit his liberal intentions during the periods of (and in between) revolution.

Riha divides Miliukov’s political life into three phases: “the revolution of 1905-7, the decade following, and the year 1917” (Riha 333). His began his career looking for ways to remedy domestic problems within Russia and then, when the problems he sought to rectify (e.g. the implementation of a constitution that allowed co-operation between the monarch and a legislative assembly elected under restricted suffrage) turn to naught, he began to look toward issues involving foreign policy. He developed pacifistic views regarding aforementioned policy, but these views proved to work to his detriment politically by the year of 1917. During the period of the Balkan Wars, Miliukov’s leftist foreign sentiment began to gravitate to a more right-wing belligerency, as he came to favor the war. Some interesting questions here were raised in the text: was Miliukov a hypocrite in this respect? Where did his interests lie?

As it seems evident in Rhia’s work, Miliukov’s factional allegiance ultimately lied with his liberally inclined group, the Kadets, but he and the Kadets had a fickle tendency to shift their perspective along the political spectrum as moderates. As Miliukov was a moderate at heart, when the Duma would come to view an issue from an overtly right-wing or, alternatively, revolutionary standpoint, he would often promote a stance that would try to remedy/moderate the right or left-wing excess. Miliukov stated himself: “[o]ne of the common phenomena of these revolutions is the successive passage of power from the hands of the moderate factions to those of others, with more extreme ideas” (Riha 327). Part and parcel of Miliukov’s job as a politician (and the Kadets’ job as a political force) was to attempt reconcile all of the fractional chaos present during and between times of revolution. As they could not lead because of their impartiality, Riha states, “[c]aught in the middle the Kadets could at best mediate” (Riha 337). So at the time of their disbandment, the legacy they (and Miliukov) left behind was one that both attempted to counter the revolution and extremism; their purpose was to democratize (Europeanize?) Russia using mutual agreement as a precept. A Russian European is a work that looks at a history of factionalism and also, of failure, both realized and reconciled through an important look at the self proclaimed rationalist Pavel Miliukov.

Roberts, Richard

Roberts, Richard. 2013. Saving the City: The Great Financial Crisis of 1914. First edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Robinson, Geroid Tanquary

Robinson, Geroid Tanquary, and William A. Dunning Fund. 1932. Rural Russia under the Old RéGime. London: Longmans, Green and Co.

STUDENT REVIEW =
Robinson begins the history of the Russian peasant situation in the 16th century. At this point in time serfdom was rearing its head as a result of increasing numbers of people being bound to the land in some way or another. Omitting the vast amount of details Robinson includes up to the end of the 18th century that have no relevance to our time period of focus, I started summarizing the book where the author describes the peasant conditions of the early 19th century. Landowners were allowed to make serfs work three days a week except Sunday and holidays according to the recent work week law passed by the government. Around this time period the redistribution of lands to communes begins “a manifestation of collectivism,” in Robinson’s view. By the middle of the century serfs were seen as a necessary element in order to keep the land producing. This caused an interesting phenomenon that is noted in the time period from 1854-59. The sale of lands with serfs greatly exceeds those of lands without serfs. At this point politicians and Russian national leaders (and even some serfs who were catching on) are beginning to see the balance of leverage shift towards the peasantry. Seeing the writing on the wall, Tsar Alexander II, proclaims in 1856 that “It were better that emancipation come from the top as opposed to the bottom.” The ramifications and implications of this statement are somewhat straight forward. The peasant force was being viewed as a group that was going inevitably to receive concessions from their oppressive brothers. In 1861 the peasants are emancipated, but this does not necessarily mean that there quality of living changed as a group. Other things did change though. A good example of this is their participation in the national and local governments. Because of economic disparities and hierarchies within the local governments there begins to be some degree of separation within the peasant class. Some could argue that emancipation also caused a large enough group to come together in order to allow the possibility of several factions. Despite this, and who is to say it is necessarily a bad thing, the peasants begin forming Volosts, which are the heads of groups of communities in the same regional volost. The leaders from the volosts would represent the peasants in the Zemstvos which were institutions put in place by the Tsar. Between 1861 and 1905 the peasantry undergoes many social and political changes. At this point in the book (Ch 5, 6, 7) Robinson is basically saying they became more proactive in their own political interests and organized along social lines. During this forty-five year time period the peasant bloc is experiencing resistance from the nobility and the Tsar. In fact it is more complicated than that. The Tsar and the nobility are more or less struggling to gain the support of the peasantry against the other. This creates a three way interaction between the groups. Also in regard to some legislation the Tsar and the Duma or earlier, the nobility, team up to pass various reactionary laws in order to slow the collection of power by the peasants. These included economic as well as political maneuvers. This is a gross oversimplification of this topic, but Robinson does a good job with the material.

One other very large concept or movement that Robinson dissected was the Agrarian movement. He argues that some historians believe that the revolution of 1905 was a continuance of the grievances of 1902 that spilled over into later years and was never really solved one way or (politically speaking) the other, until 1917. The basic and fundamental cause was a lack of grain or food. Unfortunately this caused the peasants to react violently. During times like these (when the peasants forcibly took control of manor houses and massacred the families) the government would attempt to give concessions or placate the peasantry, but the main problem with this strategy was that could not determine what would3 please them as a whole without giving them the whole country. By and large the peasants wanted more land. This does not mean that giving some peasants land made other peasants complacent. In fact in some instances more problems arose from peasants feeling that as members of the same class the government could not treat them differently. This is where the concept of communism comes into historical orbit. Robinson indirectly questions whether the communes’ organization and establishment decades previous had anything to do with this idea of one class.

Robinson conveys his belief that there are two critical time periods that contributed to social and political of the peasantry. The first is from 1861-1905 and the second is from 1905-1917. When I first read this I sort of thought it should just be one time period considering its chronological position in time, but after I read more Robinson states multiple reasons why these two time periods are different and without the first one the second would never have materialized. Without the social organizations from the 1860’s and 70’s the turn of the century political parties of the peasants would not have existed. Another major change was the communication between the various classes and authorities. This allowed the Bolsheviks to ally with the peasants the correct government agencies in order to survive the revolution.

Roeder, Philip G.

Roeder, Philip G. 1991. “Soviet Federalism and Ethnic Mobilization.” World Politics 43 (2): 196–232.

Roeder, Philip G. 1993. Red Sunset: The Failure of Soviet Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Rogger, Hans

Rogger, Hans. 1964. “The Formation of the Russian Right, 1900-1906.” In California Slavic Studies, no. 3, 66-94.

Rogger, Hans. 1964. “Was There a Russian Fascism? the Union of Russian People.” The Journal of Modern History 36 (4): 398–415.

Rogger, Hans. 1966. “Reflections on Russian Conservatism: 1861-1905.” Jahrbücher Für Geschichte Osteuropas 14 (2): 195–212.

Rogger, Hans. n.d. “The Beilis Case: Anti-Semitism and Politics in the Reign of Nicholas II.” Slavic Review 25 (4): 615–29.

Rogger, Hans. 1975. “Russian Ministers and the Jewish Question, 1881-1917.” In California Slavic Studies, no. 8, 15-76.

Rogger, Hans. 1976. “Government, Jews, Peasants, and Land in Post-Emancipation Russia: Two Specters: Peasant Violence and Jewish Exploitation.” Cahiers Du Monde Russe et Soviétique 17 (2-3): 171–211.

Rogger, Hans. 1983. Russia in the Age of Modernisation and Revolution, 1881-1917. London: Longman.

Roosa, Ruth Amende

Roosa, Ruth Amende. 1963. “Russian Industrialists Look to the Future: Thoughts on Economic Development, 1906-17.” In Essays in Russian and Soviet History, edited by John Shelton Curtiss, 198-218. New York: Columbia University Press.

ROOSA, RUTH AMENDE. 1975. “Russian Industrialists, Politics, and Labor Reform in 1905.” Russian History 2 (2): 124–48.

Roosa, Ruth A., and Thomas C. Owen. 1997. Russian Industrialists in an Era of Revolution : The Association of Industry and Trade, 1906-1917. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.

Roosevelt, Priscilla

Roosevelt, P. R., and William Craft Brumfield. 1995. Life on the Russian Country Estate: A Social and Cultural History. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Root, Hilton L.

Root, Hilton L. 1987. Peasants and King in Burgundy: Agrarian Foundations of French Absolutism. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Roslof, Edward E.

Roslof, Edward E. 2002. Red Priests: Renovationism, Russian Orthodoxy, and Revolution, 1905-1946. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

STUDENT REVIEW =

The book […] discusses the changing politics and climate of the Russian Orthodox Church and the surrounding Russian political scene during the Russian revolutions of 1917. The Russian Orthodox Church entered into the twentieth century seeking to evolve and therefore sever its bonds with the state. Some church members felt that the Russian Orthodox Church was “a mere governmental ministry for religious affairs” and who therefore “equated the loss of ecclesiastical sovereignty with the spiritual decay they perceived in their nation” (p 3). Furthermore they believed that “restoring the church’s sovereignty was indispensable for Russia’s spiritual revitalization” (p 3). This early push for reform that […] illustrates a clear desire by some in the Church to break away from pre-established norms which are themes that reverberate during the Russian revolution.

The Russian Revolution swept in new ideas on religion and its place in society. The vanguard of the revolution, Lenin, stated that while he believed that the Church should be separate from the state so “that everyone shall have the full and unrestricted right not only to profess whatever religion he pleases, but also to spread or change his religion” (p 17), he also believed in religion’s inherent weakness to logic, reason and science. Lenin therefore desired to “fight religious fog using only ideas and ideological weapons, namely our press and our words” and under this pressure [his party] believed that “religion in Russia would rapidly wither away” (p 17). However, this was not the case and the Russian Orthodox Church did in fact continue to survive after the Bolshevik rise to power in October of 1917. The Church’s resistance to the state proved that more volatile measures were necessary in order to weaken the Church’s power and influence. The new programs that were then instituted by the Bolshevik government challenged the Church by stripping it of its wealth, and as we will see the Church was not able to sustain itself through the eventual stalemate with the Bolshevik party and was completely helpless in halting the changes that the Bolsheviks ushered in.

One of the immediate impacts that the revolution had on the Church was that “the government began to expropriate church property” often “ignoring the fact that these institutions served the surrounding communities” (p 22-3). The nationalization of the Church’s assets meant that the parish clergy “were totally dependent on their parishioners for support” and it also served to eliminate “all sources of independent funds for the hierarchy” (p 23). During a famine in 1922 the Russian state’s desire to strip the Church of its wealth reached a crescendo. The desire to marginalize the Church and limit its power was fueled by the hunger that was felt by millions of Russians. The program ordered “local soviets to seize immediately all valuables made of gold, silver, and precious stones found in the church property used by believers” (p 41). This program angered the Church leadership who felt that this “unilateral decision violated their understanding of the newfound working relationship between the church and state” (p 41). This battle that the Church had with the Russian state weakened a once powerful institution, and it began to create some divisions within the Church that were then exploited in a “play to ‘divide and conquer’ the church” (p 48).

This plan focused on dividing the clergy by favoring priests who were loyal to the Bolshevik cause and to “hold clergy opposing seizures responsible for any ‘excesses’” (p 49). This faction eventually turned into a movement that became known as Renovationism. This movement took many different forms as an influx of differing ideas began to shape the movement, however, the ideas that stood out from the others were the ones that argued that “the status quo were to be replaced by new Christian ethics that condemned capitalism and any other forms of economic exploitation” (p 59). These types of Renovationist movements were clearly aligned with the Bolsheviks and were in fact modeled after them (p 62). These new divisive movements that came into being directly threatened the established Church and its hierarchy, and the proposals that were put forth by some clearly modeled the Bolshevik party and their radical beliefs.

Sabanaeff, Leonard

Sabaneeff, Leonid. 1965. “Religious and Mystical Trends in Russia at the Turn of the Century.” The Russian Review 24 (4): 354–68.

Sablinsky, Walter

Sablinsky, Walter. 1976. The Road to Bloody Sunday: Father Gapon and the St. Petersburg Massacre of 1905. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Schapiro, Leonard

Schapiro, Leonard. 1955. “The “Vekhi” Group and the Mystique of Revolution.” The Slavonic and East European Review 34 (82): 56–76.

Schneiderman, Jeremiah

Schneiderman, Jeremiah. 1976. Sergei Zubatov and Revolutionary Marxism: The Struggle for the Working Class in Tsarist Russia. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Shatz, Marshall S.

Shatz, Marshall. 1989. Jan Wacław Machajski: A Radical Critic of the Russian Intelligentsia and Socialism. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Sked, Alan

Sked, Alan. 1989. The Decline and Fall of the Habsburg Empire, 1815-1918. London: Longman.

Tunstall, Graydon A. 2010. Blood on the Snow: The Carpathian Winter War of 1915. Lawrence, Kan.: University Press of Kansas.

Smith, Clarence Jay, Junior

Smith, Clarence Jay. 1958. Finland and the Russian Revolution 1917-1922. Athens: Univ. of Georgia Press.

Solov’ev, Kirill Andreevich

Solovʹev, K. A. 2011. Zakonodatel’naia i ispolnitel’naia vlast” v Rossii: Mekhanizmy vzaimodeistviia (1906-1914). Moskva: ROSSPĖN.

Starr, S. Frederick

Starr, S. Frederick. 1985. Red and Hot: The Fate of Jazz in the Soviet Union, 1917-1980. 1st Limelight ed. New York: Limelight Editions.

Stavrou, Theofanis G., editor

University of Minnesota University Gallery, Committee on Institutional Cooperation, and Soviet Union Ministerstvo kulʹtury. 1983. Art and Culture in Nineteenth-Century Russia. Edited by Theofanis G. Stavrou. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Steinberg, Mark D.

Steinberg, Mark D. 2011. Petersburg Fin de SièCle. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Frank, Stephen, and Mark D. Steinberg, eds. 1994. Cultures in Flux: Lower-Class Values, Practices, and Resistance in Late Imperial Russia. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Steinberg, Mark D., and Heather J. Coleman. 2007. Sacred Stories: Religion and Spirituality in Modern Russia. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press.

Steinberg, Mark D. 1992. Moral Communities: The Culture of Class Relations in the Russian Printing Industry, 1867-1907. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Steinberg, Mark D., and Valeria Sobol. 2011. Interpreting Emotions in Russia and Eastern Europe. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press.

Steinberg, Mark D. 2002. Proletarian Imagination: Self, Modernity, and the Sacred in Russia, 1910-1925. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Steinberg, Mark D. 2017. The Russian Revolution, 1905-1921. First edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Steinberg, Mark D. 2001. Voices of Revolution: 1917. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Steinberg, Mark D., and Vladimir M. Khrustalev. 1995. The Fall of the Romanovs: Political Dreams and Personal Struggles in a Time of Revolution. Translated by Elizabeth Tucker. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Stern, Leo, editor

Stern, Leo, ed. 1954. Die Auswirkungen Der Ersten Russischen Revolution von 1905-1907 Auf Deutschland. Berlin: Rütten & Loening.

Stites, Richard

Stites, Richard. 1978. The Women’s Liberation Movement in Russia: Feminism, Nihilism, and Bolshevism, 1860-1930. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

STUDENT REVIEW =
Richard Stites’ book […] is a comprehensive, if not ambitious, retelling of the history of Tsarist Russia all the way through to mid-twentieth century Soviet Russia, through the frame of women’s liberation. As compared to many other standard texts that give sweeping conclusions of the political, nationalistic, or ideological results of the Russia during revolutionary times, Stites account tracks the ideological progression of, specifically, women’s liberation—which includes the many and varied concepts of what women’s liberation would look like.

Beginning during the early nineteenth century detailing the average life of the gentry women who would very quickly assume the leadership roles for others to follow into feminism. To detail where Russia was at as far as Western feminism was concerned, in 1836 the Code of Russian Laws detailed that “The women must obey her husband, reside with him in love, respect, and unlimited obedience, and offer him every pleasantness and affection as the ruler of the household” (7). Writers, poets, philosophers, and general intellectuals of the era began to develop the ‘woman question’ in their minds during the early-to-mid-nineteenth century. Stites puts a lot of focus on the literature of the middle half of the century as one of the main locomotives of spreading ideas of women’s liberation, emancipation, and equality. Authors such as Georg Sand, Mikhail L. Mikhailov and Nikolay Chernyshevsky, as well as many others, that were incredibly influential not only on the female Russian intelligentsia, but on the Russian intelligentsia as a whole.

Following these chapters, Richard Stites details in three chapters, respectively, the responses of Feminists, Nihilists, and Radicals. Of feminists, Stites elaborates that they were the first organized group to enunciate a philosophy and initiated specific action [65]. They’re activity most usually consisted of philanthropic charities and organizing with other gentry women of means. “The feminist solution was classically liberal, deriving unconsciously from the 18th century English Whig tradition of liberalizing from the top and slowly spreading the benefits of reform down the social ladder” [88].

Of nihilists, Stites has to say that, “If the feminists wanted to change pieces of the world, the nihilists wanted to change the world itself…their display of will and energy was more visible; and their attitude towards mere charity was similar to that of Thoreau—that is was better to be good than to do good” [101]. Nihilism as a distinct and separate way of life from radicalism faded in the 1860’s. Those who were of the nihilist persuasion in the 1860’s usually either picked to join the revolution or to pass back into mainstream of Russian life.

Of radicals, Stites notes that they tended to subsume the “woman question” with the “human question” [124-125]. The great crusade “to the people” that began in the spring of 1874 was the first large-scale manifestation of what came to be called ‘populism’ [138]. Following the 1860’s and 1870’s there was not much more that could said about the general problem of women’s liberation—beginning in the mid 1890’s two organized women’s movements began: one socialist and one feminist. Joining in and supporting the 1905 Revolution, feminists and socialists alike petitioned the State Duma for their general emancipation—but each time a decision was to be reached, the Duma was dissolved.

The women’s suffrage movement entered its doldrums at the end of 1907 with its unanswered decision from the State Duma. The Great War revived interest and support of women’s emancipation. Following the February Revolution of 1917—the newly created Provisional Government reviewed the question of women’s suffrage and on July 20 the government ratified its decision to give the vote to all adults over twenty years of age. The torch of ‘feminism’ would then be held, following the October Revolutions, by the ‘Bolshevik feminists’.

Stites makes it incredibly clear how convoluted and complex the eventual conclusion of women’s emancipation was in pre-revolutionary and revolutionary times. While women understood a common cause of women’s liberation, they all came from differing ideological backgrounds that came with their own baggage. Inevitably, when these ideological factions came into power during, especially, the era of the Provisional Government, all of the factional lines became much more glaringly apparent and difficult to ignore. In the end, the Bolsheviks and the Communist Party had the longest-running and by far the most efficient organization at the time of the October Revolution and simply stepped in its place and began, basically the same goals—as far as women’s emancipation and equality was concerned—just from their own ideological standpoint.

Stites, Richard. 1989. Revolutionary Dreams: Utopian Vision and Experimental Life in the Russian Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stites, Richard. 1992. Russian Popular Culture: Entertainment and Society since 1900. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press.

Stites, Richard, editor

Stites, Richard. 1995. Culture and Entertainment in Wartime Russia. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Wikipedia contributors, “Richard Stites,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. (accessed August 29, 2024).

Szeftel, Marc

Szeftel, Marc. 1966. Russia before 1917. [Bruxelles]: Éditions de l’Institut de sociologie, Université libre de Bruxelles.

Szeftel, Marc, and Russia. 1976. The Russian Constitution of April 23, 1906: Political Institutions of the Duma Monarchy. Bruxelles: Editions de la Librarie encyclopédique.

Tang, Peter S. H. and Mosely E. Philip

Tang, Peter S. H., and Philip E. Mosely. 1959. Russian and Soviet Policy in Manchuria and Outer Mongolia, 1911-1931. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

Thaden, Edward C.

Thaden, Edward C. 1964. Conservative Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century Russia. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

STUDENT REVIEW with emphasis on the “Pochvenniki” =
Enthusiasts of the Soil| The pochvenniki emerged in Russia in the latter half of the nineteenth century as a group of conservative nationalist advocators who could meet the intellectual challenges that faced Russian society at the time. The group’s name derived from “soil” to illustrate their yearning for a “unique organic unity and was devoid of the class antagonisms of Western Europe” (62). Believing that a gap had generated that separated the intellectual elite of the country from the common people the pochvenniki strived to create and promote unanimity among all of Russia. They believed that the Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861 paved the way for a new world. However, they also believed that the emancipation inundated the country with alienated, vulnerable masses. There was a great fear among conservative nationalists at the time that the newly freed common people of Russia would look to the Western world for solutions to their societal woes. It was a main objective of the pochvenniki to push the masses in the direction of a singular, cohesive Russian identity.

This group knew the importance of national cohesion in modern society. In order to achieve this cohesion, properly spread it’s word, and close the gap between commoners and intellectual elites the pochvenniki produced two important journals called Time and Epoch. The group intentionally strove to eliminate any party labels from their journals and tried to act as a middleman between Westernism and Slavophilism. This, of course, was yet another effort to produce solidarity among Russians, but members of the pochvenniki themselves seemed to be divided on the matter. Some sympathized with the Slavophile views, while others believed that it was too radical and thus supported what they believed to be the more realistic perception of the West. Some, like Fedor Dostoevskii, appreciated what they referred to as “pure liberalism”, that is the support of abstract ideas pertaining to freedoms (speech, thought, etc.) when no other course of action could be administered. They believed that these Western ideals could be adapted to any social or political system. The works in both the Time and Epoch reflected these ideals, but coupled with nationalist undercurrents. The work of the pochvenniki’s was merely a collection of the opinionated expressionist sentiments of Russian culture at the time, and carried no political or economic weight.

Although the pochvenniki emphasized and instilled the nationalist feeling it failed, according to Thaden, to produce and offer specific examples of the ways in which political and economic renovations needed to be dealt with. Their call for industrialization and development of Russia in the 1860s was a noble idea, but they lacked rationalization and understanding of the requirements that intense modernization demanded. The group advocated for reforms in principle, but underestimated the difficulty of modernizing an underdeveloped country to vie against a superior Western society. Thaden gives examples for some of the minimum requirements necessary to even begin to undergo a transformation of this amplitude, “Capital must be accumulated; technicians, specialists, and leaders must be trained…the land is not cultivated intensively and labor productivity is low…” (61). In this arduous process, the peasant would be left bearing the brunt of the load as the demands for a growing labor force increase, but pay and housing opportunities remain low “because the workers’ initial lack of the skills and training required by modern industry puts them at a disadvantage in dealing with their employers” (62)

Thaden, Edward C. 1971. Russia since 1801: The Making of a New Society. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Thaden, Edward C., and Michael H. Haltzel. 1981. Russification in the Baltic Provinces and Finland, 1855-1914. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Theen, Rolf

Theen, Rolf H. W. 1973. Lenin: Genesis and Development of a Revolutionary. [1st ed.]. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Thompson, Arthur William

Thompson, Arthur W., and Robert A. Hart. 1970. The Uncertain Crusade: America and the Russian Revolution of 1905. [Amherst]: University of Massachusetts Press.

Tobias, Henry J.

Tobias, Henry J. 1972. The Jewish Bund in Russia from Its Origins to 1905. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Treadgold, Donald Warren

Treadgold, Donald W. 1955. Lenin and His Rivals: The Struggle for Russia’s Future, 1898-1906. New York, [NY]: Praeger.

Treadgold, Donald W. 2015. The Great Siberian Migration; Government and Peasant in Resettlement from Emancipation to the First World War. Princenton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Treadgold, Donald W. 1987. “Soviet Historians’ Views on ‘The Asiatic Mode of Production’.” In Acta Slavica Iaponica, no. 5, 1-20.

Treadgold, Donald W., and Herbert J. Ellison. 2019. Twentieth Century Russia. Ninth edition. New York ; London: Routledge.

Treadgold, Donald W. 1969. “Russian Radical Thought, 1894-1917.” In Russia under the Last Tsar, edited by Theofanis G. Stavrou, 69-86. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Treadgold, Donald W. 1978. “Russian Orthodoxy and Society.” In Russian Orthodoxy under the Old Regime, edited by Robert L. Nichols, and Theofanis G. Stavrou, 21-43. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Treadgold, Donald W. 1968.”The Peasant and Religion.” In The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia, edited by Wayne S. Vucinich, 72-107. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Treadgold, Donald Warren, editor

Treadgold, Donald W. 1967. The Development of the USSR an Exchange of Views. Reprint. Seattle [u.a.]: Univ. of Washington Press.

Tuchman, Barbara Wertheim

Tuchman, Barbara W. 1962. The Guns of August. New York: Macmillan.

Tuchman, Barbara W. 1966. The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World before the War, 1890-1914. New York: Macmillan.

Tucker, Robert Charles

Tucker, Robert C. 1960. “The Image of Dual Russia.” In The Transformation of Russian Society: Aspects of Social Change since 1861. Edited by Cyril E. Black, 587-605. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Tucker, Robert C., and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs Center of International Studies. 1970. The Marxian Revolutionary Idea. New York: Norton.

Tucker, Robert C. 1974. Stalin as Revolutionary, 1879-1929: A Study in History and Personality. London: Chatto and Windus.

Tucker, Robert C. 1987. Political Culture and Leadership in Soviet Russia: From Lenin to Gorbachev. 1st American ed. New York: Norton.

Links between political culture and culture in general are made, but no functional distinction is drawn between cultureand civilization. Tucker cites Edward Tylor’s 1871 Primitive Culture, where culture is defined as “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.” Tylor was influenced by Gustav Klemm’s 1843-52 Allgemeine Culturgeschichte der Menschheit. A.L. Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn, in Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions, list 164 definitions and summarize: “All cultures are largely made up of overt, patterned ways of behaving, feeling, and reacting.” [What could be the meaning of “overt” “feeling”? For example, a smile or frown?] But cultures also include a characteristic set of unstated premises and categories (“implicit culture”) that vary greatly between societies. They conclude that “culture is a product; it is historical; includes ideas, patterns, and values; is selective; is learned; is based upon symbols; and is an abstraction from behavior and the products of behavior” [Tucker:1].

Tucker dismisses Geoffrey Gorer and John Rickman’s “swaddling” psychoanalytic theory in The People of Great Russia: A Psychological Study [LND: 1949]. He might have mentioned Nathan Leites’ U.S. Air Force-supported studies of the “operational code” of the Politburo; however, he does mention Fülöp-Miller. © Professor Kimball

Tucker, Robert C. 1990. Stalin in Power: The Revolution from Above, 1929-1941. New York: Norton.

Tucker, Robert C. 1962. “Autocrats and Oligarchs.” In Russian Foreign Policy; Essays in Historical Perspective, edited by Ivo J. Lederer, 171-195. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Tucker, Robert C. 1964. “The Question of Totalitalism.” In The Development of the USSR: An Exchange of Views, edited by Donald W. Treadgold, 29-34. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Tucker, Robert C., editor

Tucker, Robert C., Włodzimierz Brus, and American Council of Learned Societies Planning Group on Comparative Communist Studies. 1977. Stalinism: Essays in Historical Interpretation. 1st ed. New York, NY: Norton.

Verner, Andrew M.

Verner, Andrew M. 1990. The Crisis of Russian Autocracy: Nicholas II and the 1905 Revolution. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Verner, Andrew. 1995. “Discursive Strategies in the 1905 Revolution: Peasant Petitions from Vladimir Province.” The Russian Review 54 (1): 65–90.

Von Laue, Theodore

Von Laue, Theodore H. 1956. “Die Revolution von Außen Als Erste Phase Der Russischen Revolution 1917.” Jahrbücher Für Geschichte Osteuropas 4 (2): 138–58.

Von Laue, Theodore H. n.d. “Russian Peasants in the Factory 1892-1904.” The Journal of Economic History 21 (1): 61–80.

von Laue, Theodore H. 1961. “Imperial Russia at the Turn of the Century: The Cultural Slope and the Revolution from Without.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 3 (4): 353–67.

Von Laue, Theodore H. 1963. Sergei Witte and the Industrialization of Russia. New York: Columbia University Press.

Von Laue, Theodore H. 1971. Why Lenin? Why Stalin?: A Reappraisal of the Russian Revolution, 1900-1930. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

von Laue, Theodore H. 1965. “The Chances for Liberal Constitutionalism.” Slavic Review 24 (1): 34–46.

Von Laue, Theodore H. 1969. The Global City; Freedom, Power, and Necessity in the Age of World Revolutions. [1st ed.]. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Von Laue, Theodore H. 1981. “Stalin among the Moral and Political Imperatives, or How to Judge Stalin?” The Soviet and Post-Soviet Review 8 (1): 1–17.

Von Laue, Theodore. 1960. “The State and the Economy.” In The Transformation of Russian Society : Aspects of Social Change since 1861. Edited by Cyril E. Black, 209-225. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Von Laue, Theodore H. 1979. “The Ideals of Revolutionary Democracy.” In The Russian Revolution: Disorder or New Order?, edited by Daniel R. Brower, 16-22. St. Louis: Forum Press.

Von Laue, Theodore H. 1963. “Of the Crises in the Russian Polity.” In Essays in Russian and Soviet History, edited by John Shelton Curtiss, 303-322. New York: Columbia University Press.

Von Laue, Theodore H. 1962. “Problems of Modernization.” In Russian Foreign Policy; Essays in Historical Perspective, edited by Ivo J. Lederer, 69-108. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Von Laue, Theodore H. n.d. “Stalin in Focus.” Slavic Review 42 (3): 373–89.

Treadgold, Donald W. 1969. “Problems of Industrialization.” In Russia under the Last Tsar, edited by Theofanis G. Stavrou, 117-153. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Vucinich, Wayne, editor

Vucinich, Wayne S. 1968. The Peasant in Nineteenth-Century Russia. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Waites, Bernard

Waites, Bernard. 1999. Europe and the Third World: From Colonisation to Decolonisation, c. 1500-1998. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Walicki, Andrzej

Walicki, Andrzej. 1969. The Controversy over Capitalism: Studies in the Social Philosophy of the Russian Populists. Oxford: Clarendon P.

Walicki, Andrzej. 1975. The Slavophile Controversy: History of a Conservative Utopia in Nineteenth-Century Russian Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Walicki, Andrzej. 1979. A History of Russian Thought from the Enlightenment to Marxism. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Warth, Robert D.

Warth, Robert D. 1954. The Allies and the Russian Revolution, from the Fall of the Monarchy to the Peace of Brest-Litovsk. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

Watters, F. M.

Watters, Francis Marion. 1978. Land Tenure and Financial Burdens of the Russian Peasant: 1861-1905.

Weissman, Neil B.

Weissman, Neil B. 1981. Reform in Tsarist Russia: The State Bureaucracy and Local Government, 1900-1914. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

West, James L.

West, James L. 1991. “The Riabushinsky Circle: Burzhuaziia and Obshchestvennost’ in Late Imperial Russia.” In Between Tsar and People: Educated Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia, edited by Edith W. Clowes, Samuel D. Kassow, and James L. West, 41-56. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Wilford, Hugh. 2013. AMERICA’S GREAT GAME: The CIA’s Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East. New York: Basic Books, A Member of the Perseus Books Group.

Williams, Stephen

Williams, Stephen F. 2006. Liberal Reform in an Illiberal Regime: The Creation of Private Property in Russia, 1906-1915. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University.

STUDENT REVIEW =
Williams evaluates events leading up to and through the 1906 Stolypin land reforms. He begins by providing an explanation for his understanding of what “liberal democracy” is and whether the Stolypin land reforms were working to promote this definition or not. He also attempts to address the potential for these reforms to be considered a “revolution from above”. Williams proceeds to provide a basic history of early Russian peasant life immediately following their emancipation from serfdom. He introduces the reader to this period of Russian history from the perspective of property rights.

Williams explains both the pros and cons of open plots, repartition, and family vs- individual household management. He proceeds to discuss the restrictions commune members experienced when attempting to leave the commune or sale/exchange property. He points to various government enforced restrictions as well as communal restrictions such as the initial requirement for a peasant to have commune approval before exit of the commune would be permitted. From here Williams provides a short history of the early attempts at reform and the effects they had on the commune. He discusses the political aspects of land reform and the conflicts between governmental parties, the tsar, and the duma. Williams explains the motivation of these interest groups including the incentives for the gentry and royal family to maintain their control over private property.

Williams finishes the book by providing a summary of the results of the Stolypin reforms and the long term implications of them. He breezes through the short history leading up to World War I and the events that prevented the completion of the land reforms. Overall I found the language of this book to be friendly to the reader. This would be a good book for someone without a lot of Russian history experience as well as the seasoned historian.

Winkler, Heinrich August

Winkler, Heinrich August. 2006. Germany: The Long Road West. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Woolf, Stuart J., editor

Woolf, Stuart, ed. 2006. Nationalism in Europe, 1815 to the Present: A Reader. London: Routledge.

Wolfe, Bertram D.

Wolfe, Bertram D. 1948. Three Who Made a Revolution, a Biographical History. New York: Dial Press.

Wolfe, Bertram David. 1965. Marxism. 100 Years in the Life of a Doctrine. London: Chapman, Hall.

Wolfe, Bertram David. 1963. “French Socialism, German Theory, and the Flaw in the Foundation of the Socialist Internationals.” In Essays in Russian and Soviet History, edited by John Shelton Curtiss, 177-197. New York: Columbia University Press.

Wood, Alan

Wood, Alan. 2003. The Origins of the Russian Revolution, 1861-1917. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.

Wood, Anthony

Wood, Anthony. 1986. The Russian Revolution. 2nd ed. London: Longman.

Worobec, Christine

Worobec, Christine D. 1991. Peasant Russia: Family and Community in the Post-Emancipation Period. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Wynn, Charters

Wynn, Charters. 1992. Workers, Strikes, and Pogroms: The Donbass-Dnepr Bend in Late Imperial Russia, 1870-1905. ACLS Humanities E-Book. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Yaney, George

Yaney, George L. 1982. The Urge to Mobilize: Agrarian Reform in Russia, 1861-1930. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Yarmolinsky, Avrahm

Yarmolinsky, Avrahm. 1962. Road to Revolution; a Century of Russian Radicalism. New York: Collier Books.

Yarmolinsky, Avrahm. 1965. A Russian’s American Dream: A Memoir on William Frey. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.

Yavuz, M.Hakan et al. editors

Yavuz, M. Hakan, and Peter Sluglett. 2011. War and Diplomacy: The Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 and the Treaty of Berlin. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Zelnik, Reginald

Zelnik, Reginald E., and Columbia University Russian Institute. 1971. Labor and Society in Tsarist Russia: The Factory Workers of St. Petersburg, 1855-1870. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Zelnik, Reginald E., Semen Kanatchikov, and Matvei Fisher. 1976. “Russian Bebels: An Introduction to the Memoirs of the Russian Workers Semen Kanatchikov and Matvei Fisher. I.” The Russian Review 35 (3): 249–89.

Zelnik, Reginald E. 1995. Law and Disorder on the Narova River: The Kreenholm Strike of 1872. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Zelnik, Reginald E. 1999. Workers and Intelligentsia in Late Imperial Russia: Realities, Representations, Reflections. Berkeley, CA: International and Area Studies, University of California at Berkeley.

Zeman, Zbyněk Anthony Bohuslav, and W. Scharlau

Zeman, Z. A. B., and Winfried B. Scharlau. 1965. The Merchant of Revolution: The Life of Alexander Israel Helpland (Parvus) 1867-1924. London: Oxford University Press.

Zenkovsky, Serge A., editor

Zenkovsky, Serge A. 1960. Pan-Turkism and Islam in Russia. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Zevelev, Aleksandr Izrailevich, editor

Zevelev, A. I. and N. G. Dumova. 1994. Istorii︠a︡ politicheskikh partiĭ Rossii. Moskva: Vysshai︠a︡ shkola.

Zevelev, A. I. 2000. Politicheskie partii Rossii: istorii︠a︡ i sovremennostʹ : uchebnik dli︠a︡ istoricheskikh i gumanitarnykh fakulʹtetov vysshikh uchebnykh zavedeniĭ. Moskva: ROSSPĖN.

Ziablikov, Aleksei Vyacheslavovich

Zi︠a︡blikov, A.V. 2002. “I︠A︡snovidt︠s︡y revoli︠u︡t︠s︡ii” : rossiĭskai︠a︡ khudozhestvennai︠a︡ intelligent︠s︡ii︠a︡ v politicheskikh batalii︠a︡kh nachala XX veka: monografii︠a︡. Kostroma: Kostromskoĭ gosudarstvennyĭ tekhnologicheskiĭ universitet.

Zimina, Valentina Dmitrievna

Zimina, V. D. 2006. Beloe delo vzbuntovavsheĭsi︠a︡ Rossii : politicheskie rezhimy Grazhdanskoĭ voĭny 1917-1920 gg. Moskva: Rossiĭskiĭ gos. gumanitarnyĭ universitet.

The monograph examines the little-studied process of the formation and functioning of political regimes in Russia during the years 1918-1920. The author’s focus is on issues of governmental legitimacy and the forms and methods of struggle between opposing political forces for the right to implement their own concept of socio-political modernization of the Russian state. The work attempts to typologize the political regimes from the perspective of analyzing their state and institutional structures, as well as the socio-economic reforms of the Reds and the Whites. The appendix includes the memoirs of participants and eyewitnesses of the dramatic events. © Professor Kimball

Zuckerman, Frederic

Zuckerman, Fredric Scott. 1996. The Tsarist Secret Police in Russian Society, 1880-1917. New York: New York University Press.

STUDENT REVIEW =
Fredric Zuckerman is currently a Senior Lecturer in History at the University of Adelaide. He acknowledged that this volume began as a PhD dissertation under the guidance of Professor William L. Blackwell at New York University.

Zuckerman acknowledged his debt to the Hoover Institution as the location of primary sources, makes a point of his use of a modified Library of Congress transliteration system, and includes a note on the Julian Calendar used by Tsarist Russia that ran 12 days behind the Gregorian in the 19th century and 13 days behind in the 20th century.

Additionally an introductory glossary and abbreviation guide is given that identifies the common terms used by historians and contemporaries. Zuckerman uses these subject specific terms and abbreviations through out the book and the inclusion of a glossary was very helpful.

This volume is a comprehensive study of the political police system in late Imperial Russia based on a vast bibliography of primary and secondary sources, and on Zuckerman’s research in the Hoover Institution’s Archives. The main focus of the work is on the operation activities of the tsarist police between 1900 and 1917.

[mdn=] Zuckerman is not biased or prejudiced in any way and deals with persons and events in an evenhanded manner. The Tsarist police are themselves unique in history but the need for a modern state to protect itself and its citizens is understood as a common feature of the modern nation state. Many European states and even the U.S. examined the Russian experience when establishing their own political police.

Introductory chapters give an overview of Russia’s 19th century experience in dealing with political dissent and then examines the lives and working conditions of individuals who served within the tsarist system. A sociological view of the bureaucracy by the identification of distinct groups within the police; civil servants, gendarmes, and former revolutionaries (sotrudniki). These individuals are shown to have conflicts when forced to interact with each other and additionally the various departments are shown to conflict within the system as departments vie with each for power influence, and monies, as well as individual ministers have agendas of their own which often conflict for personal reasons or for tactical and strategic reasons.

What follows the look at the make up the political police is a detailed chronological account of the failures and accomplishments of the Russian political police from 1900 to 1917. The story is highlighted by events and people that bring the revolutionary period into focus. The story follows the police efforts and infighting of the many ministers and police chiefs who came to their appointments through chance or as the result of a patronage / clientele system.

Sometimes the best man available for a post comes into power, but as often as not a mediocre or unsuitable man is chosen to lead the most important section at the worst possible time. Another problem is the lack of a strategic vision that could coordinate a single department much less coordinate a number of departments that could work together to achieve a desired goal. While not specifically laying the blame at the feet of Nicholas II it is obvious that the fault is the Tsar’s and the tsarist / imperial system.

The volume concludes with a chapter that discuses the similarities between the tsarist and Soviet secret police. I found this interesting but perhaps out of place. Obviously Zuckerman draws on a vast knowledge and understanding but this chapter is speculative and without the academic rigor that was evident in the previous chapters. While reading the last few chapters I had a feeling that Zuckerman had more to say as he made statements that were not as circumspect as earlier in the book. Perhaps a publisher’s constraint or deadline came into effect. I must admit though that I myself have been guilty of speculation at the end of a research paper when insights gained during research find themselves added regardless of their relevance to my topic and thesis, and so I gave the author the benefit of the doubt and forgave, but some readers may be taken aback during the final chapter.

While I enjoyed the book enormously I would not recommend it as an introductory volume. Zuckerman presupposes a certain knowledge of his subject, and a historical familiarity with many personalities and politics of the period. On the other hand anyone who is interested in the period will benefit from the huge bibliography that can be used as a guide for further reading.

Zyrianov, Pavel Nikolaevich

Zyri︠a︡nov, P. N. 1984. Pravoslavnai︠a︡ t︠s︡erkovʹ v borʹbe s revoli︠u︡t︠s︡ieĭ, 1905-1907 gg, otvetstvennyĭ redaktor A.I. Klibanov. Moskva: Izd-vo “Nauka”.

Documents of Russian History, 1914-1917, edited by Frank Golder. 1927. New York: Century.