Act & Punishment: The Pussy Riot Trials

[admin]

Spatial structure of urban settlement systems: stability versus changeability
by Viatcheslav Shuper and A.L. Valesyan
© CNRS-UMR Géographie-cités 8504

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Abstract

Postulates of W. Christallers central-place theory are discussed with an introduction of a new sixth postulats. Under consideration are specific cases of settlement systems which cannot be described by the apparatus of the classical central-place theory. It is shown that besides external causes responsible for the deformation of Christaller grid (anisotropy of the territory, etc.) there are some inner, immanent causes of it which have spontaneous nature. The paper formulates basics of the relativist version of the central-place theory, introduces notions of "the degree of stability of urban settlement systems" and “isostatic equilibrium" (as an attractor). It presents the results of analysis of the degree of stability of settlement systems of Estonia, Armenia, Georgia, and Central Russia. It is substantiated that it is possible to create a theory of the Great Unification by applying the synthetic approach to both the relativist central-place theory and phasic conceptions of spatial development.

1. In the basic work of W. Christaller (Christaller, 1966) the central-place theory did not achieve complete logical harmony. Christaller laid down the foundations of the central-place theory for he formulated the most essential of its basic principles and stimulated so far further research. The theory became axiomatic thus allowing to get non-trivial results using deduction in 1960s only with primary respect to the works of M. Dacey and his school (Dacey and al., 1974). Among the other researchers' works those of J. Parr (Parr, 1969 and 1978) have to be mentioned.

2. Numerous scholars' efforts have succeeded in formulating the basic postulates of this theory. Its first postulate is the one of the isotropy of space. The space in the central-place theory is equally permeable in every direction via the transport, homogenous with respect to the rural population density, natural environment, and the distribution of all possible resources; in other words it is absolutely homogenous except the distribution of urban population which is to be described by the theory itself.

3. The second postulate of the theory is the one of the infinity of space. No fragments can be isolated from the Christaller grid. If we denied the infinite spacial transmission of the grid we would inevitably perceive the edge effects the theory can neither take into account no describe. The very principles of the theory's construction would be violated along the edges of the central-place system thus the fourth postulats to be discussed below would not be implemented under any circumstances. The impossibility of an "isolated state" results from the second postulats of the centralplace theory.

4. The third postulate is the one of maximum compactness of the zones. According to this postulate the reason central-place systems make hexagonal grid is that the maximum compact geometrical figure is a circle, and a regular hexagon is the figure the most close to the circle geometrically which allows solid packing in the two-dimensional space. The question of validating the space structure of central-place systems was discussed in details by A. Losch (Losch, 1959) and, later on, in general form by B. Rodoman (Rodoman, 1970).

5. The fourth postulate - the optimization principle - stipulates the polymorphism of the central-place systems. The statement that these systems can exist in three versions i.e. with a K value of 3, K value of 4, and 7 is considered by both scientific and educational accounts of the theory. Under condition that K is equal 3 the optimum configuration of market areas is achieved (central places are located in the nodes of the hexagonal grid), and the number of central places serving the region is minimal. K = 4 provides for minimal distances between central places located in the middle points of hexagonal grid's ribs. K = 7 provides for 2 the best administrative division as each central place of the lower hierarchical tier is subordinated to only one central place of the next higher tier comparing with two for K = 4 or three for K = 3.

6. The very parameter K has been defined by many scholars and J. Parr in particular as the number of central places of the next lower hierarchical tier subordinated to one central place of a given tier, plus one. One can describe K parameter in a different way - as a number of zones of the next lower hierarchical tier subordinated to one central place of a given tier.

7. Under a strict approach the central places system with K = 7 should be considered a certain misunderstanding (Shuper, 1990). According to the fourth postulate no central-place systems with other Ks could exist either for no basic principle has been found for them to be implemented in their spatial structure.

8. The fifth postulate of the theory is the assumption of the "rational" behavior of consumers. It suggests that all goods and services are being acquired at the nearest of all central places where they are available. One should not think though that the phenomenon of multi-purposes trips is essential for the systems with the optimum configuration of market areas only (K = 3). It is assumed that in the central places system with K = 4 all trips are strictly hierarchical which does not occur in reality. The divergence between real trips and those strictly hierarchical can be perceived as another expression of the phenomenon of multipurposes trips.

9. Finally, the sixth postulate of the central-place theory formulated by V. A. Shuper suggests the constancy of the share (k) of the population of a given central place in the total population of the area being served by the place, for all hierarchical tiers.

10. The necessity to introduce this postulate is dictated by the paradox of k parameter (Shuper, 1984).

11. It is widely known that in reality Christaller grids are substantially deformed. Anisotropy of the territory provoked by both natural and anthropogenic factors cannot leave undestroyed the ideal pattern of hexagons. It is far less known about the inner characteristics of any settlement system as well as the grid itself responsible for the deformation of the latter. What are these characteristics?

Anisotropy /ˌænɪˈsɒtrəpi/, /ˌænaɪˈsɒtrəpi/ is the property of being directionally dependent, which implies different properties in different directions, as opposed to isotropy. It can be defined as a difference, when measured along different axes, in a material's physical or mechanical properties (absorbance, refractive index, conductivity, tensile strength, etc.) An example of anisotropy is light coming through a polarizer. Another is wood, which is easier to split along its grain than across it.

-- Anisotropy, by Wikipedia

12. If a central place at a tier m + 1 is located close enough to the central place of a higher tier m, or even m - 1, then the former does not have to possess all set of functions appropriate for that level: some goods and services can be acquired at the nearest central place of higher hierarchical tier. Additional profit including informational one which is being received by central places of lower hierarchical tiers due to their closeness to larger centers is unquestionable. Such a concentration is beneficial for a larger center as well for it can use resources of places of lower tiers for its own needs. One can argue that the use of potential of numerous satellites-cities is an important source of development of a large city for it does not require the population growth of the latter, and the whole system can "save" on this.

13. If some functions of places of lower tiers have been transferred to the principal center the same should happen to their populations as well in order to avoid additional costs of transportation. Under such conditions the value of K cannot be kept constant even within the same hierarchical tier.

14. Now let us examine the very characteristics of the grid which are responsible for its deformation. According to the fourth postulate of the theory each central place with its service zone is being divided equally between central places of higher tiers as the former is located at the boundary between their zones. Each central place of higher hierarchical tier controls so far zones of all places of lower tiers. That postulates that any central place can be located at an equal distance from central places of higher tiers with those places belonging to different levels and thus having different size. In real world it could have corresponded to the situation when a small or average-sized city which is located at the same distance from two larger cities would have been equally attracted to both of them even if one of them is 4 times bigger than the former, and the other is 16 or 64 times bigger. Can we imagine that in order to get goods and services available both in Moscow and Tver' residents of Klin which is situated half-way between these cities would be equally likely to go to Moscow and to Tver'?

15. Let us consider a Christaller grid with K = 4 and three tiers of hierarchy. It is obvious that the service zone of the center of the first and highest tier of hierarchy will include the whole hexagon. At the second hierarchical tier the service zone of the principal center being now one of central places of the second tier will include not halves but whole zones of the inner circle of third-tier places, thus making the principal centers zone significantly larger. Now let us consider including a fourth tier of hierarchy. Those forth-tier places being located at the borders of the shaded area will gravitate not to the principal center to get services of the second level but to the second-tier central places. They will "take" their service zones with them thus changing the boundaries of the principal center's zone of second-tier service. Further changes will occur if more tiers of hierarchy are to be included. This violates the main principle underlying a system of central places which follows from the third postulate of the theory - the principle of zones' congruence. If not only a zone's size depends upon the number of hierarchical tiers but the very same tier of hierarchy includes zones of different sizes, then the coefficient K becomes meaningless.

16. It has been shown so far that some immanent causes exist which contribute to the deformation of a Christaller grid. These deformations are not a result of some external factors like anisotrope of the territory but occur spontaneously according to internal regularities.

17. One of the results of the above-described process of deformation of a Christaller grid is a growth of an urban agglomeration surrounding a national or regional capital. Agglomerations so far are the most pronounced examples of concentration of urban settlement systems (except for the cases when spatial unevenness of settlements' distribution is due to unevenness of distribution of natural resources). Classical central-place theory being spatially expressed by the ideal Christaller grid does not allow for any concentration of population at all for it can result in irregularities of the grid itself. It will also result in the violation of the Beckmann-Parr's equation which was deduced from the grid's characteristics (Parr, 1969).

18. Thus a very important fact which nevertheless - to the best knowledge of the authors - has not been reflected by the literature on the central-place theory points out that formation of large urban agglomerations violates not only theoretically predicted proportions of distances between cities but also relative sizes of central places of different tiers of hierarchy.

19. As it was mentioned above, one of the postulates of the theory is that of constancy of K (with K being the share of a central place in the population of its service zone) for all tiers of hierarchy. Under condition of sharp deformations of a Christaller lattice the value of K cannot remain constant not only for different hierarchical tiers but for same tier's central places as well. Consequently one cannot apply the Beckmann-Parr equation which describes relationship between sizes of central places of neighboring tiers. Thus unevenness of spatial distribution of an urban settlement system resulting in the formation of large agglomerations represents a different side of the reality which in turn requires substantial changes to be included into the classical central-places theory to have it all explained.

20. There is at least one more phenomenon which cannot be explained by the classical central-place theory: the absence of precisely those places in some urban settlement systems which should have occupied second highest tier of hierarchy. Sometimes, but not always, such an effect is accompanied by a heavy condensation of central places' web around the principal center.

21. It has been shown so far that population distributions between tiers of the Christaller hierarchy when different from those predicted by the Beckmann-Parr equation simply cannot be considered by the classical theory. As a result the latter is unable to take into account interrelations between spatial organization of a central-place system and a distribution of population among different tiers of the same system. As opposed to the classical central-place theory the relativistic central place theory developed by V.A. Shuper is aimed at the very interrelation between spatial organization of a central places' system and population distribution among its hierarchical tiers.

22. One of the central concepts of the relativistic central-place theory is that of an isostatic equilibrium. The latter is precisely what allows to establish a functional dependency between spatial organization of urban settlements and distribution of population among different hierarchical tiers. Tiers of centralplace hierarchy are being classified into heavy and light ones according to the fact if they have population respectively larger or smaller than it was predicted (by the classical theory?). A question can arise, that is why there should be any discrepancies at all between observed and predicted populations of a hierarchical tier? The answer was given above - there are both internal characteristics and external factors allowing for the deformation of an ideal grid.

R[e][n]
K
R[e][n]
P[t][n]
=
P[e][n]
/
P[t][n]
KkKKKKK
R[e][n]
R[t][n]
R[t][n]
/
R[e][n]
= m-1

23. Under the condition that isostatic effects are being completely compensated for this parameter has a value of m - 1, where m - 1 is a number of hierarchical tiers in a central places 1 system minus the first tier represented by only one central place. A compliance with the parameter of isostatic equilibrium is the very characteristic of stability of an urban settlement system.

24. The notion about urban settlement systems as gravitating in their development toward a certain stable state with the latter defined as an isostatic equilibrium has also a certain philosophical meaning. It allows to think about such a state as some kind of an attractor. This introduction of the notion of an attractor is not a mere tribute to a fashionable parlance: if we can assume that a process is determined not by initial conditions but by a final state, then we suggest both the existence of the equifinality and a possibility of using different routes between the initial and final conditions, more precisely - between stages of the process which were defined as such conditions.

Equifinality is the principle that in open systems a given end state can be reached by many potential means. The term and concept is due to Hans Driesch, the developmental biologist, later applied by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the founder of general systems theory, and by William T. Powers, the founder of perceptual control theory. Driesch and von Bertalanffy prefer this term, in contrast to "goal", in describing complex systems' similar or convergent behavior. Powers simply emphasised the flexibility of response, since it emphasizes that the same end state may be achieved via many different paths or trajectories. In closed systems, a direct cause-and-effect relationship exists between the initial condition and the final state of the system: When a computer's 'on' switch is pushed, the system powers up. Open systems (such as biological and social systems), however, operate quite differently. The idea of equifinality suggests that similar results may be achieved with different initial conditions and in many different ways.[1] This phenomenon has also been referred to as isotelesis[2] (from Greek ἴσος isos "equal" and τέλεσις telesis: "the intelligent direction of effort toward the achievement of an end") when in games involving superrationality.

-- Equifinality, by Wikipedia

25. The idea of equifinality of the development of largest cities has been known in the science since mid-60s (Haggett, 1983). It states that gigantic cities show much more of a resemblance with each other than do those small cities they have grown up from. Some difficult philosophical questions arise here: it can be supposed that moving to similar conditions require similarity of initial conditions and factors affecting it, or it can be assumed that it is determined by a certain "construction" such as a potential form which is to be revealed in the process of a system's development.

26. Such a teleology can be quite well explained scientifically and logically. For example, K. Popper has shown that Darwin's natural selection must have a future expediency as motive forces of evolution (Popper, 1982). In this case the expediency will reveal itself in the future only but it needs certain spendings today.

Teleology or finality is a reason or explanation for something in function of its end, purpose, or goal. It is derived from two Greek words: telos (end, goal, purpose) and logos (reason, explanation). A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as that of a fork, is called extrinsic. Natural teleology, common in classical philosophy but controversial today, contends that natural entities also have intrinsic purposes, irrespective of human use or opinion. For instance, Aristotle claimed that an acorn's intrinsic telos is to become a fully grown oak tree.

Though ancient atomists rejected the notion of natural teleology, teleological accounts of non-personal or non-human nature were explored and often endorsed in ancient and medieval philosophies, but fell into disfavor during the modern era (1600–1900). In the late 18th century, Immanuel Kant used the concept of telos as a regulative principle in his Critique of Judgment. Teleology was also fundamental to the speculative philosophy of Georg Hegel.

Contemporary philosophers and scientists are still discussing whether teleological axioms are useful or accurate in proposing modern philosophies and scientific theories. For instance, in 2012, Thomas Nagel proposed a non-Darwinian account of evolution that incorporates impersonal and natural teleological laws to explain the existence of life, consciousness, rationality, and objective value.

27. The very same approach is being applied in this research for there is yet no clear understanding of mechanisms determining development of settlement systems. Our knowledge allows to analyze past development of settlement systems but prohibits from formulating any analytical laws allowing to predict future states of these systems. That is why the notion of isostatic equilibrium as an attractor for the development of urban settlement systems possesses a few clear advantages. It happens because the most stable state and directions for the process are given with the latter always aiming to reach the former even if the system has diverged from the most stable state under the influence of external factors.

28. An important question has to be raised on the correlation between the classical and relativistic central-place theories. Let us consider this correlation from the position of I.V. Kuznetzov who formulated a partial principle of correspondence as follows:

29. "A new theory's mathematical apparatus containing a certain characteristic parameter which values are different in the old and new areas of phenomena passes to the old theory's mathematical apparatus with a proper value of the characteristic parameter" ("Principe...", 1979).

30. It seems obvious that such a characteristic parameter connecting the classical and relativistic theories is represented by the Beckmann-Parr equation. The very parameter K becoming meaningless under strong relativistic effects transform the apparatus of the classical theory into the relativistic one.

31. Another important factor determining the correspondence between the classical and relativistic theories is presented by the existence of a certain transitional zone where relativistic effects take place. Relativistic effects gradually penetrate into the classical theory: there are two poles. Firstly, the ideal Christaller grid described by the classical theory and the central-place system with no second hierarchical tier. The latter does not fit to the classical theory at all and can only be described by the relativistic theory. There is a wide "area" between those poles which includes the vast majority of urban settlement systems existing now or existed before.

32. It is obvious that a close-to-ideal Christaller grid can exist in a very rare situation. This is true even for the central places' system of South Germany. A corresponding figure in the classical book by W. Christaller (Christaller, 1966) unequivocally shows that only the existence of a preconceived idea let its author to see on the map something looking like a regular hexagonal grid.

33. Finally, the very state of isostatic equilibrium expressed by the equation (1) represents a very important parameter which ensures the correspondence between the classical and relativistic theories. If isostatic equilibrium is complete, then the equation (1) is true for both an urban system completely corresponding to the ideal Christaller grid (if one can imagine that such a system exists) and one with high concentration of cities near the principal center and no second hierarchical tier.

34. Let us now discuss stability of spatial structures of real settlement systems. It has to be emphasized that hierarchical structuralization of urban settlement systens does not happen at once. A hypothesis was earlier suggested by V.A. Shuper that urban settlement systems first had been formed as a whole while their compliance with predictions of the Zipf's rule getting improved, and then a distinct hierarchical structure was formed thus improving their agreement with predictions of the central-place theory and worsening their compliance with ones of the Zipf's rule.

35. As if substances pass with time from amorphous to crystalline conditions, settlement systems also pass from a quasi-amorphus state described by the Zipf's rule to a quasi-crystalline state characterized by predictions of the central-place theory.

36. This hypothesis has been successfully proved by such diverse settlement systems as those of Estonia, Armenia, Georgia and Central Russia (computing programs were created by N. Aznauryan).

37. Table 1 presents values of a parameter which was calculated using the method by Yu.V. Medvedkov (Medvedkov, 1964) and is equal to the average of squared deviations from the natural logarithm function approximating the population distribution of first 16 largest cities for corresponding regions. As it can be seen from the Table 1, all four settlement systems began improving their agreement with the Zipf's model during some initial period and then changed this trend to the opposite one. Increasing values of the parameter can be seen as an indicator of growing integrity of each system.

38. It seems to be quite logical that in Central Russia, transition from a quasi-amorphus state into a quasi-crystalline one happened as early as in the middle of nineteenth century. The following dynamics of the parameter show a constant growth. By the time when Estonian Republic proclaimed itself independent and left Russia Estonian settlement system had been already quite mature. Not surprisingly the latter had developed as a kind of integrity earlier than Armenia and Georgia did it. Being more compact than its northern neighbor, Armenia left Georgia behind for the latter was witnessing clear centrifugal tendencies. The latest decline of the parameter in Estonia might be understood as a legitimate fluctuation provoked by the process of re-establishing its independence.

39. Let us now analyze dynamics of the parameter which characterizes the degree of correspondence of a system with the state of isostatic equilibrium (Table 2).

40. In the case of Estonia, the parameter under consideration got quite close to its predicted value of 3 (for 4 tiers of hierarchy) by the year 1959, and in 1965 it became equal with the ideal. The subsequent behavior of the parameter can be interpreted as follows: under the forces of inertia of its own movement, the system achieves the value of 3.18, and after that it starts moving back. The hypothesis on oscillatory type of dynamics of the parameter has been already suggested (Valesyan, 1991). To obtain the data supporting such a hypothesis, we have to analyze many examples of real settlement systems.

41. A new splash occurring in Estonian settlement system after 1989 might seem quite strange. But we should not forget about stormy political collisions survived by Estonia during the period of painful re-establishing of its national independence, for they for sure influence the development of its urban settlement system.

Years / Central Russia / Estonia / Armenia / Georgia

1833 / 11.40 / -- / -- / --

1840 / 9.93 / -- / -- / --

1847 / 10.11 / -- / -- / --

1861 / 11.24 / -- / -- / --

1870 / 20.41 / -- / -- / --

1885 / 25.64 / -- / -- / --

1897 / 32.69 / -- / -- / --

1926 / -- / -- / 3.17 / 7.59

1927 / 1.49 / -- / -- / --

1931 / -- / -- / 6.62 / --

1934 / -- / 0.66 / -- / --

1939 / -- / -- / 6.32 / 16.51

1950 / -- / -- / -- / 16.25

1959 / -- / 3.36 / 15.09 / 19.04

1970 / -- / 4.22 / 22.21 / 21.60

1979 / -- / 5.98 / 28.42 / 23.47

1989 / -- / 7.61 / 36.66 . 28.00

1992 / 294.93 / 6.98 / -- / --

1993 / -- / -- / 37.11 / --

Table 1. Changes in the degree of agreement of some settlement systems with the rule of "rank-size".

Years / CentralRussia / Estonia / Armenia / Georgia

1926 / 2.01 (4) / -- / 3.11 (3) / 1.76 (4)

1927 / -- / 2.58 (3) / -- / --

1931 / -- / -- / -- / 1.73 (4)

1934 / -- / 2.40 (3) / -- / --

1937 / 2.41 (4) / -- / -- / --

1939 / -- / -- / 1.61 (3) / 1.92 (4)

1959 / 2.82(4) / 2.84 (4) / 1.55 (3) / 2.79 (4)

1965 / 3.07 (4) / 3.00 (4) / 2.33 (4) / 2.95 (4)

1970 / 3.32 (4) / 3.09 (4) / 2.68 (4) / 3.05 (4)

1979 / 3.63 (4) / 3.14 (4) / 2.99 (4) / 2.82 (4)

1985 / -- / 3.18 (4) / -- / --

1988 / -- / -- / 3.22 (4) / --

1989 / 3.55 (4) / 3.13 (4) / 3.14 (4) / 2.90 (4)

1992 / 3.57 (4) / 3.18 (4) / -- / --

1993 / -- / -- / 3.37 (4) / --

Table 2. Changes in the degree of spatial stabilite of some urban settlement systems.
Numbers in parentheses represent the number of hierarchical tiers.

42. As if on purpose, Estonia has been created by nature to help verify different approaches in the field of central-place theory. Settlement systems which lack the same degree of maturity and integrity fit this goal to a much lesser extent. Nevertheless an attempt to apply either classical or relativistic central-place theories to them can be quite interesting.

43. The only one of three Baltic republics, Estonia is an ideal region for the development of the central-place theory. Latvia's capital, Riga, is too big for such a country for the city became a major transportational center; Lithuania historically possesses two capitals. Both Ukraine and Byelorussia as if have been built of two distinctive pieces: their settlement systems are far from integrity, and this affects proportions of these systems. There are two capitals in Ukraine as well; in Byelorussia the urban settlement system is not only divided into eastern and western parts but also has disproportional hierarchical tiers: it lacks, in particular, a sufficient development of a network of small cities which would have contributed to the forth hierarchical tier.

44. In this connection republics of Caucasia are of a great interest, and especially those of Armenia and Georgia, as the territory of Azerbaijan has been torn apart. Let us consider the data on Armenia. As it can be seen from the Table 2, changes in the degree of stability of spatial structure of the urban settlement system in Armenia have been following the trend similar to one of Estonia: at the beginning there was a poor agreement with predictions of the theory, but since approximately mid-sixties, when a fourth hierarchical tier appeared in the system, the latter began to get closer to the isostatic equilibrium and even passed it "farther". Unlike Estonia, with its more mature settlement system, Armenia has not seen any returning movement of the "pendulum" yet, and the 1989 value reflects the impact of the major earthquake on its settlement system. It can be suggested that in the near future such a oscillatory trend will show up in Armenia as well.

45. A somewhat different trajectory describes the changes in the degree of spatial stability of the settlement system of Georgia. Having reached the isostatic equilibrium by the end of 1960s, the parameter of stability went to the opposite direction after that. For now it is hard to say if the settlement system of Georgia follows its own way, or it will repeat that of Estonia in a few years, with the parameter of stability decreasing after having reached an ideal agreement with the theory. If the second option comes true, its later realization can be explained by the lower level of integrity of the settlement system of Georgia: centrifugal tendencies could and still can be seen in it quite clearly.

Centrifugal: proceeding or acting in a direction away from a center or axis.

-- Centrifugal, by Merriam-Webster

46. Though all three settlement systems under consideration can be described by the classical central-place theory, it is not the case for the territory of Central Russia. The settlement system of Central Russia lacks those cities which had to have formed the second tier of hierarchy, that is why in order to evaluate the degree of agreement of the system with the isostatic equilibrium, we use the apparatus of the relativistic central-place theory.

R[t][n]
t/
R[e][n]

47. Let us shift our attention from real values of the parameter of stability of settlement systems to its methodological importance. At a first approximation, the latter can be used as a good indicator of changes in stages of spatial evolution of settlement. A hypothesis on the oscillatory nature of changes in urban settlement systems' stability was suggested earlier (Valesyan, 1991). The time points where the direction of oscillatory movements changes may turn out to be the very critical points where the system moves from one state with, for example, predominantly centripetal tendencies, to the other state with predominantly centrifugal ones. Monitoring trajectories of changes in stability of settlement systems with different level of maturity, together with studying spatial evolution of urbanisation in those systems, can lead to quite fruitful results.

48. We have analyzed some possibilities of synthesis of those conceptions which deal with settlement systems only. The search for these possibilities seems to be quite logical. It might be a lot less trivial of an idea to suggest the existence of a certain synchronisa in the changes of stages which describe heterogeneous spatial phenomena. An inner connection can exist between, say, an appearance of a new topological level in the transportation network, development of a new hierarchical tier in the corresponding urban settlement system, a change in directions of spatial components of urbanisation (from centripetal to centrifugal and vise versa) and an emergence of a next wave of concentration or deconcentration in the regional development. If enough of serious evidence could be found to support this statement, it would be possible to discuss possibilities to create a theory which would allow to embrace all existing conceptions of phasic spatial development. By analogy with physics, this future theory can be named with some sense of humor a theory of the Great Unification. The idea to create such a theory capable of unifying research paradigms which are methodologically related but still significantly separated from each other, will allow to reach a better understanding of the drama of spatial connections of different phenomena and to reveal their concordance.

In mathematics, topology (from the Greek τόπος, place, and λόγος, study) is concerned with the properties of space that are preserved under continuous deformations, such as stretching, crumpling and bending, but not tearing or gluing. This can be studied by considering a collection of subsets, called open sets, that satisfy certain properties, turning the given set into what is known as a topological space. Important topological properties include connectedness and compactness.

-- Topology, by Wikipedia

49. At a first approximation, we can intuitively suggest that the invariant which characterizes the degree of stability of spatial structure of urban settlement systems can become such a pivot to "thread" the above-named conceptions. This means that determining the trajectory of changes in stability of a system, a researcher can "catch" different stages of spatial self-development. It seems to have a deep meaning for the urban settlement system of a given region, reflects in one way or another a whole palette of the spatial self-development "from geology (location of largest cities at morpho-structural nodes) to ideology (cities as focuses of political and cultural life)" (Guberman, 1987).

50. Suggesting the above-named invariant as one of foundation-stones of the future theory of the Great Unification is a logical step from the methodological point of view, for the growth of the theoretical knowledge in any areas of the natural science starts from the search for specific invariants, or parameters which are stable with regard to certain transformations (Ovchinnikov & Shuper, 1987).

51. It might seem at the first sight that the suggested idea on the possibility to create the theory of the Great Unification is somewhat improbable or even fantastic. But it is known that the verisimilitude is a false criterion of the correctness of a theory.

52. Strict mathematical statements existing in the theory will allow to empirically verify its conclusions in the future. As it was noted by K. Popper, "we try to find similar features in objects and interpret them according to laws invented by ourselves. Not waiting for all premises to be at our disposal, we immediately formulate conclusions. They can be rejected later on if the observation will prove their error" (Popper, 1959).

53. As a conclusion, let us express the hope that the theory of the Great Unification will not lack attention of geographers. For if a conception, as it was righteously noticed by W. Heisenberg, "is so good that it allows to combine a lot of most different phenomena which look "the same" or closely related in a certain aspect, then this conception will be accepted for the very unifying power of its own" (Heisenberg, 1991, p.77).

_______________

Bibliography

Christaller, W., 1966,Central Places in Southern Germany,Englewood Cliffs (N.J.),Prentice-Hall.

Dacey, M.F., Davies, O., Flowerdeco, R., Huff, J., Ko, A., Pipkin, & John S., 1974, "One Dimensional Central Place Theory", Evanston (Ill.), Dept. of Geography, Northwestern University, n°21-1974.

Funck, R. & Parr, J.B. (ed.), 1978, The Analysis of Regional Structure : Essays in honor of AugustLosch, Pion, London.

Guberman, Sh.A., 1987, "O Priurochennosti Krupneyshikh Gorodov Mira k Diskretnym Shirotam [On the Location of Biggest Cities in the World at "Discrete" Latitudes]", in Metody Izucheniya Rasseleniya, Moscow, 100-107.

Haggett, P., 1983,Geography : A Modern Synthesis,Rev. 3rd ed., New York, Harper & Row.

Heisenberg, W., 1991, "Chto Takoye "Ponimaniye" v Teoreticheskoy Fizike ?" [What is "Understanding" in Theoretical Physics ?]", in Priroda, n°4-1991, pp.75-77.

Losch, August, 1954,The Economics of Location,New Haven, Yale University Press.

Medvedkov, Yu.V., 1964, "O Razmerakh Gorodov, Ob'edinennykh v Systemu [on the Sizes of Cities Being Included into a System]", in Kolichestvenniye Metody Issledovaniya v Ekonomicheskoy Geographii, Moscow, 90-121.

Ovchinnikov, N.F. & Shuper, V.A., 1987, "Symmetria Sotsial'no-Geographicheskogo Prostranstva i Samoorganizatsia System Rasseleniya [Symmetry of Social Geographic Space and Selforganization of Settlement Systems, in Metody Izuchenia Rasseleniya, Moscow, 18-34.

Parr, J.B., 1969, "City Hierarchies and the Distribution of City Size : A Reconsideration of Beckmann's Contribution", Journal ofRegionalscience, vol. 9, n°2-1969, 239-253.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1467-9787.1969.tb01337.x

Parr, J.B., 1978, "Models of the Central Place System : A More General Approach", Urban Studies, n°1-1978, 35-49.
DOI : 10.1080/00420987820080041

Popper, K.R.,1976,Unended Quest : An Intellectual Autobiography,London, Fontana.

Popper, K.R., 1959, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, New York, BasicBooks.
DOI : 10.1063/1.3060577

Printsip Sootvetstviya. Istoriko-metodologicheskii analiz [Principle of Correspondence. Historical Methodological Analysis], Moscow, 1979.

Rodoman, B.B., 1970, "Osnovniye Protsessy Prostranstvennoi Differentsiatsii [Major Processes of Spatial Differentiation]", Vestnik MGU, Seriya V. Geographiya, n°5-1970, pp.22-30.

Shuper, V.A., 1984, "Paradoksy Teorii Tsentral'nykh Mest i Ikh Znachenie Dlya Analiza System Rasseleniya Stolichnogo Tipa [Paradoxes of Central Place Theory and Their Importance for the

Analysis of Settlement Systems of Regional Capitals]", in Regional Settlement in the USSR, Moscow, 172-184.

Shuper, V.A., 1989, "Deformation of Central Place Systems in the Formation of Large Urban Agglomerations", Soviet Geography, XXX, n°1-1989, 24-32.

Shuper, V.A., 1989, "Nekotoriye Udivitellniye Svoystva Kristallerovskikh Reshetok [Some Amazing Characteristics of Christaller Grids]", Izvestiya AN, Seriya geographicheskaya, n°1-1990, 96-100.

Valesyan, A.L., 1991, "Kolebatel'niye Protsessy v Systemakh Tsentral'nykh Mest [Oscillatory Processes in Central Place Systems]", Izvestiya VGO, 123, n°4-1991, 371-372.

List of illustrations

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... /img-1.png

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... /img-2.png

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... /img-3.png

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... /img-4.png

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... /img-5.png

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... /img-6.png

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... /img-7.png

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... /img-8.png

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... /img-9.png

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... img-10.png

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... img-11.png

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... img-12.png

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... img-13.png

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... img-14.png

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... img-15.png

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... img-16.png

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... img-17.png

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... img-18.png

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... img-19.png

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... img-20.png

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... img-21.png

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... img-22.png

URL http://journals.openedition.org/cyberge ... img-23.png

References

Electronic reference

Viatcheslav Shuper and A.L. Valesyan, « Spatial structure of urban settlement systems : stability versus changeability », Cybergeo : European Journal of Geography [Online], Systems, Modelling, Geostatistics, document 88, Online since 26 March 1999, connection on 03 September 2018. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/2386 ; DOI : 10.4000/cybergeo.2386

About the authors

Viatcheslav Shuper
Institut de Géographie, Académie des Sciences de Russie, Moscou

By this author
Débats socratiques en géographie [Full text]
СОКРАТИЧЕСКИЕ ЧТЕНИЯ ПО ГЕОГРАФИИ
Published in Cybergeo : European Journal of Geography, Current issues, Débats socratiques en géographie
La théorie des lieux centraux et les phénomènes d’évolution [Full text]
Article 87
Published in Cybergeo : European Journal of Geography, Systems, Modelling, Geostatistics
A.L. Valesyan
Institut de Géographie

Académie des Sciences de Russie, Moscou

[admin]

Russia Youth Environmental Program
by U.S. Embassy & Consulates in Russia (ru.usembassy.gov)
Accessed: 9/2/18

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

To apply please visit: http://ryep.ru/
Application deadline: March 19, 2018



The Russian Youth Environmental Program (RYEP) is designed to foster greater understanding between the people of the United States and Russia and provide Russian youth with an international forum to discuss environmental issues. The program will focus on environmental sustainability – which considers how individual, community, corporate, and global practices can better contribute to the health and sustainability of the world. Russian participants will learn more about environmental sustainability, gain exposure to successful youth-led environmental and community service projects, and examine the topics of community engagement and citizen participation.

In the summer of 2018, RYEP will bring 40 Russians ages 18-20 to the United States for a four-week program consisting of training seminars, interactive group activities, site visits, and community service opportunities. Participants will be matched with environmental organizations to gain hands-on experience and learn from the leaders of the projects. The program will include cultural activities and a two week homestay so that the participants can learn about the culture and everyday life of the American people.

[admin]

RUY - Russian Union of Youth
Centre for International Cooperation
by Russian Union of Youth
Accessed: 9/2/18

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Russian Union of Youth (RUY) is one of the biggest non-governmental, non-political and non-profit youth organizations in Russia, focusing on providing young Russians with leadership experience through various projects and programs.

Every year more than 4 million young people participate in these projects and programmes. RUY has regional offices in 75 regions of Russia with a large number of local offices in schools, colleges, universities and enterprises.

RUY organizes more than 20 national and more than 200 regional projects and programmes for young people. All projects and programs are supported by either federal or local authorities. In 2014 RUY was honored to become for the second time one of the providers of the President grants for NGOs working in the social field.

International youth cooperation is one of the main areas of work for Russian Union of Youth. RUY cooperates with more than 20 foreign states by organizing and participating in international projects, exchanges, conferences, panel discussions etc. Every year RUY welcomes foreign delegations from our partner countries and send active members of the organization abroad.

On the international scene RUY works in accordance with priorities of the Russian foreign policy. Russian Union of Youth collaborates with the Government of Russian Federation (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, the Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States, Compatriots Living Abroad and International Humanitarian Cooperation, and the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation), funds (the Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund, the Russkiy Mir Foundation, the CIS Interstate Humanitarian Cooperation Fund) and educational institutions (Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Moscow State University, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, Russian State Social University) etc. Foreign youth organizations of CIS, SCO, BRICS, EU countries are also among partners of RUY. However, we are open for cooperation with all organizations concerned.

Spheres of Work:

- Engaging young compatriots living abroad

- Promoting Russian language and culture abroad

- Developing youth public diplomacy

- Developing international youth entrepreneurship

Methods of Work:

- International educational projects

- Developing multilateral cooperation (CIS, SCO, BRICS)

- International youth business clubs

- Participating in the projects organized by Russian and foreign NGOs

- Organizing international projects, contests, conferences, discussions, meetings etc.

2014 – Overview

During 2014, Russian Union of Youth has been working intensively to broaden cooperation with its partners from the Government of the Russian Federation, major Russian NGOs working in the field of international relations and public diplomacy, funds, and universities.

From January to December 2014 more than 15 foreign delegations consisted of young leaders, politicians, NGO employees, and entrepreneurs paid visits to the Central Committee of Russian Union of Youth (more than 100 people from all around the world).

RUY activists participated in a number of international events held in Russia and abroad.

Taking into account that cooperation with CIS-countries is one of the priorities of the Russian foreign policy, RUY also focuses on cooperation with these countries. In 2014 Russian Union of Youth organized its traditional international events in Russia: “Be-La-Rus” International Youth Camp (Pskov), “Sosedi” International Youth Camp (Orenburg), XXI Century Leader International Student Unions School (Rostov-on-Don), “Russkaya Zima” International Youth Festival (Yaroslavl).

A new impetus was given to the development of friendly relations with China. Russian Union of Youth became an operator of youth exchanges in the framework of the Russia-China Youth Friendly Exchanges Years 2014-2015. RUY became one of the organizers of the Opening Ceremony of the Years as well as of the concert in the State Kremlin Palace dedicated to Russia-China friendship (October, 12). RUY activists also participated in the traditional youth exchanges with All-China Youth Federation – the main partner of RUY in China. Five Chinese delegations visited Russia in 2014 at the invitation of Russian Union of Youth.

Working with members of the SCO was also an important area for RUY. Several large events aimed at strengthening relations with these countries were organized: Shanghai Cooperation Organization Student Spring Festival, the SCO Youth Innovation Forum and a number of panel discussions. The delegation of RUY took part in the annual meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Youth Council in Tajikistan in June 2014.

Russian Union of Youth is also working on developing youth cooperation within BRICS. The first landmark event was the BRICS International Youth Forum, which took place in Moscow from 21 to 25 July 2014. All delegates of the Forum decided to organize similar events in their countries. From 2 to 10, November a delegation of Russian Union of Youth visited the capital of India New-Delhi. Russian and Indian young leaders have decided to organize two more events in Delhi in 2015.

Russian Union of Youth also gave a new boost to the development of the European Youth Card in Russia; a project organized by EYCA (European Youth Card Association) where RUY has the membership since 90-s. Experts have prepared an action plan for card development in Russia for 2015-2020.

2014 – Events and Highlights:

The Opening Ceremony of the Russia-China Youth Friendly Exchanges Years 2014-2015



The Russia-China Youth Friendly Exchanges Years 2014-2015 were launched in St. Petersburg on March 28th, with Chinese President Xi Jinping and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin both sending congratulatory messages to the event. Visiting Chinese Vice Premier Liu Yandong and her Russian counterpart Olga Golodets pledged to deepen youth interaction between the two countries.

The opening ceremony with Russian Union of Youth as one of co-organizers was held at the new Concert Hall of Mariinsky Theater. RUY had also trained a large group of volunteers for the event.

As part of the Years events, a youth exchange program involving 100 schools and 10,000 students from both countries, as well as an online interaction program involving 1 million students from both sides, were also launched on the same day.

The concert of the opening ceremony was performed by the joint symphony orchestra consisting of young musicians from both countries. The world-renowned Russian conductor Valery Gergiev, the general and artistic director of the Mariinsky Theatre, was in charge of the Russian-Chinese Youth Symphony Orchestra. The concert was the first event of the program, which is in action for 2 years. The youth-themed activities should be of great appeal to young people from both countries, especially those learning Russian in China, and Chinese in Russia.

Before the concert, the Mariinsky Palace (the residence of the Legislative Assembly of Saint Petersburg) held a meeting of the organizing committee of the Years. Russian Union of Youth is an active member and contributor of the committee. Following the meeting, Liu Yandong and Olga Golodets signed the Action Plan of the Years.

On the same day, Russian Union of Youth participated in the task meeting with the representatives of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation and All-China Youth Federation. Russia and China have prepared more than 300 activities within the framework of the Russia-China Youth Friendly Exchanges Years, including large-scale two-way youth visits, language contests, sport games, youth forums and art festivals.

2014 and 2015 years will be a period of active development of relations in the humanitarian field between Russia and China, including youth cooperation.

Russian-Chinese Forum on Youth Friendship and Cooperation

Russian-Chinese Forum on Youth Friendship and Cooperation took place on the campus of the Far-Eastern Federal University on Russkiy Island (Vladivostok, Russia) from 24 to 26 June. The Forum was organized by Russian Union of Youth with the support of the Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund and the Far-Eastern Federal University.

The Forum is one of the featured events of the Russia-China Youth Friendly Exchanges Years 2014-2015, an intergovernmental cultural project aimed at developing Russian-Chinese cooperation in culture, education, art and science.

On the first day of the Forum, students and teachers from Russia and China (Beijing City University, Beijing Foreign Studies University, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Chinese University of Political Science and Law, etc.) met for a panel discussion.

The participants of the Forum discussed achievements and prospects in the field of bilateral youth cooperation, shared experience of working with young people and children. During the Forum they also met with Vladivostok authorities and had a guided tour around the city. The event boosted the relations between Russian and Chinese young leaders and contributed to the mutual cultural understanding. Participants also signed a joint resolution in the end of the Forum.

Chinese-Russian business club for young entrepreneurs

Sino-Russian Youth Business Club and its web-site were launched on June, 29 in Harbin (China). The Club was founded by Russian Union of Youth and All-China Youth Federation. It is due to become a good platform for cooperation between young entrepreneurs of both countries.

Assistant to the Chairman of the All-China Youth Federation Wan Xuejun said “the club will help to nurture the results of pragmatic cooperation and to share international experience”.

Meetings between young entrepreneurs of two countries is an important part of the Action Plan of The Russia-China Youth Friendly Exchanges Years 2014-2015. New club is due to organize a large amount of events including business negotiations between Chinese and Russian entrepreneurs, seminars and lectures as well as to provide information and consulting via its web-site.

Shanghai Cooperation Organization Student Spring Festival (SCO Student Spring Festival)



Shanghai Cooperation Organization Student Spring Festival took place in Chita (Zabaikalsky Kray, Russia) from 2 to 7 July. The Festival was included into the Action Plan of the Russian presidency in the SCO in 2014-2015 and became the biggest youth event in Russia in 2014.

More than 3,5 thousand people from 14 member states, observer states and dialogue partner states of the SCO (China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, India, Iran, Mongolia, Pakistan, Sri-Lanka, Belarus, Turkey) came to Chita. According to RIA-Novosti news agency, the Festival took the second position at the top list of the most expected events on the Russian Federation territory after Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014. The Festival gala concert was broadcasted on a federal TV channel.

The founders and organizers of the Festival are the All-Russian public organization “Russian Union of Youth” and the Government of Zabaikalsky Krai. It was supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia and the Ministry of Culture of Russia.

The Festival program was subdivided into seven thematic areas in which the youth demonstrate their abilities in the fields of science, education, sports, creativity, entrepreneurship, and social activities. More than 100 famous and well-known politicians, officials, journalists, artists and public figures took place in the Festival in the capacity of experts, moderators and honored guests.

This international festival became an effective platform for strengthening relations, developing cooperation among the SCO countries and forming a positive image of Russia abroad.

BRICS International Youth Forum



BRICS International Youth Forum took place in Moscow from 21 to 25 July 2014.

Sixteen young leaders from Brazil, India, China and South Africa arrived to the capital of Russia to discuss with their Russian counterparts the prospects of youth cooperation in the political, economic, humanitarian and cultural fields in BRICS countries. More than 150 people took part in the Forum.

The Forum was supported by the Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States, Compatriots Living Abroad and International Humanitarian Cooperation (Rossotrudnichestvo).

The Opening Ceremony and the plenary session of the Forum took place in Moscow State University in the presence of honored guests from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia, Embassy of India in Russia, Moscow Government and RUY.

On the first day of the Forum, young leaders of BRICS visited workshops and seminars by well-known Russian investors, financial gurus and innovators. They also visited the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation in order to discuss the role of public diplomacy in the modern world. The participants of the panel discussion decided to create BRICS Youth Magazine and appeal to the governments of state to boost youth exchanges among BRICS countries, to create joint educational institutions and innovation projects.

The agenda of the Forum also included the visit to the Central Committee of Russian Union of Youth where participants had an opportunity to meet with the Chairman of RUY Pavel Krasnorutskiy and learn more about RUY’s projects and programmes.

The last day of the Forum was dedicated to the visit to the Moscow School of Management SKOLKOVO, the largest private business school in Russia.

BRICS International Youth Forum came out with an outcome document “Dialogues for Resolution”. Among other things, the outcome document calls for “establishing a working group for creating BRICS Youth Councils' communicative platforms for executing plans with respect to business, innovation, leadership development, humanitarian, political and scientific fields; creation of a division of the Development Bank of the BRICS aimed at supporting youth initiatives in entrepreneurship and innovation projects; and creating a system of youth internships and exchange programs, mentoring and enterprise development.”

The SCO Youth Innovation Forum

On October 7-10, 2014, Ufa (Republic of Bashkortostan, Russian Federation) hosted the Youth Innovation Forum of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), bringing together young scientists from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and China, as well as from major Russian cities with the population of more than one million. The Forum was included into the Action Plan of the Russian presidency in the SCO in 2014-2015.

The All-Russian public organization “Russian Union of Youth”, the Government of Bashkortostan Republic were the organizers of the Forum. Ufa-2015 SCO BRICS Office Group Autonomous Non-commercial Organization acted as a co-organizer of the event. The Ministry of Youth and Sports of Bashkortostan Republic operated all preparations and logistics.

Bashkir universities presented their innovation projects in the foyer of the Congress Hall, where the exhibition of innovation solutions from six different fields (nanosystems, agriculture, energy, environmental management, information technology and breakthrough technologies in medicine) was held on the first day of the Forum.

The roundtable discussion on the subject “Prospects for SCO Innovation Cooperation” took place right after the opening part. Denis Gusev, Director of the Convergus Project Oriented Educational Technologies Center led the discussion.

“We invited investors, experts, businessmen and representatives of major industrial holdings to take a look at the projects and innovative ideas proposed by the young people at the Forum. We are confident that the Forum will help young scientists in their future work and encourage further cooperation within the SCO,” said Deputy Prime Minister of Bashkortostan Marat Magadeyev.

More than 30 experts from the Skolkovo Innovation Centre, Agency for Strategic Initiatives, Russian Venture Company as well as representatives of investment companies and private investors studied and evaluated 80 different projects. As a result, 18 participants reached the final of the competition. Three winners in each nomination were determined: “Best Innovative Product”, “Best Innovative Project”, and “Best Innovative Idea”. They received money prizes, became members of the RUY’s business club.

100-member Russian Youth Delegation to China

In the framework of the Russia-China Youth Friendly Exchanges Years 2014-2015 a 100-member Russian youth delegation visited China at the invitation of the All-China Youth Federation in late October, 2014. The visit was prepared and organized by Russian Union of Youth and the Ministry of Education and Science.

The goal of the visit was to share experience in youth policies and to strengthen friendly relations between Russian and Chinese young people. Young NGO employees, innovators, journalists, entrepreneurs, lawyers, scientists, doctors, civil servants aged 20-40 from all Russian regions became members of the delegation. The visit lasted for 7 days and the Russian delegation divided in four smaller delegations had an opportunity to learn more about life in Shandong, Jilin, Shaanxi and Hubei.

In provinces, delegates had meetings with students and university officials, visited industrial parks, car factories and business incubators. They also participated in roundtable discussions with Chinese entrepreneurs.

Chinese Vice President Li Yuanchao met with a Russian youth delegation in Beijing. Li said Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2013 decided to conduct Year of Youth Exchange between China and Russia in 2014 and 2015, which is a major decision concerning long-term development of China-Russia relations. He called on young people from both countries to work together for the better future of bilateral relations.

Chinese partners organized a large cultural program for their Russian friends. The members of delegation saw the Terracotta Army, the Museum of the Imperial Palace of the Manchu State, The Forbidden City, The Temple of Confucius, Changchun World Sculpture Park and the Great Wall of China.

Russia-China Youth Concert

On October, 12 the State Kremlin Palace hosted the Russia-China Youth Concert organized in the framework of the Russia-China Youth Friendly Exchanges Years 2014-2015. The Concert was organized by Russian Union of Youth, the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia and the Ministry of Culture of Russia.

The concert was dedicated to the official visit of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang to Russia. Artists from Beijing and Moscow participated in the concert. All guests also had an opportunity to see the art and calligraphy exhibition organized on the same venue.

Visiting Chinese Vice Premier Liu Yandong and her Russian counterpart Olga Golodets addressed to the guests in the beginning of the concert. They emphasized the high level or relations and cooperation between Russia and China in all fields, including humanitarian sphere.

“New generations, who better acknowledge and understand each other's culture and value systems, are taking shape in Russia and China,” Golodets told. “That will positively influence the political climate of bilateral relations in the coming decades, and facilitate joint programs in various social spheres,” she added.

The Chairman of RUY Pavel Krasnorutskiy said that “all these bilateral events are extremely important for establishing long-term relations and cooperation in education, science and youth policy. “We have been working hard and have already created organizing committees in both countries, organized a number of meeting on different levels and worked out a joint action plan”, he added.

RUY’s Official Visit to India

A delegation of Russian Union of Youth visited the capital of India New-Delhi from 2 to 10, November. Tatiana Seliverstova, Head of International Department, says that it was the first visit to India for RUY activists.

Russian Union of Youth is to play an important role during the period of the Russian chairmanship of the BRICS due to the fact that it has been working hard on developing cooperation among young people of BRICS countries since 2012. BRICS International Youth Forum held in Moscow in July 2014 became an important landmark for developing youth cooperation within BRICS. During the Forum participants have decided to meet again in autumn.

In order to discuss a wide range of issues RUY invited innovators, scientists, project managers and entrepreneurs to take part in the visit. During their stay in New Delhi, they participated in various important meetings and discussions.

The roundtable discussion “Prospects of Development of Russian-Indian Collaboration at the level of youth unions, organizations and associations”, jointly organized by the Russian Centre of Science and Culture (RCSC) and the International Federation of Indo-Russian Youth Clubs was aimed at marking the World Youth Day.

Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi, M.P., who was the chief guest from the Indian side, lauded the crucial role played by Russia in supporting the country in times of difficulties and referred to the number of bilateral projects contributing to the development of the country. Ms. Lekhi identified such fields as trade, economy, health, education and science and technology for intensive cooperation. She laid deep stress on the immense potential of the youth organizations from both sides to materialize India's ambitious concepts such as Swatch Bharat and Make in India.

Later the Russian delegation was also welcomed at the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi and at Jawaharlal Nehru University. After the meeting with representatives of these universities, it was decided to sign bilateral agreements during the next Russian visit to India.

The delegation also visited the VIII Russian-Indian Trade and Investment Forum. The Russian delegation was led by Mr. Dmitry Rogozin, Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation. After the Forum the young delegates were honored to be received by Yaroslav Tarasyuk, Russian Trade Representative in India, with whom they discussed opportunities for cooperation between Indian and Russian young entrepreneurs. Mr.Tarasyuk offered to established an Indo-Russia Youth Business Club. Russian Union of Youth is going to work on this ambitious project.

As result of the visit, two sides decided to organize BRICS International Youth Forum (BIYF) and India-Russia Youth Forum in New-Delhi.

RUY Public Diplomacy School

From 17 to 21 November, 2014 Russian Union of Youth organized together with Russian State Social University the Public Diplomacy School. Thirty young people aged 18-35 took part in the project.

The Public Diplomacy School is a project aiming at providing further education for students, postgraduates and young politicians in the area of political and socio-economic cooperation. Meetings with well-known politicians and public figures as well as master classes taught by experts in the field of international relations are included in the program.

The participants visited the Federation Council, the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation and RT Channel Office.

As a result of the Forum Russian Union of Youth decided to establish the Public Diplomacy Youth Club. All alumni of RUY Public Diplomacy Schools have an opportunity to become its members. Moreover, all Club members are welcomed to publish their articles and essays on international relations, foreign policy and public diplomacy on the web-site of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC).

2015 – Events and Highlights:

The Public Diplomacy Youth Club

The first meeting of the Public Diplomacy Youth Club was held on January 20. Students and experts in the field of international relations and public diplomacy took part in the meeting. They discussed the future structure and projects of the Club as well as the role of Russia on the international scene.

The main aim of the Club is creating a pool of young diplomats and ambassadors who can participate in RUY’s international projects in Russia and abroad. The Club will work permanently in order to give its members all opportunities for professional development. RUY is going to have one meeting every month, where popular public figures, politicians and experts will be invited.

The Public Diplomacy Youth Club focuses more on projects and practice rather than on theory. The Club members can also participate in the work of Department of International Cooperation and Innovations as well as receive consultations and help should they desire to set up their own projects.

These topics of the meeting will mainly touch upon the most important issues for Russian foreign policy – CIS, SCO, BRICS and China.

BRICS International Youth Forum

The three-day BRICS International Youth Forum was held in late January at the Russian Centre of Science and Culture (RCSC) in New Delhi. RUY became one of the main organizers of the Forum and sent a large delegation. Other organizers of the Forum are the Russian Centre of Science and Culture, International Federation of Indo-Russian Youth Clubs. The organizing committee also received knowledgeable support of the BRICS Chamber of Commerce & Industry and the Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs.

The delegates of the BRICS Youth Forum proceeded to Gandhi Smriti and Darshan Samiti, the venue of Mahatma Gandhi’s Last Prayer, to pay homage to the Father of Nation on the Martyr’s Day after the conclusion of the Forum. The delegates had the privilege of meeting the Hon’ble Prime Minister Narendra Modi there.

The Resolution adopted on the concluding day focused on the creation of a world-wide youth dialogue, communication tools and formation of a permanent platform for interaction between youth associations of BRICS countries, ensuring effective investment in youth professional potential of the BRICS countries. Experts and participants stressed that the above tasks acquired relevance. They also expressed the need for development of a programme of dialogue between young people, which should be the basis for a new strategy of developing cooperation among BRICS counties.

In this context, the participants identified such facets as establishing a Working Group for creating BRICS Youth Council, marking Youth Policy as a priority for interaction between BRICS countries, establishing a Coordination Council of Youth Programmes in BRICS, forming a specialized Unified Communication Centre, creating a Division of the Development Bank of the BRICS, organizing a System of Youth Internships, developing a Plan of Cooperation within the BRICS, and developing Inter-Cultural and Inter-Ethnic Dialogue, promoting public harmony and tolerance among youth of BRICS countries.

The Forum participants also decided to hold the next events in Ufa, Russia, in July 2015 and in South Africa in November 2015. The leaders of delegations emphasized that it is very important to hold such events in all five countries in order to give a chance to the bigger number of young people to be involved.

The head of the Russian delegation Tatiana Seliverstova also had a meeting with the officials from the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, who promised to support the India-Russia Youth Forum scheduled for March 2015. During the next Forum both sides plan to sign several bilateral agreements on cooperation.

[admin]

The Soviet Environment: Problems, Policies and Politics -- EXCERPT
edited by John Massey Stewart
©   Cambridge University Press 1992

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Igor I. [Izodorovich] Altshuler was a research associate of the Department of Geography, Moscow State University from 1972 to 1990, and is co-author of several books on global and regional environmental problems (atmospheric pollution, acid rains and bio-geochemical cycles). In recent years he has specialised in the USSR's environmental problems. He is co-founder of Moscow State University's Youth Council on Nature Protection (1974), the Association for the Support of Ecological Initiatives (1988) and the Independent Ecologists' Foundation (1990). Since 1991 he has been coordinating the 'Chernobyl' project of WISE (World Information Service on Energy), Amsterdam.

[admin]

Russian Organisations
by Civil G8
en.civilg8.ru
Accessed: 9/2/18

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

A.Vassiliev Russian Academy of Science, Institute of Africa studies Moscow
Abdulla Istamulov The center for strategic research and NGO in the North Caucasus region “SK-Strategy” Grozny
Aleksey Golovan Charity Center “Destiny Complicity” Moscow
Aleksey Simonov NGO “Glasnost Defense Foundation” Moscow
Alexander Auzan National Project Institute – Social Contract Moscow
Alexander Baranov Russian Association of Genetic Safety Moscow
Alexander Bedritskiy Russian Federal Agency on Hydrometeology and Environment Monitoring Moscow
Alexander Danilevich Civil Society to Children of Russia All-Russian Union of Public Associations Moscow
Alexander Fedorov Socio-Ecological Union Lipetsk
Alexander Fedorov Socio-ecological Union, Lipetsk Regional Branch Lipetsk
Alexander Gorelic UN Information Center Moscow
Alexander Klepikov Russian Society of the Disabled Moscow
Alexander Mironov Memorial, Bratsk Branch Bratsk
Alexander Mnazakanian “Demos” Center Moscow
Alexander Naidanov Smolensk youth charity fund "Phoenix" Smolensk
Alexander Nikitin Ecological Human Rights Centre "Belonna" Saint-Petesburg
Alexander Petrov Human Rights Watch - Москва Moscow
Alexander Provalov “Expert” Magazine Moscow
Alexander Ramenskiy National Hydrogen Energy Association Moscow
Alexander Shokhin Russian Union of Industrialists and Enterpreneurs Moscow
Alexander Smirnov Medical Department, Federal Agency of Execution of Penalties, Ministry of Justice Moscow
Alexander Sungurov Humanitarian and Politological Center "Strategy" Saint-Petesburg
Alexander Tkachenko Human Rights Comission under mayor of Moscow Moscow
Alexandr Andreev “Union of Progressive Youth of Samara Region” Samara
Alexandr Auzan National Project Institute - Social Contract, President Moscow
Alexandr Brod Moscow Bureau for Human Rights Moscow
Alexandr Cherkasov Memorial” Human Rights Center Moscow
Alexandr Gusev Scientific and technical Center Tata, General Director Nighny Novgorod region, Sarov
Alexandr Kavun Civil Dignity Иваново
Alexandr Kikot Lawyer Komi Republic
Alexandr Kononets Federal Penalties Service of Russia Moscow
Alexandr Kuznetsov Belorechensk city Public organization “Childhood World” Belorechensk
Alexandr Mukomolov General Lebed Peace Mission Moscow
Alexandr Nazarov Krasnoyarsk Human Rights Committee Krasnoyarsk
Alexandr Osipov “Memorial” Human Rights Center Moscow
Alexandr Suharev The Foundation of research assistance “Eurasia Security” Moscow
Alexandr Sungurov S-Petersburg Humanitarian and Political Science Center “Strategy” St Petersburg
Alexandr Sutiagin "BTS Monitoring” St Petersburg
Alexandr Verhovsky The Informational Analytical Center “Sova” Moscow
Alexandra Liapina Moscow State University, Moscow
Alexandra Ochirova “The Future of Women” Moscow
Alexey Egorov Moscow State University, department of chemistry, Engineering enzymology laboratory, State Antibiotic Centre Moscow
Alexey Egorov Association of Producers of clinical Diagnosis Tools Moscow
Alexey Fenenko Scientific and Educational Forum on International Relations Moscow
Alexey Grigoriev International Socio-Ecological Union Moscow
Alexey Grigoriev Socio-Ecological Union Moscow
Alexey Kokorin WWF Moscow
Alexey Kozlov The Foundation for Social and Ecological Justice Voronezh
Alexey Kozlov Social and Ecological Justice Fund Voronezh
Alexey Mitin Young leader's Association, Public organization "Public Development Centre "Accord" Almaty
Alexey Oreshnikov Lipetsk independent youth newspaper "La Coma" Lipetsk
Alexey Toporkov Social Pedagogues and Social Workers Union Moscow
Alexey Toropov Siberian Ecological Agency Tomsk
Alexey Yablokov Russian Center for Ecological Policy Moscow
Alie Sergienko Center for Socio-economic and regional research Barnaul
Alla Tolmasova Center for Democracy and Human Rights Moscow
Anastasiya Anikina Novosibirsk Regional Human Rights NGO “Siberian Club of Economy and Law” Novosibirsk
Anatoliy Kanunnikov “Social Ecology” Foundation Moscow
Anatoliy Mamaev Nuclear Non-Proliferation Center, Krasnoyarsk region
Anatoliy Mamaev Non-Prolifiration Center, Zheleznodorozhniy Branch Zheleznodorozhniy
Anatoliy Panfilov Russian Ecological Movement “KEDR” Moscow
Anatoliy Pinskiy Moscow School No.1060, member of Russian Council on Education Development Moscow
Anatoliy Smyrnov NGO “Russian Academy of Natural Sciences” Moscow
Anatoliy Vorobiev Microbiology and Virology Department, Moscow Medical Academy named after Sechenov, Russian Moscow
Anatoly Karpov International Association of Peace Foundations Moscow
Anatoly Slachkov Omsk Regional Social Foundation to Protect Children and Mass Sport Omsk
Andrei Ivanov Peoples Friendship University Moscow
Andrei Kalikh Center for development and Human Rights Moscow
Andrei Khodus “Agrosophia” Moscow
Andrei Lymar Inter-regional Charity Foundation for Humanitarian Programs Support “Humanitarian Integration” Moscow
Andrey Ardashev Primorie NGO for Civil Programs “Mart” (March) Vladivostok
Andrey Babushkin Committee “For Civil Rights” Moscow
Andrey Kamentschikov “International Non-Violence” Moscow
Andrey Ozharovskiy Moscow International Discussion Club Moscow region, Korolev
Andrey Shastitko “Bureau of Economic Analysis” Foundation Moscow
Andrey Yurov International Youth Human Rights Movement Voronezh
Andrey Zaycev Krasnodar NGO “Znanie” Krasnodar
Anita Soboleva “Lawyers for Constitutional rights and freedoms” Moscow
Anna Bobrova Nizhny-Novgorod City Regional public organization of invalid rehabilitation "Invatur" Nizhniy-Novgorod
Anna Koksharova Moscow State University, Youth Council for Environment Protection Moscow
Anna Parshina Tomsk Ecological Students' Inspection Tomsk
Anna Timofeeva Association of Young Leaders Moscow
Anna Vanina Pskov regional public organization "Pskov's Hinterland" Pskov
Anna Vinogradova Balakovo Branch of the All-Russian Society of Nature Conservation Balakovo
Anton Chetvertkov Moscow State Institute of International Relations Moscow
Anton Hlopkov The Center for Political Studies (PIR-Center) Moscow
Anton Khlopkov Political Studies Centre (PIR-Centre) Moscow
Anton Lopuhin Inter-regional NGO “Young Leaders Association” Moscow
Antonchikov Alexander Saratov regional public organization "Birds' Protection Union of Russia" Saratov
Antonina Vatolkina Russian Chamber of Trade and Industry Moscow
Antoniuk Vladimir Semashko Central Scientific and Research Institute health service organization and informatization Moscow
Arbi Hochukaev Russian Public Organization "Right" Grozniy
Arkadiy Arkadiev New Educational Systems Institute Moscow
Arsen Sakalov Russian Legislative Initiative Nazran
Arseniy Modestov Krasnoyarsk Medical Academy Krasnoyarsk
Ashat Kayumov “Dront” NGO Nizhny Novgorod
Askhat Ahmadeev Public Charity Fund of Support for Orphans and Disabled Kazan
Asmik Novikova The “Demos” Center Moscow
Baradachev Igor Siberian Civic Initiatives Support Center Novosibirsk
Bezinger (Patlay) Taisya Non-Governmental Educational Institution "Aesthetic Development and Education Center "South Rainbow" Krasnodar
Bogoljubova Galina Slavonic Fund of Russia Moscow
Boris Altshuler Regional public organization "Child's Right" Moscow
Boris Altshuler Regional NGO for Children Rights “Right of A Child” Moscow
Boris Pavlov Environment Protection Society, Ufa
Boris Pontilev Assistance Committee St Petersburg
Boris Pustyncev Public Human Rights Organization "Civil Control" Saint-Petesburg
Boris Rejabec North-Caucasian department of International ecological foundation Rostov-na-donu
Boris Revich Economy Prognostics Institute, Russian Science Academy Moscow
Boris Rezhabek International Ecological Foundation, Rostov-on-Don
Boris Titov All-Russia public organization "Business Russia" Moscow
Boris Titov All-Russia Organization “Business Russia” Moscow
Cкачков Анатолий Борисович Омский областной общественный фонд поддержки детского и массового спорта Омск
Daniil Kobyakov Political Studies Centre (PIR-Centre) Moscow
Daniil Kobyakov The Center for Political Studies (PIR-Center) Moscow
Darya Miloslavskaya Human Rights Hot Line Moscow
Denis Kopeikin Ecological Club “Eremeus” Moscow
Denis Rosa Regional Society of Disabled People "Perspektiva" Moscow
Dmitriy Kokorev Collective Action Institute Moscow
Dmitriy Kokorev Institute “Collective Action”, Non-commercial Partnership Moscow
Dmitriy Krayuhin Social Problems Institute "United Europe" Oryol
Dmitriy Levashov Public Ecological organization "Socio-Legal Ecological Partnership" Dzerzhinsk
Dmitriy Lioznov Pavlov State Medical University, Saint-Peterburg Saint-Peresburg
Dmitriy Rribakov Association of the Green of Karelia Karelia
Dmitriy Sokolov Siftware Suppliers Association Moscow
Dmitriy Yanin Confederation of Consumers Societies Moscow
Dmitry Jerashov Russian national committee of the International Chamber of Commerce – the World Business Organization (ICC Russia) Moscow
Doyna Straysteanu Russian Legal Initiative Moscow
Eduard Dneprov Russian Academy of Education Moscow
Eduard Dneprov Russian Academy of Education Moscow
Ekaterina Gorina Kedr Movement Moscow
Ekaterina Kuznetsova Higher School of Economics, applied politology department Moscow
Ekaterina Lobanova Inter-Parliamentary Assambly of Saint-Petersburg
Ekaterina Sokirianskayа “Memorial” HR Center Grozny
Ekaterina Stepanova The Russian Academy of Science, Institute of World Economics and International Affairs Moscow
Elena Bashun The Union of Women of Russia Moscow
Elena Beliaeva Nizhny-Novgorod City Regional Non-Governmental Organisation "Right to life" Nizhniy-Novgorod
Elena Bruskova Humanitarian organization “Children Villages in Russia” Moscow
Elena Burtina “Civil Assistance” Committee Moscow
Elena Kruglikova Murmansk region, Apatity Ecological Center Apatity
Elena Kutepova Russian University of Peoples Friendship Moscow
Elena Matveeva Moscow International Energy Club Moscow
Elena Matveeva Moscow International Energy Club Moscow
Elena Panfilova Center for Anti-corruption Research and Initiatives Moscow
Elena Rusakova Humanist Scientific Center Moscow
Elena Rusakova Scientific and Methodic Center “Humanist” Moscow
Elena Ryabinina “Civil Assistance” Committee Moscow
Elena Safronova Nizhny-Novgorod City Regional Public Charity Fund of Aid for Orphans Nizhniy-Novgorod
Elena Sharoikina Association of Genetic Safety Moscow
Elena Sutormina International Civil Foundation “The Russian Peace Foundation” Moscow
Elena Topoleva-Soldunova The Agency for Social Information Moscow
Elena Vasilieva Volgograd NGO – Information Center “Volgograd-Express” Volgograd
Elena Vasilieva Volgograd-Express Research Center Volgograd
Elena Zaharova Multi-region public charitable foundation "Creation" Moscow
Elena Zubakina Russian Union of Birds' Protection Moscow
Elena Zubakina Birds’ Protection Union Moscow
Elina Kirichenko Russian Academy of Science Moscow
Ella Pamfilova Civil Society to the Children of "Civil Dignity", Civil Society Institutions and Human Rights Council under President of the Russian Federation Moscow
Ella Pamfilova Chairman of the All-Russia Union of Public Associations «Civil Society for the Children of Russia», Moscow
Emil Pain Center for Ethno Political and Regional Research Moscow
Erik Prazdnikov Russian Red Cross Moscow
Ernest Kochetov The Regional NGO “Civil Academy of geo-economy and globalization” Moscow
Erzhena Budaeva Public Fund housing estate building for invalids in Republic of Buryatia Ulan-Ude
Evald Shpilrain Moscow International Energy Club Moscow
Evgeniy Nizhnik Foundation for Civil Initiatives “Open Region” Krasnodar
Evgeniy Satanovskiy Institute of Middle East Problems Moscow
Evgeniy Semenichin Civil Foundation for Altai TV and Radio Development “Region” Barnaul
Evgeniy Silin The Association of Euro-Atlantic Cooperation Moscow
Evgeniy Spirin Krasnoyarsk Ecological Union Krasnoyarsk region
Evgeniy Velihov Russian Civil Chamber, Secretary Moscow
Evgeniy Volk Heritage Foundation (USA), Moscow Office Moscow
Evgeniy Zaharenkov Smolensk regional public youth organization "Rassvet (Dawn)-C" Smolensk
Evgeniya Alexeeva Fund of the Social Development and Health Protection “Focus-Media” Moscow
Evgeniya Nazarenko Russian Green Cross Moscow
Evgeniya Nazarenko Russian Green Cross Moscow
Evgeniya Pecherskih Disabled persons public organization "Desnitsa (Right Hand) Association", Samara Regional Branch Samara
Evgeniya Poplavskaya Inter-regional Charity Organization “Order of Mercy and Social Protection” Moscow
Evgeniya Zusman Development and Human Rights center Moscow
Evsei Gurvich High School of Economy Moscow
Farit Manasipov Civil Chamber of the Republic of Tatarstan Kazan
Flora Maksumova Academy of People Diplomacy Moscow
Galina Anosova The Baikal Center of Social Ecological Expertise Buryatia
Galina Bodrenkova International Association for Volunteer Effort Moscow
Galina Bogolyubova Russian Slavic Foundation Moscow
Galina Horeva Ecological Center “Geya”, Kola Peninsula Murmansk
Galina Koshurova Institute for medical, informational and rehabilitative technologies Tambov
Galina Kozhevnikova Informational analytical Center “Sova” Moscow
Galina Kozireva Socio-Logos, Center for Social Analysis and Reconstruction Karelia
Galina Lebedeva Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers, Nizhny Novgorod Russia Nighny Novgorod region
Galina Semenova Singapore Comitee on Trade Development Moscow
Gemmady Cherenov State Duma Committee for Natural Resources Moscow
Gennadiy Khoroshih Human Rights Committee Irkutsk
Gennadiy Nepokoichitskiy Intellectual Alliance of civilizations. World dialogue of people-to-people diplomacy Moscow
Georgiy Komarov Moscow State Institute of Stomatology, Department of Social Health and Care Moscow
German Obuhov International Charity Foundation “Let’s Open Children the World” St Petersburg
Gosman Kabirov Ecological and Educational Organization “Techa” Cheliabinsk region
Grant Margulov International Fuel and Energy Association Moscow
Grigoriy Dmitriev International Wind Organization Murmansk region
Grigory Vergus International Coalition of Readiness for Treatment Санкт-Петербург
Ida Kuklina Union of Committees of Soldiers Mothers of Russia Moscow
Ida Kuklina The Union of Soldiers Mothers Councils of Russia Moscow
Igor Baradachev Siberian Center for Civil Initiatives Novosibirsk
Igor Kukushkin “Russian Chemists Union” Moscow
Igor Lobovskiy International Energy Award "Global Energy" Moscow
Igor Mitrokhin Association of Biological Ecological and Food Safety Moscow
Igor Paltsev Regional NGO “Human Rights Center of Karelia” Petrozavodsk
Igor Pastukhov Moscow region Bar Association Moscow
Igor Podgorniy Greenpeace Moscow
Igor Sazhin “Memorial” Human Rights Center Syktyvkar
Igor Tomberg Institute for Energy and Finances Moscow
Ildar Ahtamzyan The Moscow State Institute for International Affairs under the Russian Foreign Ministry Moscow
Ilya Ilyin Moscow State University, Students Council Moscow
Ilya Pononarev Social Political Movement "Left Front" Moscow
Inna Gricevich “Center for Effective Use of Energy” Moscow
Inna Gritsevich Centre for Effective Use of Energy Moscow
Iosif Dzyaloshinskiy Science on Communications Institute Moscow
Iraida Leonova Social Partnership Center of Cooperation of public and state bodies, Moscow Moscow
Irbaikhan Gerzeliev Regional public organization "Chechnya's Mediaunion" Gudermes
Irek Shaidullin Regional public organization "Clean City"
Irek Shaydullin Regional NGO “Clean City” Kazan
Irina Bogdan Far East interregional ecological public organization "Ecodali" Khabarovsk
Irina Dubovickaya Krasnodar Association of Institutes Graduates Krasnodar
Irina Dubovitskaya Krasnodar territorial public organization of the Russian universities graduates Krasnodar
Irina Dymich “Business Russia” Moscow
Irina Ganchurina Educational NGO “Business-Class” St Petersburg
Irina Ganchurina Public organization "Civil Dignity", Saint-Petersburg regional branch Saint-Petersburg
Irina Leonova Moscow center for Cooperation of state and civil structures “Social Partnership” Moscow
Irina Malovichko Volgograd regional non-profit public organization UNESCO Club "Child's Dignity" Volgograd
Irina Son Semashko Central scientific and research Institute health service organization and informatization Moscow
Irina Zolotarevskaya “Memorial” Human Rights center Moscow
Ivan Artyuhov Krasnoyarsk Medical Academy Krasnoyarsk
Ivan Baranchik Trustee Council “Blagodeja” under the Children Rehabilitation Center Arkhangelsk
Ivan Komaritsky INDEM Foundation Moscow
Ivan Mazur International Innovational Energy Association “Energy of the Future” Moscow
Kamilzhan Kalandarov All-Russia NGO “Al-Khak, “Human Rights Institute” Moscow
Konstantin Bakulev Moscow Council of the Left Front Moscow
Konstantin Lebedev Human Rights Commission for Human Rights, Tomsk Russia Tomsk
Konstantin Lebedev Human Rights Commission, Tomsk Region Tomsk
Kseniya Pahorukova International Socio-Economic Union Moscow
Kseniya Yudaeva The Center for Strategic Research Moscow
Larisa Chernova Social and Information Support Center "Istok" Voronezh
Larisa Konovalova UNESKO Department, State University of Administration Moscow
Larisa Konovalova State University of Management, UNESCO Department of NGO Development Moscow
Larisa Skuratovskaya International Ecumenic Group on Climate Change Research, World Council of Churches Moscow
Larisa Skuratovskaya International Ecumenical Group of Climate Change Studies under the World Church Council Moscow
Larisa Vasilieva Information Commonwealth "Atlantida" Moscow
Lavrovskaia Tamara Intellectual Alliance of civilizations. World dialogue of people-to-people diplomacy Moscow
Leonid Bolshov Moscow International Energy Club Moscow
Leonid Grigoriev "Institute of Energy and Finance" Fund Moscow
Leonid grigoriev “Institute of Energy and Finances” Foundation Moscow
Leonid Gusev Russian Foreign Ministry, Institute for International Affairs, PIR-Center “Narrative Unity” Moscow
Leonid Rashal International Charity Fund for Aid for Children during disasters and wars Moscow
Leonid Roshal International Charity Foundation of Children Assistance in Emergencies Moscow
Lev M. Shtilman Project on industry wind energy in Kamchatka Region Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy
Lev Osipov Medical Technics Association Moscow
Lev Ponomariov Social Movement “For Human Rights” Moscow
Lev Yakobson Higher School of Economics Moscow
Levinbuk Lia Independent Expert Council Moscow
Leyla Gamzatova “Future of Daguestan” Daguestan, Kaspiisk
Lidia Popova Socio-Ecological Union Moscow
Lidiya Alexandrova Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers, Tomsk Tomsk
Lidiya Chuprina Human Rights Center Kazan
Lidiya Grafova Forum of Migrants Organizations Moscow
Lidiya Popova International Socio-Ecological Union, Nuclear ecology and energy policy's Centre Moscow
Lidiya Shkorkina Association of World Education, Russia Moscow
Lidiya Shkorkina World Education Association, Russian branch Zhukovskiy
Lidiya Yusupova “Memorial” Human Rights Center Moscow
Lihanov Albert Russian Children's Foundation (RCF), International Association Children's Foundations Moscow
Liliana Proskuriakova “Strategy” Center St Petersburg
Lina Yakhusheva Human Rights Committee Vladimir
Liubov Halmueva Regional Foundation to overcome handica, Republic of Buryatia Ulan-Ude
Liubov Shekaleva Russian-American Informational and Educational Center Moscow
Lubov Eelie Vorotyn’ NGO for Immigrants “Vorotynsk-migrant Vorotinsk
Lubov Volkova “Social Partnership” Foundation Moscow
Ludmila Vasilieva Public Chamber of Voronezh region Voronrz
Lyudmila Alekseeva Moscow Helsinki Group Moscow
Lyudmila Gendel “Civil Assistance” Committee Moscow
Lyudmila Komogortseva Bryansk regional public organization "For Chemical Safety" Bryansk
Lyudmila Krupoedova Novosibirsk regional family center "Rodnik (Spring)" Novosibirsk
Lyudmila Petrova All-Russia NGO “Russian Ecological Center” Moscow
Lyudmila Prohorova The Center of Public Policy, Civil Education and Human Rights Petrozavodsk
Lyudmila Vasilieva "Civil Dialogue" Foundation Ufa
Lyudmila Vasilieva Voronezh regional public organization "Creative Initiatives Support Center" Voronezh
Madina Magomadova Chechen Mothers Grozny
Madina Magomatova Regional Public Organization "Mothers of Chechnya" Grozniy
Mara Polyakova Independent Expert and Law Council Moscow
Mara Polyakova “Independent Expert Legal Council” Moscow
Margarita Kolpatschikova All-Russian Disabled People Association, Uhta Organization Ukhta
Maria Belova Institute of Energy and Finances Moscow
Maria Bolshakova All-Russian public organization "Union of sevicemen families" Moscow
Marianna Vronskaya Regional Charity Organization “Juvenile Assistance Service Goluba” Moscow
Marina Kargalova Russian Academy of Science, the Council for Social Studies Moscow
Marina Levina St Petersburg Charity Foundation “Parental Bridge” St Petersburg,
Marina Rihvanova Baikal Wave Irkutsk
Marina Semenchenko UNAIDS Moscow
Mariya Filatova New Planetary Television Moscow
Mariya Kazankova The Center for Educational and Research Programs St Petersburg
Mariya Slobodskaya Institute for Civil Society Studies Moscow
Mariya Sobol Women Net in the Urals, Chelyabinsk regional public organization Chelyabinsk
Mark Agranovich Federal Institute of Education Moscow
Mark Entin Russian Foreign Ministry, Moscow State Institute of International Relations Moscow
Maxim Egorov St Petersburg regional Charity Organization for Homeless People “Nochlejka” (Doss-House) Sankt-Petersburg
Maxim Gorshkov "No to Alcoholism and Drug Addiction" Fund, Zheleznogorsk Branch Zheleznogorsk
Maxim Shingarkin Social Foundation “Grazhdanin” (Citizen) Moscow
Maxim Shingarkin Citizen Public Fund Moscow
Maxim Timofeev Human Rights NGO “Civil Control” St Petersburg
Maxim Vonsky Russian Academy of Science, Cytology Research Institute St Petersburg
Mihail Lermontov The Association “Lermontov Heritage”, Union of Russian Citizens Moscow
Mihail Pavlov Journal "Future Energy" Moscow
Mihail Perelman Phthisiology and Pulmonology Scientific and Research Institute Moscow
Mihail Piskunov Promotion for Civil Initiatives Center Dimitrovgrad
Mihail Piskunov Center for Civil Initiatives Support Ulianovsk region, Dimitrovgrad
Mihail Stroikov "Kedr" Movement Moscow
Mihail Troitskiy Academic educational forum on International relations Moscow
Mihail Volkov Medical Association, Kostroma Regional Branch Kostroma
Mihail Yulkin Ecological Investments Center Moscow
Mihail yulkin The Center for Ecological Investments Moscow
Mikhail Kozeltsov Russian Regional Ecological center Moscow
Mikhail Subbotin “SRP-Expertise” Moscow
Mikhail Sukharev Socio-Logos, Center for Social Analysis and reconstruction Karelia
Mikhail Troitsky Scientific and Educational Forum for International Relations Moscow
Minkael Ezhiev Human rights center of the Chechen Republic Grozny
Munira Absolyamova Tatarstan Anti-Nuclear Society Kazan
Murashov Valeriy Promotion for Development of Resources for Healthy Life Moscow
Nadezhda Bukharova Cheliabinsk city charity public foundation "Saint Mary" Chelyabinsk
Nadezhda Dzhaparidze Inter-regional Organization “Civil Initiative Council” Krasnodar
Nadezhda Kiseleva Russian Union of Birds' Protection Nizhniy Novgorod
Nadezhda Latrygina 1.Women Creative Association "ZHITO" 2. Promotion for Rights Protection, Citizens Liberties, Assistance for Family and Childhood Public Chamber, Novosibirsk Region 3. International Slavic Academy, West-Siberian Branch 4. Non-commercial organization "Partner" Novosibirsk
Nadezhda Pavlova Regional NGO “Karelia Union for Children Salvation” Petrozavodsk
Natalia Daniluna NGO “Eco-Center – Reserves” Moscow
Natalia Kravchuk “Memorial” Human Rights Center Moscow
Natalia Yanina “Leaders of Kabardino-Balkaria Republic” Nalchik
Natalia Yanul’ International Foundation of Technologies and Investments Moscow
Nataliya Chistyakova Russian national Cultural NGO “Lebed” Tumen
Nataliya Chistyakova Regional Russian national cultural association "Lebed", the Tyumen Region Tyumen
Nataliya Gutsko “Raduga” (Rainbow) – Youth for the Environment and Sustainable Development Moscow
Nataliya Kaminarskaya Donors Foundation Moscow
Nataliya Mironova Movement for Nuclear safety Moscow
Nataliya Nikolaeva Russian Union of Birds' Protection Moscow
Nataliya Olefirenko Greenpeace-Russia Moscow
Nataliya Taubina “Social Verdict” Foundation Moscow
Nataliya Vasilieva “Open Health Institute” Foundation Moscow
Nataliya Yanina Kabardino-Balkariya Republuc Leaders Nalchik
Nataliya Yanul International Fund of Technologies and Investments Moscow
Nelia Goliakova International NGO “Union for Social Protection of Children”, Penza Department Penza,
Nikita Chaldimov Social Movement “Army and Society Moscow
Nikolay Brusnikin “Business Russia” Moscow
Nikolay Homiakov Ecological Revival Foundation Moscow
Nikolay Myakshin All-Russian Society of Deaf People public organization, Arkhangelsk Regional Branch Arkhangelsk
Nikolay Myakshin Regional NGO ‘Union of invalids of Arkhangelsk” Arkhangelsk
Nikolay Polikarapov NGO “Youth Business Club” St Petersburg
Nikolay Zubov Krasnoyarsk regional public organization "Krasnoyarsk Territorial Ecological Union" Krasnoyarsk
Nina Belyaeva Interliga “We are Citizens”, State University “Superior School of Economy” Moscow
Nodari Hananashvili Regional NGO “Social Academy” Moscow
Nodari Khananashvili Civil Society to the Children of Russia Union Moscow
Nuraniya Saifutdinova Public Charity Fund of Support for Orphans and Disabled Children "NAS" PT Kazan
Oksana Moisseeva Independent Experts’ League Kamchatka
Oleg Alexandrov Institute of International Safety Research Moscow
Oleg Bodrov Green World Leningrad region
Oleg Bodrov Ecological public non-profit organization "Green World" Sosnoviy bor
Oleg Gizatulin Russian national committee of the International Chamber of Commerce – the World Business Organization (ICC Russia) Moscow
Oleg Golyastikov Non-Prolifiration Center, Zheleznodorozhniy Branch Zheleznodorozhniy
Oleg Kulikov Russian Union of Electro-energy Employers Moscow
Oleg Nechiporenko National Anti-terrorist and Anti-criminal Fund Moscow
Oleg Orlov Human Rights Centre "Memorial" Moscow
Oleg Orlov “Memorial” Human Rights Center Moscow
Oleg Rozhnov All-Russian Public Organization "Russian Youth Union" Moscow
Oleg Smolin All-Russia Social Movement “Education for All” Moscow
Oleg Zykov All-Russia public non-profit Fund "No to Alcoholism and Drug Addiction" Moscow
Oleg Zykov All-Russia Charity Foundation “No to Alcoholism and Drug Abuse” Moscow
Olga Alfer “Our Family” Educational Center Moscow
Olga Chervotkina Astrakhan regional public fund of the disabled with endocrine implications Astrakhan
Olga Dolya Scientific and research Dermatovenerology Institute Moscow
Olga Dorozhkina Tambov NGO for the orphanage houses and hostel children “Nadejda” (“Hope”) Tambov
Olga Karabanova Institute of the press development Moscow
Olga Karabanova Press development Institute Moscow
Olga Korgunova Saratov Regional Childrens Charity Public Fund "SAVVA" Saratov
Olga Lerman Youth Council on Nature Protection, Moscow State University Moscow
Olga Lerman Moscow State University, Youth Council for Environment Protection Moscow
Olga Milova “Institute for Energy and Finances” Foundation Moscow
Olga Minenkova Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) Moscow
Olga Mironova British charitable organization "Every child" Ufa
Olga Odinokova Legal Information Centre "Respect", Ufa City Employers Union Ufa
Olga Pishkova Izchevsk Public Organization “Social and Educational Initiatives Center”. Izhevsk
Olga Pitsunova Center of Ecological Initiatives Assistance Saratov
Olga Pitsunova Partnership for Development Association Saratov
Olga Podosenova Ural Eco-Union Ural
Olga Ponizova NGO “Eco-Accord” Moscow
Olga Ponizova “ECO-Accord” Moscow
Olga Shepeleva The “Demos” Center Moscow
Olga Speranskaya «Eco-Accord» Moscow
Olga Zemlianova Moscow State University Moscow
Oxana Alexeeva Civil Chamber Commission for Ecological Safety and Environment Protection Moscow
Pavel Chigvincev Ural Ecological Union Ekaterinburg
Pavel Suluandziga Association of Aboriginal People of the North, Siberia and Far East Moscow
Pavel Vdovichenko Chernobyl regional public organization "Radimichi to the Children of Chernobyl" Chernobyl
Pavel Vdovichenko Regional Chernobyl NGO “Radimichi to the Children of Chernobyl” Bryansk region, Novozybkov, Komsomolskaya st., 29
Petr Chesnokov Public Health Department, Voronezh Medical Academy Voronezh
Petr Shelitsch National Association of Hydrogen Energy Moscow
Prohorova Lyudmila Petrozavodsk Public Chamber Petrozavodsk
Rafik Roganyan Regional public organization of cultural, social rehabilitation of the disabled "Invatur" Nizhniy Novgorod
Raisa lukutcova “Russian Red Cross” Krasnoyarsk region
Ramil Bulatov All-Russia NGO “Russian Ecological Center” Moscow
Renat Perelet Russian Academy of Science, Moscow
Rosa Baranova Stavropol NGO “Open House – Children Salvation”
Rose Denis NGO “Perspektiva” Moscow
Ruslan Badalov Chechen Committee of National Salvation Nazran
Saehat Negmatova Non-Profit Organization "Healthy Life Resources Promotion" Moscow
Sagit Djaksibaev Association of National and Cultural Unions, Tatarstan Republic Kasan
Sergei Litovchenko Russian Managers Association Moscow
Sergey Borisov All-Russia civil organization of Small and Medium Business “Opora Rossii” (Support for Russia) Moscow
Sergey Chuyko Civil Committee for the prevention of flu pandemic Moscow
Sergey Frishman Tomsk Ecological Students Inspection Tomsk
Sergey Karabyshev International Fund of Technologies and Investments Moscow
Sergey Kharitich International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, Moscow Office Moscow
Sergey Koloskov Down Syndrome Society Moscow
Sergey Komkov All-Russian Fund of Education Moscow
Sergey Komkov All-Russia Foundation of Education Moscow
Sergey Krilov Managers Association Moscow
Sergey Kuraev вместо Козельцева Russian Regional Ecological center Moscow
Sergey Litovchenko Russian Managers Association Moscow
Sergey Lukashevskiy "Demos" Centre, Investigation civil society's problems Moscow
Sergey Ochurdyapov The Foundation for the sustainable Development of Altai Altai
Sergey Petelin International Association of Peace Foundations Moscow
Sergey Platov International Human Rights Centre Moscow
Sergey Platov International NGO “Human Rights Center” Moscow
Sergey Poduzov «Human and Law» Yoshkar-Ola
Sergey Shaphaev Baikal Lake Buryat regional branch Baikal
Sergey Shaphaev Buryat regional Society for Baikal studies Buryatia
Sergey Talanov The New Eurasia Foundation, department "youth and education" Moscow
Sergey talanov “New Eurasia” Foundation, Department “Youth and Education” Moscow
Sergey Tsiplenkov Greenpeace International Moscow
Sergey Vorontsov “First All-Russia Association of private Practice Doctors” Samara
Sergey Votyagov Transatlantic Partners Against AIDS Moscow
Serguei Bobylev Moscow State University Moscow
Serguei Kovalev Human Rights Institute Moscow
Serguei Krechetov International Chamber of Commerce Moscow
Serguei Markov Association of Political Consulting Moscow
Sh.Gunaev Human Rights Center of the Chechen Republic Grozny
Snezhana Kolomiets Regional Bureau of UN Development Program Moscow
Stanislav Independent Expert Council Moscow
Sultonbek Boronbekov Regional NGO “Center of the research of Tolerance and Prevention of Extremism” Ryazan
Sutormina Elena Russian Peace Foundation Moscow
Svetlana Ayvazova Institute for Comparative Political Science Moscow
Svetlana bocharova The International civil educational NGO “Kindness without Borders” Moscow
Svetlana Budakshaeva Buryat Republic branch of “Business Women of Russia” Byryatia, Ulan-Ude
Svetlana Budashkaeva Coalition "We are the citizens", Public organizations: "Open Buryatia", "Businesswomen" Ulan-Ude
Svetlana Chernikova World Net of the Ecological Footprint Sankt-Petersburg
Svetlana Gannushkina Regional NGO of assistance to migrants “Civil Assistance” Moscow
Svetlana Kotova Russian public organization of disabled people "Perspective" Moscow
Svetlana Volkova “Street Children”, City Center of child neglect, crime, alcoholism and drug abuse prophylactics Moscow
Svyatoslav Zabelin International NGO International Socio-Economic Union” Moscow
Tamara Dobretsova «For the Sake of Life» Kostroma
Tamara Mortschakova Совет при Президенте Российской Федерации по содействию развитию институтов гражданского общества и правам человека Moscow
Tamara Zamanova Novgorod Social Foundation “Healthy Family” Veliky Novgorod,
Tatiana Bokhareva European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights Moscow
Tatiana Inozemtseva Charity Fund “Help to family and childhood” Saratov
Tatiana Nikolenko Initiative to reduce Nuclear Danger Moscow
Tatiana Rudakova Inter-regional NGO “Mothers to Protect Detainees and Prisoners’ Rights” Krasnodar
Tatiana Saksina Ecological Center “Eremeus” Moscow
Tatiana Vorojeikina Moscow High School of Social and Economic Studies Moscow
Tatiyana Alekseeva Association of Commisioners for Childrens Rights in Russia Moscow
Tatiyana Alexandrova Tomsk Ecological Students' Inspection Tomsk
Tatiyana Borodina Yaroslavl regional NGO “Center for Social Partnership” Yaroslavl
Tatiyana Burmistrova NGO School Moscow
Tatiyana Inozemtseva Saratov regional charitable fund "Assistance to Family and Childhood" Saratov
Tatiyana Kasatkina “Memorial” Human Rights Center Moscow
Tatiyana Lokshina "Demos" Center Moscow
Tatiyana Lokshina NGO “Demos Center” Moscow
Tatiyana Volosovets Specialists Training and Retraining Center, Peoples Friendship University Moscow
Tatiyana Zelenova All-Russian public organization "Children and Youth Social Initiatives", Yaroslavl regional branch Yaroslavl
Tatjana Monegen Russian national committee of the International Chamber of Commerce – the World Business Organization (ICC Russia) Moscow
Teodor Shanin Moscow High School for Social and Economic Studies Moscow
Usam Baysaev “Memorial” Human Rights center Nazran
Vadim Gorin Intellectual Alliance of Civilizations. World dialogue of people-to-people diplomacy Moscow
Vadim Ilyin Organization of The Russian Academy of Sciences "Intellect" Moscow
Vadim Karastelev Novorossiysk Human Rights Committee, Novorossiysk City Public Fund "School of Peace" Moscow
Valentin Dombrovskiy Orenburg NGO “Green Cross” Orenburg
Valentin Gefter Human Rights Institute Moscow
Valentin Gefter Institute for Human Rights Moscow
Valentina Cherevatenko Regional NGO “Women of Don” Novocherkassk, Rostov region
Valentina Golubchikova “Severnye Prostory” (Northern Space) magazine Moscow
Valentina Gordienko MATRA Program Moscow
Valentina Pogorelkina Regional Foundation of NGO “Civil Dignity”, Kaluga Kaluga
Valeriy Borschev “Social Partnership” Foundation Moscow
Valeriy Churilov New Expert International Institute Moscow
Valeriy Churilov New International Expert Institute Moscow
Valeriy Gergel Movement of Young Peace-keepers Moscow
Valeriy Gergel Young Peacekeepers and Peace Schools Movement Solnechnogorsk
Valeriy Koliganov Mordovia Republican Social Organization “Association of Mordovian Physicians” Mordovia, Saransk
Valeriy Menshikov Center for Ecological Policy of Russia Moscow
Valeriy Menshikov Center of Russian Ecological Policies Moscow
Valeriy Mitrofanenko All-Russian public non-profit Fund "Russian Charity Fund "No to Alcoholism and Drug Addiction" Stavropol
Valeriy Murashov NGO “Assistance for Healthy Life Resources” Moscow
Valeriy Petrosian NGO “Russian Academy of Natural Sciences” Moscow
Valeriy Volodin Interregional public movement "Nation's Health" Moscow
Vasiliy Agafonov Rostov Ecological NGO ‘New Wave” Rostov-on-Don
Vasiliy Guslyannikov Mordvinian Republican Centre for Supporting Human Rights Saransk
Vasiliy Komarov Energy of the Future Association, Intellectual High Technologies Centre Moscow
Vasiliy Komarov International Innovational Energy Association “Energy of the Future”, “Center for high Intellectual Technologies” Moscow
Veniamin Volnov “Siberian Initiative” Barnaul
Vera Barova Non-commercial organization "Tyumen City Development Charity Fund" Tyumen
Vera Pisareva Greenpeace-Russia Moscow
Viatcheslav Evseev Research and anayitics Department Russian Managers Association Moscow
Victor Delevi Samara regional branch of the All-Russian public non-profit Fund "Russian Charity Fund "No to Alcoholism and Drug Addiction" Samara
Victor Kamyshanov Federation for Peace and Conciliation Moscow
Victor Sadovnichii The Russian Rectors' Union, Moscow Lomonossov State University Moscow
Victor Sadovnichy Moscow State University, Moscow
Victor Zubakin Russian Union of Birds' Protection Moscow
Victor Zubakin Birds’ Protection Union Moscow
Victoria Elias Coordinative Council of the European ECO-Forum Center “ECO-Accord” Moscow
Victoria Kopeykina CIS Alliance “For Bio-security” Moscow
Victoria Panova Moscow Institute of International Relations (University); G8 Research Group University of Toronto Moscow
Victoria Panova G8 Research Group, University of Toronto Moscow
Viktor Kamyshanov Federation of Peace and Accord Moscow
Viktor Tarusin Charity Foundation of UN Peace Missions “Peacekeeper” Moscow
Vitaliy Buschuev Institute of Energy Strategy Moscow
Vitaliy Bushuev Energy Strategy Institute Moscow
Vitaliy Hizhnyak Civil Center for Nuclear Non-proliferation Krasnoyarsk
Vitaliy Kartamyshev Oxfam Great Britain, Moscow Office Moscow
Vitaliy Khizhnyak Nuclear Non-Prolifiration Public Center Krasnoyarsk
Vitaliy Servetnik Ecological Youth organization “Nature and Youth” Murmansk region
Vladilen Chertov Scientific and technical Center Moscow
Vladimir Avdeev Institute of the press development Moscow
Vladimir Cherniy The Foundation of Constitutional Tights Protection Moscow
Vladimir Cherny Protection constitutional rigts Foundation, monthly scientific magazine Russian Business Moscow
Vladimir Chuprov Greenpeace Moscow
Vladimir enyagin A.Babak Union of Special Forces Veterans Moscow
Vladimir Feygin Foundation for the Assistance to International Scientific and Technical Cooperation “Business Cooperation East-West” Moscow
Vladimir Fomenko Roza Luxemburg Foundation, Moscow Moscow
Vladimir Fortov Moscow International Energy Club Moscow
Vladimir Golovniov Business Russia Moscow
Vladimir Gutnik Russian Academy of Science, Center for East-European Studies Moscow
Vladimir Jeniagin Veteran's Union named after A.Babaka Moscow
Vladimir Kirilin Krasnoyarsk regional Ecological Union Krasnoyarsk
Vladimir Kolegov Public organization - Centre of Additional Training "Rainbow" Mitishi
Vladimir Kotov All-Russia Civil NGO, Lipetsk Department Lipetsk
Vladimir Kuznetsov Russian Academy of Science, Moscow
Vladimir Lagutov Green Don Ecological Movement Novocherkask
Vladimir Lagutov Regional Ecological Union “Green Don” Russia Novocherkassk
Vladimir Lebedev Children Sanitary and Educational Center “Poisk” Russia Toliatti
Vladimir Lischuk The “Fundamental basis of Health” Commission Moscow
Vladimir Litvak Regional Bureau of UN development program Moscow
Vladimir Melnikov Russian Union of Birds' Protection Ivanovo
Vladimir Mukomel Russian Academy of Science Moscow
Vladimir Nikitin Non-commercial Partnership “Tver’ scientific Center for energy Effectiveness” Tver
Vladimir Novitskiy International Human Rights Society Moscow
Vladimir Sazonov Lipetsk city club "Ecologist" Lipetsk
Vladimir Sliviak Ecological Safety Moscow
Vladimir Slivyak International ecology group "Ecozatschita" Moscow
Vladimir Sukhov “International Non-Violence”, Peacemaking Organization Moscow
Vladimir Tsydendambaev Research Institute of Plants Physiology Moscow
Vladimir Yakimets System Analysis Institute, Russian Academy of Science Moscow
Vladimir Zaharov Center for Ecological Policy of Internaional Socio-Ecological Union Moscow
Vladimir zaharov Center for Ecological Policy, International NGO International Socio-Economic Union Moscow
Vladislav Erohin Tuberculosis Research Institute, Russian Medical Academy of Science, Russian Society of Phthisiologists Moscow
Vladislav Larin LEAD International, CIS Program Moscow
Vladlena Tihova G8 Research Group Moscow
Vlavimir Faigin Business cooperation East-West Moscow
Vyacheslav Evseev Russian Managers Association Moscow
William Smirnov President's Council, State and Law Institute, Russian Academy of Science Moscow
William Smyrnov Russian Academy of Science, Institute of State and Law Moscow
Yuliya Korshunova Kolsk Ecological Coordination Center "Geya" Apatity
Yuri Alekseev NGO “Healthy life Resources Development” Moscow
Yuri Tototto Association of Aboriginal Peoples of Chukotka Moscow
Yuri Voblikov Penza Ecological Center Penza
Yuriy Badenkov Russian Academy of Science, Institute of Geography Moscow
Yuriy Cherches International Fund of Technologies and Investments Moscow
Yuriy Dubinin PIR-Center, Russian Foreign Ministry Institute of Foreign Relations Moscow
Yuriy Dzhibladze Center for Democracy and Human Rights” Moscow
Yuriy Kats Disabled Children and Parents Association. Vladimir
Yuriy Kats Disabled Children Parents Association "Light" Vladimir
Yuriy Krasnov Murmansk Sea Biological Institute, Kolsk Research Center, Russian Academy of Science Murmansk
Yuriy Perlamutrov Moscow Stomatology University Moscow
Yuriy Sidakov Human Rights Committee Vladikavkaz
Yuriy Tamberg Novgorod Regional Public Organization "TRIZ" Novgorod
Yuriy Vdovin Public Remedial Organization “Civil Control” Sankt-Petersburg
Yury Dgibladze Center for Development of Democracy and Human Rights Moscow
Yury Molchanov Fund "Metropolis XXI" Moscow
Zargan Mahadzhieva Regional public organization "NIYSO" Grozniy
Zoya Kochetkova Kaliningrad Children and Youth Invalids NGO “Maria” Kaliningrad

[admin]

The Changing Face of Environmentalism in the Soviet Union -- EXCERPT
by Igor Izodorovich Altshuler (Moscow State University, Moscow, USSR) & Ruben Artyomovich Mnatsakanyan
March 1, 1990

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Abstract

Igor Izodorovich Altshuler and Ruben Artyomovich Mnatsakanyan are scientific researchers in the department of geography at Moscow State University and cofounders of the Association for the Support of Ecological Initiatives established by the Soviet Foundation for Social Innovations. They authored a report on glasnost and ecology in the Soviet Union published in the December 1988 ENVIRONMENT. Recently, Altshuler and Mnatsakanyan visited ENVIRONMENT's offices in Washington, D.C., and talked at length about environmental problems and issues in the USSR. Here are excerpts of an interview of Altshuler and Mnatsakanyan conducted by Barbara Richman, managing director of ENVIRONMENT. They discuss environmental problems, global climate change, agriculture, lack of information on the biggest polluters, transboundary pollution, impact of recent elections on environmental policy, the use of environmental impact assessments, public information about the environment, training of reporters, environmental organizations, and lack of money and political obstacles to environmental improvements.

Environmentalism in the Soviet Union

ENVIRONMENT: What are the most publicized environmental problems in the USSR?

MNATSAKANYAN: There are a lot of problems, but during the first years of perestroika the most publicized ones concerned water: the consequences of dam construction on rivers and valleys, Lake Baikal, and this big project of diverting the courses of north-flowing rivers to the south, where the Aral Sea basin is suffering from a depletion of water resources.

The river diversion project was rejected under strong public pressure that was started by writers. The very powerful Soviet Ministry of Land Reclamation and Water Management, which digs canals, builds dams, and has more than 2 million employees, also has received great publicity. The power that this ministry has originated from its history; it was a KGB department that dealt with the digging of canals by prisoners.

All of these issues were publicized during the first years of perestroika, but now it is hard to say which topic is number one because many articles have appeared about the quality of food, the quality of air in cities, and agricultural pesticide use and soil erosion. And, of course, there have been many articles concerning nuclear power since the Chernobyl accident. Now it is possible to say that the coverage of environmental issues is rather good.


Two women take part in a rally in downtown Nizhniy Tagil.

ALTSHULER: I would like to add that the Soviet people are concerned not only with these larger projects but also with the more concrete aspects of their lives and their environment, an environment that probably is, to some extent, dangerous to their lives. With increased glasnost, newspapers and magazines are publishing more information about pesticides, air and water pollution, and food contamination. So people are much more aware of these problems. Sometimes they are afraid to buy foodstuffs like vegetables and fruits, especially watermelons, because of nitrates and pesticides. Because people do not have enough information on these food ...

[admin]

Paleontological Section of the Moscow Society of Nature Explorers in 2007 -- EXCERPT
by O.V. Amitrov
DOI: 10.1134/S0031030108040163
ISSN 0031-0301, Paleontological Journal, 2008, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 447–449.
© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2008.
Original Russian Text © O.V. Amitrov, 2008
published in Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal, 2008, No. 4, pp. 108–110.  

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

In 2007, the section held seven meetings, with 70 reports delivered. As in 2006, there were no current meetings. Two meetings were regular annual meetings of the section and Moscow section of the Paleontological Society of the Russian Academy of Sciences “PALEOSTRAT-2007.” The Fourth All-Russian Scientific School of young paleontologists was represented by three meetings at the 47th Conference of Young Paleontologists of the Moscow Society of Nature Explorers. Like the previous three schools, this school was entitled “Modern Paleontology: Classical and Novel Methods.” It was organized by the section together with the Paleontological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow (PIN), Department of Paleontology of the Geological Faculty of Moscow State University (MGU), Paleontological Society of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and programs of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences “Support for Young Scientists,” “Origin and Evolution of the Biosphere,” and “Dynamics of Biodiversity and Gene Pool.” The session “Eustatic Variations in the Phanerozoic and Their Effect on the Marine Biota” supported by the Program of the Russian Academy of Sciences “Origin and Evolution of the Biosphere” was conducted jointly by the Section, PIN, and the Moscow Section of the Paleontological Society. The last session of the sections of sedimentary rocks, geology, and paleontology of Moscow Society of Nature Explorers was dedicated to the memory of Vladimir Vladimirovich Menner (1931–2006). The abstracts of almost all contributions were published, some contributions are prepared for publication as full-size papers.

Vladimir Vasilevich Menner

Born Nov. 11 (24), 1905, in the city of Shatsk, in present-day Riazan’ Oblast. Soviet geologist and paleontologist. Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1966).

After graduating from Moscow University in 1927, Menner worked in the Moscow division of the Geological Committee from 1927 to 1929. In 1929-30 he was an assistant at the Moscow Academy of Mines. Between 1930 and 1965 he served as dean of the geology department and head of the subdepartment of paleontology of the Moscow Institute of Geological Research. He has been head of the subdepartment of paleontology at Moscow State University since 1965. He became a senior researcher at the Geological Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in 1934 and assistant director of the institute in 1960. He conducted geological research in the Crimea, Northern Caucasus, the Polar Urals, Bashkiria, Siberia, and Kamchatka, and he wrote works on belemnites, ichthyofauna, and plesiosaurs. Menner developed basic principles for the stratigraphic correlation of deposits having different facies and established that the development of faunas and floras occurs in stages. He initiated work aimed at creating a unified global stratigraphic scale. From 1968 to 1972 he was president of the stratigraphic commission of the International Union of Geological Sciences, and in 1972 he became its vice-president and president of the union’s subcommission on the stratigraphy of the Paleogene. A member of the French Geological Society and the Geological Society of London and a recipient of the S. M. Kirov Prize of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1951), Menner has been awarded three orders and various medals.

WORKS

“Neravnomernosf (etapnosf) razvitiia organicheskogo mira i ee znachenie dlia detal’noi stratigrafii.”7>. Moskov-skogo geologo-razvedochnogo in-ta, 1961, vol. 37.
Biostratigraficheskie osnovy sopostavleniia morskikh, lagunnykh i kontinentaVnykh svit. Moscow, 1961.

Vladimir Vasilevich Menner, by The Free Dictionary by Farlex, by T.A. Sofiano

Some reports of the PALEOSTRAT meeting were topically grouped. Contributions dedicated to the centenary of the birth of Petr Aleksandrovich Gerasimov ...

The Fall of Tsarism: Untold Stories of the February 1917 Revolution
by Semion Lyandres
Print publication date: 2013
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199235759.001.0001

Petr Vasil’evich Gerasimov
by Semion Lyandres
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199235759.003.0005

This chapter presents a translation of the Russian-language transcripts of the interview with Petr Vasil'evich Gerasimov (1877–1919), a prominent liberal deputy to the last two imperial Dumas. The February uprising caught Gerasimov in the capital. By early morning on 27 February he was already in the Duma, witnessing firsthand some of the most important developments that led to the formation of the first revolutionary authority. On 28 February, he was appointed the Duma Committee commissar in charge of the Petrograd city police and administration. In his interview, Gerasimov describes his actions and impressions during the February Days, including the unprecedented admission of his authorship of the minutes of the private meeting of 27 February. Considered until now anonymous, the circumstances and timing of their compilation have often been called into question. This interview should lay these doubts to rest and provide a more complete and accurate context of when and how the single most important source on the formation of the Duma Committee was created.

-- The Fall of Tsarism: Untold Stories of the February 1917 Revolution, by Semion Lyandres, Oxford Scholarship Online

included the talk “Contribution of P.A. Gerasimov to the Study of the Jurassic and Cretaceous of Central Russia” by V.V. Mitta (PIN) and I.A. Starodubtseva (Vernadsky State Geological Museum, Moscow); two reports by A.P. Ippolitov (MGU, PIN) entitled “Contribution of P.A. Gerasimov to the Study of Mesozoic Serpulids (Annelida, Polychaeta) from Central Russia” and “On a New Method of Analysis of Assemblages of Encrusting Organisms, Based on Upper Jurassic (Oxfordian) Serpulids (Annelida, Polychaeta) of Central Russia”; the report “The Volgian Stage is Retained in the Jurassic System, with Evidence from Magnetostratigraphic Correlation” by V. Khosha, P. Pruner, M. Shadima, S. Shlekhta (Institute of Geology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague), M. Kostak, M. Mazukh (Univerzita Karlova v Praze), V.A. Zakharov, and M.A. Rogov (Geological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (GIN), Moscow); the report “Volgian Stage Boundaries” by V.V. Mitta; the report “Middle–Upper Jurassic Ostracodes of the Kursk Region” by E.M. Tesakova (MGU), and the report by D.V. Stryuchkov (Vernadsky State Geological Museum, Moscow) entitled “Jurassic Ichthyosaurs from the Collection of the Vernadsky State Geological Museum.”

The reports “Kh.I. Pander, the Discoverer of Conodonts” by I.A. Starodubtseva and “A New Representative of the Conodont Genus Antognathus from the Famennian of Southern Kazakhstan” by Yu.A. Gatovskii (MGU) were dedicated to the 150th anniversary of the discovery of conodonts.

Some general issues were addressed by V.K. Golubev (PIN) in his report “Perfection of the Stratigraphic Scale: True and Imaginary” and by S.S. Lazarev (PIN) in his report “A Young Man in Modern Science: Not of This World?”

Particular fossil groups were discussed in the contributions “Ecology and Taphonomy of Radiolarians” by M.S. Afanasieva (PIN) and E.O. Amon (Institute of Geology and Geochemistry, Yekaterinburg); “Permian Foraminifers of the Pechora Region” by E.E. Sukhov (Kazan State University); “Stratigraphic Distribution, Paleobiogeography, and Phylogenesis of Benthic Foraminifers Stensioeina of the Turonian–Santonian of the Mangyshlak and the Southeastern Russian Plate” by V.N. Benyamovsky (GIN) and A.Yu. Sadekov (University of Canberra, Australia); “Echinoids in the Cretaceous of the East European Platform” by A.N. Soloviev (PIN); and “Distribution of Arthrodira (Placodermi) in the Evlanovsk (Late Frasnian) Basin of the Central Devonian Field” by G.V. Zakharenko (PIN).

Eight reports addressed biotic assemblages: “The Challenger Expedition (1872–1876) and Its Significance for the Study of Marine Sediments” by T.M. Popesko (Central Research Geological Prospecting Museum, St. Petersburg); “Vendian Localities of the White Sea Region: Perspectives for their Preservation As Geological Natural Monuments” by M.A. Fedonkin, A.Yu. Ivantsov, M.V. Leonov, and E.A. Serezhnikova (PIN); “On Vendian–Cambrian Boundary Deposits of the Dzabkhan Zone of Western Mongolia” by D. Dorzhnamdzha, Enkhbaator (Mongolian Academy of Sciences), A.V. Krayushkin, A.L. Ragozina, and E.A. Serezhnikova (PIN); “Stratigraphy and Paleogeography of the Klintsyan Horizon (Devonian) of the Volgograd Volga Region” by V.N. Mantsurova and V.A. Tsygankova (VolgogradNIPImorneft); “New Data on the Carboniferous Stratigraphy of the Lower Reaches of the Onega River” by A.S. Alekseev, A.N. Reimers, O.A. Orlova, A.P. Ippolitov (MGU), O.A. Lebedev (PIN), V.A. Larchenko, and V.N. Stepanov (ALROSA, Arkhangelsk); “Biostratigraphy and Biogeography of the Marine Permian of Central and Northeastern Mongolia” by I.N. Manankov (PIN); “Microbiotas of Permian Carbonate Buildups of Turkey and Darvaz” by T.V. Filimonova (GIN); and “Sea Level Fluctuations and Events in the Mediterranean and Paratethys Regions during the Messinian” by S.V. Popov and L.A. Nevesskaya (PIN).

Along with standard reports, the School of Young Paleontologists provided six lectures by leading specialists: “Novelty in Bacterial, Precambrian, and Extraterrestrial Paleontology” by A.Yu. Rozanov (PIN), “Mathematical Biology: Present and Future” by V.D. Lakhno (Institute of Mathematical Problems of Biology of the Russian Academy of Sciences); “Radiolarians of the Past, Present, and Future” by V.S. Vishnevskaya (GIN); “Paleoichnology” by A.V. Dronov (GIN); “Coevolution of Echinoids and Predatory Cassid Gastropods” by A.N. Soloviev (PIN); “Agnathans: Evolutionary and Phylogenetic Significance” by L.I. Novitskaya (PIN).

Unlike in the PALEOSTRAT Meeting, the majority of reports presented in the School of Young Paleontologists were devoted to particular taxa. R.R. Yakupov (Institute of Geology of the Ural Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ufa) gave a talk “On the Age of the Metamorphic Strata of the Uraltau Ridge of the Southern Ural Mountains.” Three reports addressed lower plant topics: “The Diatom Flora of River-Mouth Surface Sediments of Northeastern Asia” by M.S. Obrezkova (Pacific Oceanological Institute of the Far East Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok); “Cyanobacteria of the Hot Springs of Baikal Rift Zone: Species Composition and Silica Biomineralization” by E.G. Sorokovikova (Limnological Institute of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (LI SO), Irkutsk) and “Investigation of Chrysophyte Cysts from Some Aquatic Basins of Eurasia and Their Role in the Chrysophyte Fossil Record” by A.D. Firsova (LI SO). The higher plants were discussed in the reports “A New Plant with Thick Cuticle from the Middle Devonian of the Voronezh Anteclise” by A.V. Broushkin (VSEGEI, St. Petersburg) and N.V. Gordenko (PIN); “On the Species Systematics of the Genus Peltaspermum Harris (Peltaspermaceae)” by E.V. Karasev (PIN); “Fossil Wood of Conifers from the Cretaceous of the Russian Far East” by M.A. Afonin (Biological-Soil Institute of the Far East Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences); “The First Find of Conifer Macrofossils from the Lower Sarmatian of the Karpov Yar Site (Moldova)” by A.B. Klumova (MGU); and “The Holocene As an Unaccomplished Interglacial, from the Perspective of Paleophytocoenoses” by E.V. Pashkevich (Belarussian State University (BGU), Minsk). Protists were discussed by the report “Distribution of Radiolarians in the Surface Sediments of the Sea of Okhotsk” by E.A. Yanchenko (Pacific Oceanological Institute of the Far East Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences); Porifera, by the contribution of V.V. Makhnach (BGU) entitled “Sponge Collection at Belarussian State University”; and brachiopods were discussed by A.V. Pakhnevich (PIN) in his report “Microtomographic Examination of the Interior of Brachiopod Holotypes.” Mollusks retained dominance: “Functional Morphology of Ammonoid Shell” by M.S. Boiko (PIN); “Plagioteuthis moscoviensis— A Coleoid or an Ammonoid?” by A.P. Ippolitov (MGU, PIN) and M.A. Rogov (GIN); “Ammonoid Characterization of the Kungurian–Roadian Boundary Deposits in China” by Mu Lin (Institute of Geology and Paleontology, Nanjing, China); “Holocene Malacofauna of the Ptich Site (Central Belarus)” by E.A. San’ko and O.V. Polyanitsa (BGU). The remaining contributions addressed vertebrate topics. E.V. Syromyatnikova and I.G. Danilov (Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg) reported the “Morphology of Turtles of the Genus Adocus from the Upper Cretaceous of Middle Asia and Kazakhstan.” N.V. Zelenkov (PIN) presented on “Phasianidae (Aves) from the Neogene of Central Asia.” V.V. Rosina (PIN) and Yu.A. Semenov (Institute of Zoology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev) reported on “A New Representative of Vespertilionidae (Chiroptera) from the Early Vallesian of Ukraine.” K.O. Pecherskaya and A.V. Shpanskii (Tomsk State University) contributed “Remains of Quaternary Mammals from the Sergeevo Locality on the Chulym River (Tomsk Region).” A.V. Biryukov (Saratov Regional Museum) made a contribution “Datings of Early Pleistocene Deposits of the Eastern Oka–Don Plain with the Microtheriological Method.” E.A. Petrova (Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg) reported “A Mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) from the Volga–Kama Region.” K.A. Simonov (MGU) and A.S. Tesakov (GIN) contributed with “Voles from the Middle Pleistocene Chuya Site on the Aldan River.” K.K. Tarasenko (Adygea State University, Maikop) and V.V. Titov (Rostov-on-Don, Southern Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences) reported on “Findings of Cetotherium in the Middle Sarmathian of Adygea.”

The session on eustatics included ten reports: “Benthos of Icehouse Epeiric Basin and Sea Level Fluctuations: Moscovian Stage (Carboniferous) of the East European Craton” by P.B. Kabanov and D.V. Baranova (PIN); “Changes in Diversity of Permian Brachiopods of the East European Platform on the Background of Sea Level Changes” by G.A. Afanasjeva ....

[admin]

The Fall of Tsarism: Untold Stories of the February 1917 Revolution -- EXCERPT
by Semion Lyandres
© Semion Lyadres 2013

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Petr Vasil’Evich Gerasimov

Petr Vasil’evich Gerasimov (1877-1919) was a leading Kadet deputy in the third and fourth Dumas from Kostroma province. He came from a family of prominent entrepreneurs (and hereditary honorary citizens), and was groomed from an early age to take over the family business. His parents sent him to a commercial school, which he duly completed, but in the upper grades he developed a strong interest in social and political questions. Following graduation in 1898, Gerasimov passed his external examinations at the Kostroma classical gymnasium and went on to study law at Moscow University. After two years, he was expelled for participating in student protests but was later able to complete his training at Yaroslavl’s Demidov Juridical Lyceum. In 1903, he returned to his native Kostroma to practice law and to become a leading liberal activist, publisher, and publicist. In October 1907, he was elected to the (third) Duma, where his good writing and organizational skills were quickly put to use. He served as secretary of the Kadet faction and authored or co-authored a number of important pieces of legislation on local courts, peasants’ bankruptcy protection, and on the property and family status of married women. One of his signature legislative initiatives in the next (fourth) Duma was the new and much more liberal law on the press (zakon o pechati), which he both helped to write and lobbied for its passage.

Like most of his Duma colleagues, Gerasimov greeted the news of the outbreak of the First World War with patriotic enthusiasm, which he promptly translated into action. He would spend most of the next two and a half years at the front, organizing medical and food supply detachments under the auspices of the All-Russian Zemstvo Union, and other wartime voluntary organizations.

The February uprising caught him in the capital. By early morning on February 27 he was already in the Duma, witnessing firsthand what was transpiring in the office of the Duma President, Rodzianko’s last-minute appeal to Nicholas II to grant political concessions, and some of the most important developments that led to the formation of the first revolutionary authority. That afternoon Gerasimov participated in the pivotal private meeting of the Duma deputies and, as soon as the Duma Committee was formed, readily placed himself at its service. On February 28, he was appointed the Duma Committee commissar in charge of the Petrograd city police and administration. Over the course of the next several days, he and his fellow commissars helped maintain order and discipline by touring the barracks of the rebellious units in Petrograd, Tsarskoe Selo, and the Kronstadt Naval Base. His other important assignment was to greet and deploy the revolutionary troops arriving in the capital from the nearby garrisons.

Gerasimov described his actions and impressions during the February Days in his interview with the Polievktov Commission; and he did so in an unassuming and dignified manner, without exaggerating his own role or diminishing that of his former Socialist allies now turned political rivals. Perhaps one of the more striking aspects of Gerasimov’s testimony is his admission of his authorship of the minutes of the private meeting of February 27. Considered until now anonymous, the circumstances and timing of their compilation have often been called into question. Gerasimov’s testimony should lay all doubts to rest and provide a more complete and accurate context of when and how this single most important source on the formation of the Duma Committee was created.

During the spring and summer months of 1917, he continued to play a leading role in the Kadet party and the Duma Committee. In early March, he replaced Miliukov as the Kadet representative on the still-functioning Duma Council of Elders. In May, he was elected to the Kadet Central Committee, and in August was nominated for the party’s list of candidates to stand for elections to the Constituent Assembly. At the same time, Gerasimov kept up with his work in the Duma Committee. He chaired the important Liaison Department with the Troops, Population, and the Provinces. One of the most significant tasks of this department was to publish and distribute massive amounts of pro-war patriotic literature to the armed forces and across the country. As always, Gerasimov approached this duty with his usual energy, skill, and dedication. Yet by the end of July, after realizing that all the efforts to restore order and fighting morale in the army were failing to achieve tangible results, his patience ran out. He soon found himself among the strong supporters of a temporary military dictatorship.

Gerasimov was profoundly anti-Bolshevik. Following the October takeover, he joined the leadership of the Petrograd branch of the anti-Bolshevik All-Russian National Center and until his arrest in the summer of 1919 remained very active in the anti-Bolshevik underground. He lived under false names and was responsible for coordinating contacts between various anti-Bolshevik organizations in and around Petrograd with General N. N. Iudenich’s forces in the northwest. After his arrest and initial interrogations, Gerasimov (under the alias “Grekov”) was transferred to Moscow and executed by a Cheka firing squad, along with sixty-six other members of the so-called Tactical Center, on September 23, 1919.

The interview – his only known testimony – is reproduced on the basis of a master copy compiled by Rusudana Polievktova-Nikoladze and three draft transcripts: the first transcript is in an unidentified hand, with comments and stylistic edits by Tamara Nikoladze; the second is in Rusudana Polievktova-Nikoladze’s hand, with abbreviated words and sentences; the final draft transcript was written by Tamara Nikoladze.

*****

Petr Vasil’evich Gerasimov, Deputy of the Third and Fourth State Duma, member of the Party of People’s Freedom, member of the Agitation Commission of the Temporary Committee. May 9, [1917]

My contact with the Tauride Palace during the days of the coup manifested itself in that I was at the disposal of the Temporary Committee and of the Provisional Government. From the beginning of the revolution I was asked by the Temporary Committee to meet the incoming troops; I performed the responsibilities of the city police chief around the clock on the first two days. In that capacity, on the nights of February 28 and March 1, I imposed order. Later I was in charge of the liaison department to the troops, the distribution of literature, the publishing department, and the liaison department to the provinces.

I am a deputy of the third and fourth Duma from Kostroma province, and have resided in Petrograd since the time I became a deputy ten years ago. With the outbreak of the war, I went to the front and stayed there the whole time until just before the revolution, when I returned to Petrograd. I participated in the work of the Progressive Bloc. Over Christmas [1916], I was finally convinced that the reports about the mood of the opposition in the army were quite objective, and that the army had actually been revolutionized. Even common soldiers clearly understood where the danger was. The officer corps (officers, commanders of divisions, and so on) – who before that had been mostly fervent nationalists – opened their eyes. I was able to organize several open meetings in different units. The conversations showed me that everyone had a similar mindset.

The mood of the army today is completely different from what it was three months ago, before the revolution, During the three years of war before the revolution, even though there was a war-weariness and one could not detect a will to fight, there was also a feeling that people had gotten used to it. The trenches had been dug carefully and diligently, and they were getting warmer and more comfortable; the food was getting better, and so on. Today, soldiers have absolutely no desire to fight. They could not care less about annexations and contributions. They are being guided by one desire only – to be discharged as soon as possible. It is very difficult to understand such a complete change in the mood of the army and the shift in popular psychology that occurred after the revolution.

I arrived in Petersburg [sic!] a few days before the opening of the Duma. I could not adjust to local life right away, or immerse myself in the local mood, which was so different from the psychological mindset of a person at the front. I have many recollections about what was going on in the streets during four days, February the 23rd to the 27th.

On the 23rd, the disorders erupted. From the very first days, it was clear that, thanks to the conduct of the troops (Cossacks and dragoons), the mood was drastically different from all previous occurrences of this kind, and that the events had taken on a very different character. Two episodes can serve as an illustration of the conduct of the troops: at the corner of Fontanka Embankment and Nevskii Prospeckt, the dragoons were dispersing a crowd. An officer menacingly commanded, “Crush them!” However, the smiling soldiers used their horses’ heads to push not the workers in the street, but the public walking on the sidewalk. Right then, an exchange took place between the officer and a civilian lady. The officer yelled at the public, “Keep moving!” The lady shouted back, “It is easy for you to say keep moving – you’re on a horse!” and a laugh erupted all around her. In this instance, the appearance of the soldiers did not cause panic at all. The [Duma] deputy Stepanov [1] and I were on Nevskii. As we approached Znamenskii Square, we learned from the crowd that a clash between the Cossacks and precinct policemen had just occurred there. The Cossacks used force to disperse the policemen. All this was quite unlike anything that had happened in similar situations bfore.

On the 27th, I spent my day on the streets. On the evening of the 26th, we in the Duma knew about the disorders in the 4th Company of the Pavlovskii Regiment and about the murder of Eksten, [2] the company commander. On the 27th, at eight in the morning, I was already in the Duma. There, I happened to be present at a telephone conversation between Maklakov and Pokrovskii. [3] The latter did not know anything about what was happening among the troops, and got very concerned. At 12:00, again in my presence, a very interesting conversation took place between Rodzianko and the war minister Beliaev. Judging by Rodzianko’s reply, it was clear that Beliaev was asking the Duma for help. Rodzianko raised his voice and very sharply replied: “You are destroying the country by yourselves; we cannot help you.” [4] With this answer, Rodzianko in part predetermined the outcome of the four-hour-long meeting of the State Duma. The Council of Elders [senioren convent] was in an ongoing session from 11:00 in the morning until 4:00 in the afternoon. [5] So, with the exception of the conversation with Beliaev, we were cut off from the outside world. Our only sources of information about what was happening on the streets were reports to Shingarev from the medical-sanitary station of the City Duma. But these were sporadic reports, and 50 percent of them turned out to be incorrect.

Around 11:00, I went out into the streets: soldiers were still shooting at random. I walked to Kirochnaia Street. There, the Volynskii and Preobrazhenskii Regiments were approaching the Arsenal. [6] This took place between 11:00 and 12:00. They were attempting to get into formation. From somewhere appeared a young, mounted officer. He assumed command over the soldiers. It was the same officer who was described in Lukash’s brochure and was later killed near the Moskovskii [Regiment’s] barracks. [7]

When I came back to the Duma, the atmosphere was dominated by a mood of impatience. The deputies demanded immediate convocation of the meeting, but the representatives of the factions were not so eager and were waiting until events played themselves out. Around 3:00, a small crowd of about 50-6- people came to the Duma: 40 workers, 30 soldiers, and 2-3 students. Those in the Duma got nervous. Rodzianko, worrying about a clash between the newcomers and the Duma guard, wanted to send the guards away. The commander of the guard, Chikolini, objected, saying that it was his duty not to let anyone into the Duma. This further increased the already widespread anxiety. Kerenskii, Chkheidze, and five or six more deputies were the first ones to go out and greet the people. Krenskii delivered a very successful, well-constructed speech, and prevented the possibility of a clash between the crowd and the guards by asking the latter to become the first honorary guard o the Duma. Chkheidze spoke after Kerenskii. Someone unknown opened the small middle gate [kalitka]. When I went out to the crowd, the big gates were already open.

At 4:00, the meeting of the State Duma in the semicircular hall began. [8] It was interrupted when a frightened Chikolini suddenly burst in and exclaimed in horror that he was about to be killed. Rodzianko sent him to his office. The meeting ended with the decision to form the Temporary Committee and transfer all power to it. All factions agreed, and the Temporary Committee was formed. I was immediately assigned to the Committee, and this assignment was cleared with the factions. From that moment on, I have been considered on assignment to the Temporary Committee. Rodzianko did not invite stenographers, so there are no minutes of that historic meeting. For my own purposes, I sketched the whole meeting into my notebook, but so far I have not had time to transcribe it. [9]

On the night of the 27th, Krenskii and Nekrasov were asked by the Temporary Committee to organize a military commission to maintain connections with the troops. On the morning of the 28th, the leadership of that commission was transferred to Engel’gardt.

The first person from the outside whom I met in the Duma was Charnolusskii. [10] On the evening of the 27th, he sneaked into the Duma with others who had been released from prison, among whom, by the way, were Gvozdev and Khrustalev-Nosar’. [11] On the night of the 27th, the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies was formed. Their first document was issued on March 1st. In the beginning, they were situated in the vestibule, and later also occupied rooms. Only late in the evening and during the night of the 27th did the crowd find its way to the rooms of the Tauride Palace. However, from the moment when Charnolusskii showed up in the Duma, soldiers also appeared – at first as guards, and later as part of ever-growing crowds. On the evening of the 27th, Nikolai Dmitrievich Sokolov, who later organized the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies, also arrived. On the second or the third day, Khrustalev-Nosar’ disappeared somewhere from the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies. In the beginning, the membership of the Soviet appeared to be random and scanty.

On the morning of the 28th, a general came to the Duma and reported that the Hotel Astoria, where he resided, had been ransacked by a mob. I was sent to the rescue at once. Somewhere in the vicinity, a police machine-gun could be heard. The mob, which consisted of some riff-raff made up of soldiers and sailors, was shooting at the windows of the Astoria, thinking that the machine-gun was firing from the roof. I went into the hotel. The lower level was completely ransacked. I was approached by second lieutenant Orel [12] and a sailor, who whispered to me, “Appoint sailors to be the guard.” He was thinking that sailors are better disciplined than infantry soldiers. I did as he said, and set a guard from among the sailors. Later, I ordered that about twenty officers from the Allied armies, who happened to be staying at the Astoria, be taken to the Duma. I also transferred women and children to nearby buildings. After that, we went to search the hotel. On the lower level, we found a murdered general [13] and a wounded woman. In the attics and basements, we didn’t find anything, and thereby proved to the crowd that there were no machine-guns in the Astoria. I appointed second lieutenant Orel to be the commandant of the Astoria (he was later killed), and after giving several speeches to the crowd, I returned to the Duma. As I was approaching the Duma, I saw military cadets heading toward it.

At the Duma, in the Military Commission, I met an officer of the General Staff, Prince Tumanov, who had set up the Commission’s headquarters. Two more officers of the General Staff were working with him – Tuga-Baranovskii and Iakubovich. In my subsequent work, I dealt with these three young and very energetic officers more than with anyone else. On the 28th, various military units from the immediate environs of Petrograd started to arrive. In the beginning, their intentions in coming to Petrograd were unknown, but soon it became clear that they were coming to support the Temporary Committee. I received instructions to meet the arriving troops. This kept me very busy. In addition to greeting them, I had to feed them and find accommodation. But there was nothing to feed them with, and nowhere to quarter them. We had to put them in cheap hotels near the train stations. The problem of food was especially acute. The mood of the arriving troops was panicky; they were expecting traps everywhere. They did not know where to go, and I had to take care of them. I was sending all arrivals to the Baltic Railway Station under the command of Captain Kossovich, [14] whom I had put in charge.

The following example of this panicky mood made an especially bad impression on me. I was talking to one of the arriving units, who came with the intention of defending the revolution against all sorts of perils. Just then, a gunshot was heard nearby that was answered by several others. As a result of this small, accidental shooting, all the units immediately ran away, leaving their artillery behind. What would have happened if an actual armored train had arrived and the revolutionary troops had had to engage it in battle?

Some units were not yet committed. A battery of the Artillery Guard, after long arguments with me, pretended that it was going to the BAltic Railway Station, but actually went to Beliaev in the Admiralty. But they soon left there and went to Kossovich, who arrested their commander. One of the arriving infantry regiments exhibited similar behavior. On another occasion, the Cossacks interrupted me repeatedly with hostile comments; some of the lower ranks directly harassed us, but soldiers took them away. I had to make trips particularly often to the Baltic and Tsarkoe Selo Railway Stations to meet and greet arriving troops. On the night of the 1st [March], I was again called to the Baltic Station for this purpose. While there, I was informed that the treasury was being robbed. It was necessary to send soldiers in automobiles to defend it. Therefore, I drove to the Technological Institute to pick up trucks. There, Svatikov [15] told me in confidence that things were not going well in the Izmailovskii Regiment. Two armed companies of this regiment were taken by their officers to the Manege, and they disarmed the rest. The regimental officer-in-charge ordered the officers to lock their personal weapons in the armory.

The officers were inviting disarmed soldiers into the Manege to talk, but the soldiers hesitated, uncertain what to do. I advised them not to go, but instead to invite the officers to their barracks for discussion. Later, it turned out that, in fact, the two companies of the Izmailovskii Regiment went to the Admiralty and placed themselves under Khabalov’s command. During that time, the Duma deputies were popular, and crowds in the streets would immediately start listening when they realized that a deputy was speaking. That is why, everywhere that there was ransacking, shooting, or where a police station was burning, the crowd would immediately listen to me and disperse. This is how I cleared Zagorodnyi Avenue when the crowds were awaiting the arrival of the famous armored train.

My most significant and vivid memory during the first days of the revolution come from the tense and emotional night when the final text of the declaration was worked out and the Provisional Government was formed. [16] The situation was overwhelming. Kerenskii had just received permission from the Soviet – but not the authority – to join the government. The mood brightened. Suddenly, the door flew open and a very pale but excited Skobelev walked into the room.

“So?...” Miliukov asked him. Skobelev quietly walked up and kissed him. It was the same unforgettable and uplifting mood during the night, when Guchkov and Shul’gin were sent to Pskov. (Guchkov showed up in the Duma on the 27th; Rodzianko wrote his second telegram to the tsar together with Guchkov.) [17]

The outbreak of World War I prompted general outcry directed at Tsar Nicholas II and the Romanov family. While the nation was initially caught up in a wave of nationalism, increasing numbers of defeats and poor conditions soon made the opposite true. The Tsar attempted to remedy the situation by taking personal control of the army in 1915. This proved disastrous, as the Tsar was now held personally responsible for Russia's continuing defeats and losses. In addition, the Tsarina Alexandra, left to rule in while the Tsar was commanding at the front, was German born, leading to suspicion of collusion, only exacerbated by rumors relating to her relationship with the controversial mystic Rasputin. Rasputin's influence led to disastrous ministerial appointments and corruption, resulting in a worsening of conditions within Russia. This led to general dissatisfaction with the Romanov family, and was a major factor contributing to the retaliation of the Russian Communists against the royal family.[3]

After the entry of the Ottoman Empire on the side of the Central Powers in October 1914, Russia was deprived of a major trade route through the Dardanelles, which further contributed to the economic crisis, in which Russia became incapable of providing munitions to their army in the years leading to 1917. However, the problems were primarily administrative, and not industrial, as Germany was producing great amounts of munitions whilst constantly fighting on two major battlefronts.[4]

The conditions during the war resulted in devastating loss of morale within the Russian army, as well as the general population. This was particularly apparent in the cities, owing to a lack of food in response to the disruption of agriculture. Food scarcity had become a considerable problem in Russia, but the cause of this did not lie in any failure of the harvests, which had not been significantly altered during wartime. The indirect reason was that the government, in order to finance the war, had been printing millions of ruble notes, and by 1917 inflation had made prices increase up to four times what they had been in 1914. Farmers were consequently faced with a higher cost of living, but little increase in income. As a result, they tended to hoard their grain and to revert to subsistence farming. Thus the cities were constantly short of food. At the same time, rising prices led to demands for higher wages in the factories, and in January and February 1916 revolutionary propaganda, in part aided by German funds, led to widespread strikes. This resulted in a growing criticism of the government, including an increased participation of workers in revolutionary parties.

Liberal parties too had an increased platform to voice their complaints, as the initial fervor of the war had resulted in the Tsarist government creating a variety of political organizations. In July 1915, a Central War Industries Committee was established under the chairmanship of a prominent Octobrist, Alexander Guchkov (1862-1936), including ten workers' representatives. The Petrograd Mensheviks agreed to join despite the objections of their leaders abroad. All this activity gave renewed encouragement to political ambitions, and, in September 1915, a combination of Octobrists and Kadets in the Duma demanded the forming of a responsible government. The Tsar rejected these proposals.[5]

All these factors had given rise to a sharp loss of confidence in the regime, even within the ruling class, growing throughout the war. Early in 1916, Guchkov discussed with senior army officers and members of the Central War Industries Committee about a possible coup to force the abdication of the Tsar. In December, a small group of nobles assassinated Rasputin, and in January 1917 the Tsar's uncle, Grand Duke Nicholas, was asked indirectly by Prince Lvov whether he would be prepared to take over the throne from his nephew, Tsar Nicholas II. None of these incidents were in themselves the immediate cause of the February Revolution, but they do help to explain why the monarchy survived only a few days after it had broken out.

-- Russian Revolution, by Wikipedia

About March the 2nd, quite accidentally, we succeeded in seizing the papers of Aleksandra Fedorovna. [18] In the street, a technology student arrested a suspicious couple – both of them carrying a suitcase – a gentleman in civilian clothes and a young lady. The student sent them to the Duma, to me, and I turned them over to an officer for questioning. Soon, the officer reported that the gentleman turned out to be a courier for the tsarina, and the young lady was his acquaintance. On the orders of the empress, they were on their way to the sovereign in Pskov. In one of the suitcases there were envelopes addressed to the sovereign, but the courier had not dared to open them. I immediately informed Rodzianko. He ordered that the suitcases be sent to him, and we turned the gentleman over to Papadzhanov’s investigative commission. [19] The documents unquestionably pointed to a certain duplicity in the intentions of the empress. The young lady was soon released. She explained that the gentleman had visited her place in the afternoon, and that from there they left for Pskov. The Duma deputy Vershinin [20] could tell you more details about this interesting episode.

I specialized in maintaining liaison with the troops, and in dealing with the consequences of Order Number One. For two days, I was acting city police chief, and was therefore on call in the city police building [gradonachal’stvo], where every 10-15 minutes telephone reports came in with information about lootings, the burning of houses, and so on. All these reports were remarkably inaccurate. Eighty percent turned out to be false. There were very few soldiers at the disposal of the city police office, and there was no one to send when help was asked for. I had to give up this duty. Apparently, these false reports were generated either as pranks or as the work of remnants of the old authorities trying to scare us with impending anarchy. The same was happening at the State Duma. It was contacted through the Military Commission – where the reports that were similarly unfavorable to the revolution were consistently coming in – that a train had come with a punitive expeditionary force; that the troops had already disembarked and were moving toward the Duma; that there was already a battle raging on Zagorodnyi Avenue; and so on. The city thrived on fantastic rumors.

There was unrest in the barracks. The officers were very nervous, and their nervousness played a big role in disorders and developing events. Soldiers insisted on their newly received civic freedoms; whereas officers, nervous and not yet fully acclimated to the revolution, viewed this insistence as rebellion. Afraid of being slaughtered for some little thing, they were constantly telephoning the Duma and calling deputies for help. At that time, the deputies had enormous influence, and with their authority, immediately tamed the most aggressive soldiers. The deputies were able to calm the sharpest conflicts between soldiers and officers without much difficulty. But this picture soon began to change dramatically: as our soldiers came under the influence of radical parties, our hold over them was quickly evaporating. In the barracks, the reason for that was becoming clear. I happened to visit the 4th Company of the Pavlovskii Regiment, where the effects of propaganda were becoming quite obvious.

While there, I was continuously followed around by a gentleman who objected to my speeches and demanded proof that I was a Duma deputy, etc. The Moskovskii Regiment very quickly escaped the influence of the Duma. It was open to all, with lithographed police leaflets of a reactionary nature and other similar literature. Already during March the 2nd and 3rd quickly penetrating, extreme maximalist propaganda was gaining ground in Oranienbaum Machine-Gun Regiment, in the 180th Reserve, and in the Finland Regiment stationed on Vasil’evskii Island.

After the agreement between the Provisional Government and the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies had been reached, the barracks were visited by one representative from the Soviet and one from the Duma. Captain V[r]zhosek [21] did us a great favor. There was a lot of work to do. Everywhere we went, we had to conduct discussions for three to four hours, and it always turned out to be very constructive, even in such regiments as the Finland Regiment, which very quickly slid toward the Left. By the way, their officer corps was very poor and spoiled many things. The wave spread further, into the suburbs and difference provinces (Novgorod) as well as to the northern front. We even had to send delegates there. As for myself, I did not have time to travel outside Petersburg, and went only to Porokhovye [22] and to Tsarskoe Selo.

From among the Duma deputies, the following can say interesting things about their impressions from the front: Stepanov, Taskin, Lebedev (Don Region), Demidov Igor’, [23] Karaulov (this one is a very effusive person, with mood swings).

The absence of the officer corps, who were hiding, was very dangerous. The relationships with soldiers were becoming very tense. The mood and atmosphere in the barracks intensified. This gave a push to the creation of the Propaganda Commission [agitatsionnaia komissiia], which from the very first moment had to work a lot and intensively. The Commission quickly grew and expanded, and its character gradually changed because of its activities. Newspapers and literature were needed for all those who visited us. Newspapers of all political shades were donated to us. But we had to create the literature. We got into the business of publishing. About 7,000,000 pieces of literature have been sent to the front and to the provinces, establishing ties with the country. The report about our publishing activity was printed in Izvestiia Vremennogo Komiteta Gosudarstvennoi Dumy. [24] Rodzianko, Shul’gin, Nekrasov, Vershinin (ecretary), Krenskii, and Chkheidze visited the provinces on behalf of our commission.

Besides myself, others were attached to the Temporary Committee, including Guchkov (from February 27) and G.E. L’vov, the Muscovite (from March 1). The following were also attached to the Committee, and stayed continuously in the Duma: Volkov, Vinogradov, and Lashkevich (from Kharkov), [25] through whom the Committee received all its reports. In addition to Duma deputies, a number of officials of the Duma Chancellery worked with the Committee: Iakov Vasil’evich Glinka [26] (who knows many interesting things about the revolution), Batov, and others. Ivan Ivanovich Pushchin [27] – who was the city’s commandant during March the 3rd and 4th – was a specialist on Petersburg’s “moods.” Pepeliaev is a specialist on Kronstadt. Mansyrev, [28] and especially Bublikov, [29] have interesting information about the revolution. The last was receiving all telegrams which tracked the movement of trains. He made it impossible for troops to arrive to suppress the revolution. He was our “rescue committee.”

My recollections about the arrest of ministers. Shcheglovitov was brought to the Duma on the 27th. Everyone in the [Tauride] Palace immediately ran to stare at him, but I did not go, and saw him only when he was taken to the Ministerial Pavilion. He was pale, but walked with dignity. Maklakov [30] was brought in, head bandaged, with some people who had been beaten. Beliaev was pitiful. Sukhomlinov was not brought to the room of the investigative commission (next to Rodzianko’s office), but into Bobrinskii’s office. [31] He looked awful. His eyes were filled with horror; he did not quite grasp what was happening around him. He was put in a chair, and at that very moment, Papadzhanov flew into the room and jumped on him, hysterically screaming, “epaulets, epaulets!” Several soldiers and others from the public ran in, following him. Papadzhanov cut the epaulets off of Sukhomlinov’s coat and immediately went back out to the troops. “You see, the epaulets,” he shouted. It turned out that soldiers in Catherine Hall, once they learned that Sukhomlinov had been brought in, were on the way to skewer him on their bayonets. They were stopped only after they had been promised that his epaulets would be cut off. Sukhomlinov himself cut the epaulets off of his overcoat, after asking permission to do so. He also took off his Cross of St. George and put it in his pocket. I did not see what happened next, but I was told that Sukhomlinov was taken from Bobrinskii’s office to the Ministerial Pavilion with Kerenskii (who told the soldiers that they could get to Sukhomlinov only over his dead body) in front and the guards walking behind.

Krenskii and Papdzhanov questioned the ministers who were brought in, whereas Volkov was in charge of sending them to the Peter and Paul Fortress.

________________

Notes:

1. Vasilii Aleksandrovich Stepanov (1872-1920) was a mining engineer and a prominent Kadet deputy in the last Duma from Perm province. During the February Days he was the Duma Committee’s commissar for liaison with the troops of the Petrograd, Tsarskoe Selo, and Kronstadt garrisons; on March 13 he was appointed commissar to the ministry of trade and industry and assistant to the minister. He died on his way to France from the Crimea while on a mission for General Wrangel, on August 29, 1920.

2. Aleksandr Nikolaevich Eksten (1873-1917) was a colonel in the Russian imperial army, and since January 1917 served as commander of the Pavlovskii Guards Regiment’s reserve battalion. He was murdered by a group of armed demonstrators as he stepped out of the 4th Company barracks into Koniushennyi Square around 7:00 in the evening on February 26, minutes after promising his soldiers that their patrolling of the streets would be halted. Earlier that day, soldiers from the 4th Company of the Pavlovskii Regiment fired on a police force near the City Duma on Nevskii Avenue, killing one policemen and wounding another in an attempt to prevent further shooting at the demonstrators by their comrades from the Pavlovskii training detachment. This incident was the first act of open revolt by a military unit and a prelude to the larger events, which came less than 24 hours later. Both sides of the rapidly worsening conflict took notice of the event; some saw it as grave and alarming, others as hopeful and encouraging. For the most reliable scholarly account of the Pavlovskii revolt, see V. Iu. Cherniaev, “Vosstanie Pavlovskogo poka 26 fevralia 1917 g.,” Rabochii klass Rossii, ego soiuzniki I politicheskie protivniki v 1917 godu, (Leningrad: Nauka, 1989), 152-77.

3. This important conversation between the last (since November 20, 1916) tsarist minister of foreign affairs, Nikolai Nikolaevich Pokrovskii (1865-1930) and Vasilii Alekseevich Maklakov (1869-1957) – in Shul’gin’s words, “the smartest and most moderate of the [Duma] Kadets” – took place at about 10:30 on the morning of February 27. Maklakov telephoned the minister to inquire about the government’s failure to fulfill its promise made the previous day. According to Maklakov, he and several of his moderate and conservative Duma colleagues (N.V. Savich, I. I. Dmitriukov, P.N. Balashev) met with the liberal ministers Pokrovskii and A.A. Rittikh, at the ministers’ invitation, to find a mutually agreeable solution to the current political crisis and avert a full-scale revolution. The deputies proposed the Duma be suspended for a very short cooling-off period. This was to be announced concurrently with the collective resignation of the cabinet and the naming of a new premier “who can enjoy the confidence of the country.” Maklakov specifically mentioned the name of General Alekseev. Both sides appeared to agree to the terms. Thus, when he was woken up the next morning (February 27) to speak with N.V. Nekrasov, Maklakov was unsurprised to hear of the tsarist prorogation decree, but was surprised that the rest of the plan had not been followed – the cabinet had not resigned and the new premier had not been named. Bewildered, Maklakov went to the Duma nad telephoned Pokrovskii at his residence. The minister had just woken up and knew nothing about the soldiers’ revolt. He told Maklakov that at least one part of their agreement (the prorogation) had been fulfilled while the rest would be addressed on March 1, after the tsar’s anticipated return to Tsarskoe Selo. Outraged, Maklakov ended the conversation. See N.N. Pokrovskii, Vospominaniia (1922], no pagination, S.E. Kryzhanovskii Collection, box 3, Bakhmeteff Archive, Columbia University; Maklakov, “Review of [Bernard] Pares’ book [The Fall of the Russian Monarchy: A Study of the Evidence],” Coll. Maklakov, box 16-8, p. 14. HIA; Maklakov, “Kanun revoliutsii,” Novyi zhurnal 14 (1946): 303.

4. This conversation indeed took place around 12:00 noon on the 27th. War minister Beliaev telephoned the Duma and proposed to Rodzianko that in the interest of the nation the Duma and the government should act together to restore order. Rodzianko was indignant at the proposition and demonstratively refused any cooperation with the government after it had prorogued the Duma.

5. Gerasimov refers to several consecutive (but separate, if overlapping) meetings of the Council of Elders (approximately from 11:00 to 12:00), as part of the private meeting of the Duma deputies (from approximately 2:30 to 4:00), and with the Duma Presidium (from approximately 4:30 to 5:00 on the same afternoon).

6. The Arsenal stood across from the Circuit Court on Liteinyi Avenue, adjacent to the Main Artillery Administration building. The insurgents captured the Arsenal and seized close to 40,000 rifles, 30,000 revolvers, and countless ammunition.

7. The reference is to I. Lukash’s brochure Preobrazhentsy (Petrograd: Izdanie “osvobozhdennaia Rossiia,” no. 4, 1917), 10, published in Petrograd in April of 1917. Ivan Sozontovich Lukash (1892-1940) was a prolific Petrograd writer, poet, and journalist. He later emigrated and lived in Latvia, Estonia, and France. The officer in question was “a very young ensign” who joined the initial group of 700 insurgents from the Volynskii and Preobrazhenskii Regiments and led them to the barracks of the Moskovskii Regiment, located on the Vyborg Side. As the rebels approached and prepared to storm the barracks, the loyal troops inside opened machine-gun and rifle fire, killing the ensign on the spot and forcing the rest of the insurgents to retreat.

8. The reference is to the private meeting of the Duma deputies that had actually started one and a half to two hours earlier, close to 2:30 in the afternoon. The first part of the meeting ended just before 4:00. After a short break, the deputies reconvened for less than an hour to elect the Temporary Committee of the Duma.

9. Gerasimov’s admission of his authorship of the minutes (also known as protocol) of the private meeting is of paramount importance. Considered until now anonymous, they represent the single most important source, used by generations of historians, documenting the creation of the first Duma-based revolutionary authority. It appears that sometime in May or in the early summer of 1917, Gerasimov provided his transcript to Ia.V. Glinka who, at Rodzianko’s request, was compiling the official chronicle of the Duma Committee. V.M. Vershinin, who served as the Duma Committee’s secretary at the time, took a draft of Glinka’s document, including the minutes, with him when he emigrated and subsequently published a shorter version of the minutes, anonymously and without any attribution, in a Russian newspaper in Prague (“Iz zametok o pervykh dniakh revoliutsii,” Volia Rossii, March 15, 1921, 4). For additional information on the complicated history of this document, see S. Lyandres, “Protokol’naia zapis’ ‘chastnogo’ soveshchianiia chlenov Gosudarstvennoi dumy 27 fevralia 1917 g. kak istochnik po istorii paralmentarizma v Rossii,” in V.I. Startsev, ed., Istoriia parlamentarizma v Rossii (k go-letiu I Gosudarstvennoi dimy). Sbornik nauchnykh statei (St. Petersburg, 1996),II:28, 30, 106-7; Lyandres, “On the Problem of Indecisiveness’ among the Duma Leaders during the February Revolution: The Imperial Degree of Prorogation and Decision to Convene the Private Meeting of February 27, 1917,” The Soviet and Post-Soviet Review 24, 1-2 (1997): 123; A.B. Nikolaev, Revoliutsiia I vlast: IV Gosudarstvennaia duma, 27 fevralia – 3 marta 1917 goda (St. Petersburg:R GPU, 2005),” 73-84.

10. Vladimir Ivanovich Charnolusskii (1865-1941) was a well-known Popular Socialist and educator. He was among the first to bring a group of insurgent soldiers to the Tauride Palace on the morning of February 27 and on his arrival joined with the Kerenskii group (the future MC) to organize insurgent soldiers. He continued to work with the MC throughout the February Days. Under the Provisional Government, he was one of the founders and leaders of the State Committee for Education; he later worked in the People’s Commissariat of Enlightenment and various Soviet educational institutions.

11. Georgii Stepanovich Khrustalev-Nosar’ (real name: Petr Alekseevich Khrustalev) (1877-1918) was a lawyer by training and a veteran labor and political activist. In October 1905 he was elected chairman of the first St. Petersburg Soviet and subsequently joined the Social Democrats. He was arrested at the end of 1905, tried, and exiled to Siberia, but in 1907 was able to escape to Europe. An ardent patriot, he returned to Russia after the outbreak of the First World War but was again arrested and imprisoned. He was released by the insurgents only on February 27, 1917, together with K.A. Gvozdev and other members of the workers’ group of the WIC. Following his release from the Kresty prison and accompanied by a group of insurgent soldiers, Khrustalev came to the Duma between 3 and 4 in the afternoon on February 27 and proceeded to organize the Petrograd Soviet. His leading role in creating arguably the most important revolutionary institution was later deliberately minimized by his political rivals, mostly from the Petrograd Socialist establishment. His last appearance in the Soviet was recorded on March 3. Later that year he resurfaced in his native Pereiaslav (not far from Kiev) as a vocal critic of his former socialist colleagues, especially the Bolsheviks. He supported Hetman P.P. Skoropadskii and for a short while organized his own tiny autonomous “Khrustalev republic” in 1918. Following the Bolshevik takeover, he was arrested and shot as a counterrevolutionary and profiteer.

12. Aleksandr Fedorovich Orel (1879-1917) was a first lieutenant in the Chechen Cavalry Regiment. He was discharged from the military for health reasons in March 1908 but was recalled to service in January 1916 and assigned as staff officer to his old regiment. On the morning of February 28, 1917, he came to the Duma to offer his services as “officer-citizen.” He received a detachment of revolutionary troops (sailors and military cadets) with an assignment to capture Hotel Astoria, which was used by the military authorities to quarter officers on leave, their families, and the Allied military personnel. He was killed near the hotel around 2:00 that afternoon either by the officers who defended the hotel against the looters or by the drunken mob that broke into its famous wine cellars. Shortly after the incident, the insurgents captured the Astoria and at 2:45, Engel’gardt appointed Colonel V.A. Iurkevich as the hotel’s new commandant.

13. Reportedly, the same general fired on the insurgents’ representatives from one of the windows as they approached the Astoria and demanded that the Russian officers living in the hotel surrender. According to some reports, the general’s body was thrown into the Moika River. Stinton Jones, Russia in Revolution, Being the Experiences of an Englishman in Petrograd during the Upheaval (London, 1917), 164.

14. Kossovich (sometimes referred to as Kosovich) was apparently a lieutenant colonel in the so-called Special Brigade. He came to the MC on February 28 and before noon was assigned to Gerasimov and his Kadet colleague Stepanov to meet the troops arriving in Petrograd from the direction of Oranienbaum. On March 1, he was appointed commander of the troops in the districts surrounding the Baltic and Warsaw Railway Stations.

15. Sergei Grigor’evich Svatikov (1880-1942) was a well-known Socialist activist (at one time a Social Democrat) and an expert on the history of the Russian revolutionary movement. During February 27-8, 1917, he was the commissar of the Duma Committee and the Petrograd Soviet for the Technological Institute and the surrounding area, where many military schools and regimental barracks, including Izmailovskii, were located. On March 1, he was appointed deputy to the first public city police and administration chief (Iurevich).

16. Gerasimov refers to the night of March 1-2, when the basic agreement on the formation of the Provisional Government was reached between representatives of the Duma Committee (principally Miliukov) and the Soviet Executive Committee (represented by Sokolov, Steklov, Sukhanov, and Chkheidze). Then on the morning of March 2, the negotiations broke off but were soon reconvened to finalize the text of the Provisional Government’s declaration by early afternoon. It was published the next day. Kerenskii secured the Soviet’s permission to join the cabinet retroactively, after he had already committed himself to the justice portfolio. For the circumstances of Krenskii’s dramatic appeal to his Socialist colleagues on the afternoon of March 2, see the interview with M.I. Skobelev in this volume.

17. Rodzianko write his so-called second telegram to the tsar between 11:00 and 12:00 noon on February 27 (the first telegram had been sent the previous evening but had received no reply) and sent it to General Headquarters at 12:40 p.m. Guchkov helped Rodzianko to compose the telegram, in which the Duma President reported about the soldiers’ revolt, deplored the prorogation decree, and asked that the Duma be reconvened and a new cabinet named that could be trusted by the population as a whole (Krasnyi arkhiv 21, 2 (1927):6-7; Febral’skaia revoliutsiia, 1917. Sbronik dokumentov I materialov (Moscow: R GGU, 1996), 110-11).

18. That is, the spouse of Nicholas II and the last Empress of Russia.

19. The reference is probably to the so-called Higher Investigative Commission (HIC), organized in the early evening of February 27 in room 34 of the Tauride Palace by a group of intelligentsia volunteers led by A.F. Krenskii, in order to receive and register the detained high-ranking officials of the old regime who were being brought into the Duma by the insurgents. Later that day, the Duma Committee appointed the Kadet deputy Mikhail Ivanovich Papadzhanov (1869-1930) as the HIC’s first chairman (February 27-March 3). The detainees were kept in rooms 35, 35a, and 36. However, the most notorious and highest-ranking officials were transferred to the so-called Ministerial Pavilion, the spacious chambers meant to accommodate ministers and other state officials during their appearances before the Duma. The Pavilion was not used by the Duma deputies or staff, and was considered outside of the Duma’s jurisdiction. The HIC was dissolved on March 30, its records were incorporated, and the remaining detainees were transferred to the Provisional Government’s Extraordinary Investigative Commission under the Social Democratic lawyer N.K. Murav’ev. During its short existence, the HIC processed some 600 detainees.

20. Vasilii Mikhailovich Vershinin (1874-1946) was a leading Labor Group deputy to the last Duma from Tomsk province. During the first days of the February Days he was effectively in charge of keeping the Duma Committee records and distributing assignments. On March 7, he was appointed commissar of the Duma Committee to accompany the former tsar on his way from General Headquarters to Tsarskoe Selo. Vernshinin emigrated after October 1917, and lived in Berlin and Prague.

21. This may have been Sergei Karlovich Vrzhosek (1867-1957), a graduate of the Military-Juridical Academy in Petersburg and a prominent defense lawyer. He was also a well-known Petersburg Social Democrat and later a member of the Labor Group. During the First World War he was mobilized with an officer’s rank. On February 27, 1917 he came to the Tauride Palace and joined the MC. He subsequently helped organize and then chaired the executive committee of the Petrograd Soviet of Officers’ Deputies.

22. Porkhovye District, located approximately 3 km (2 miles) outside the city limits northeast of Bol’shaia Okhta District, was the home of two large Okhta gunpowder plants (Okhtenskie prokhovye zavody). Both factories were taken over by their workers on February 28, 1917, who also organized and controlled the local soviet.

23. Sergie Afana’evich Taskin (1876-1952) was Kadet Duma deputy from the Baikal region. During the February Revolution he performed various tasks assigned to him by the Duma Committee and its MC. Iurii Mikhailovich Lebedev (1874-?) was a Kadet deputy to the last Duma from the Don Region. On March 2, 1917, he was commandeered by the Duma Committee to Luga to ensure the resumption of regular railroad operation; on April 21 he was sent as the Duma Committee commissar to the 6th Army on the Romanian front. Igor’ Platonovich Demidov (1873-1946) was another Kadet deputy to the fourth Duma from Tambov province. In the fall of 1914, he organized one of the first frontline sanitary detachments that operated on the southwestern front; during the February Days he performed many different tasks assigned to him by the Duma Committee, including visits to Tsarskoe Selo and to units of the Petrograd garrison and the Kronstadt naval base, primarily to restore the authority of the officer corps. On March 15, 1917, he was appointed commissar of the Duma Committee and of the Provisional Government to the southwestern front, which he toured until April 21.

24. This report was published in the first issue of the official publication of the Duma Committee, Izvestiia Vremennogo Komiteta Gosudarstvennoi dumy (IVKGD), on April 17, 1917 (p. 3). Only 13 issues of IVKGD were published, all between April 27 and August 28, 1917.

25. Nikolai Konstantinovich Volkov (1875-1950) was a Kadet deputy to the fourth Duma from Baikal Region. On February 28, 1917 he was sent by the Duma Committee as a commissar to the ministry of agriculture and then, together with M.I. Skobelev, to the Peter and Paul Fortress. He served as assistant minister of agriculture under A.I. Shingarev in the first Provisional Government. He later emigrated and lived in Paris. Vladimir Aleksandrovich Vinogradov (1874-after 1923) was a Kadet deputy to the fourth Duma from Astrakhan’ province. On February 28, 1917, he was sent as commissar by the Duma Committee to the ministry of finance, and after March 3 served as assistant minister of transport (under Nekrasov). Valerian Valeriianovich Lashkevich (1876-after 1920) was yet another Kadet deputy to the fourth Duma from Khar’kov province; during the February Days he participated in the work of the MC. At the end of March he was sent by the Duma Committee and the Provisional Government as commissar to the Donetsk Coal Mining Basin.

26. Iakov Vasil’evich Glinka (1870-1950) was a longtime aide and confidant of the Duma President Rodzianko and a senior staffer in the Duma Chancellery throughout its existence (1906-17). On March 2, 1917 Rodzianko appointed him manager of affairs of the Duma Committee Chancellery. On Rodzianko’s recommendation, he was also appointed senator by the Provisional Government on April 29, 1917. In March 1917, Rodzianko asked Glinka to compile a detailed chronicle known as the “Protocol of Events,” documenting the activities of the Duma Committee from its inception on February 27 through March 4, 1917 (an incomplete version of the Protocol was published in Fevral’skaia revoliutsiia 1917 goda: sbornik dokumentov I materialov (Moscow: R GGU, 1996), 109-45). His work on the Protocol, which is considered one of the most valuable sources on the Duma Committee, was well known to his Duma colleagues at the time. Glinka also kept an informative diary about his service in the Duma and later wrote memoirs on his participation in the February Revolution. Both documents were unknown until Petersburg historian B.M. Witenberg discovered and published them, just recently (Ia.V. Glinka, Odinnadstat’let v Gosudarstvennoi dume, 1906-1917: dnevnik I vospominaniia [Moscow: NLO, 2001]).

27. Ivan Ivanovich Batov (1875-) was a senior staffer (since 1911) in the Duma Chancellery; on March 3, 1917 he became senior staffer of the Duma Committee chancellery; on June 14 he was appointed assistant manager of affairs (de factor manager of affairs) of the Duma Committee. Lavrentii Ivanovich Pushchin (1875-1929) was a Progressive Nationalist deputy to the fourth Duma from Orlov province and a member of the Progressive Bloc’s Bureau (since November 1915). During the February Days he was deputy commandant and (since March 4) commandant of the Tauride Palace and the surrounding district; during March 7-18 he was temporary commissar of Petrograd and of the Tauride Palace.

28. Prince Serafim Petrovich Mansyrev (1866-1928) was a Kadet and then a Progressist (since August 1915) deputy to the fourth Duma from Riga. He came to the Duma on the first day of the February Days, participated in the private meeting of the deputies, and helped establish Duma-based revolutionary authority. On March 1 he was appointed commissar of the Duma Committee to the units of the Petrograd garrison; on March 19 he was sent by the Duma Committee to the Western front, and on 6 April to the Romanian front. After the Bolshevik takeover, he lived in Latvia and Estonia.

29. Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Bublikov (1875-1941) was a prominent railway engineer and a Progressist deputy to the fourth Duma from Perm Province. From 1914 to 1917, he was the Duma Committee’s commissar to the ministry of transportation.

30. Nikolai Alekseevich Maklakov (1871-1918) was a notoriously conservative minister of internal affairs from February 1913 to July 1915, and a younger brother of the prominent Kadet Duma deputy Vasilii Maklakov.

31. Count Vladimir Alekseevich Bobrinskii (1867-1927) was a leading Progressive Nationalist deputy to the last Duma from Tula province and a member of the Bureau of the Progressive Bloc. He also served as assistant Duma President (beginning on November 5, 1916) but resigned this position shortly before the February Days for medical reasons and left Petrograd. He returned only after March 20, 1917, but because the Duma had been prorogued and his replacement was not chosen, Gerasimov continued to refer to room no. 4 (next to the Duma President’s) as Bobrinskii’s office.

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

Russian Revolution
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 9/3/18

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

Bolshevik forces marching on the Red Square
Date February Revolution:
8 – 16 March 1917
(O.S. 23 February – 3 March)
October Revolution:
7 – 8 November 1917
(O.S. 25 – 26 October)
Location Russian Empire
Participants Russian society, bolsheviks, mensheviks, SRs, etc.
Outcome
Abdication of Nicholas II
Collapse of the Imperial Government
Collapse of the Provisional Government
Creation of the Russian SFSR
Beginning of the Russian Civil War

The Russian Revolution was a pair of revolutions in Russia in 1917 which dismantled the Tsarist autocracy and led to the rise of the Soviet Union. The Russian Empire collapsed with the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II and the old regime was replaced by a provisional government during the first revolution of February 1917 (March in the Gregorian calendar; the older Julian calendar was in use in Russia at the time). Alongside it arose grassroots community assemblies (called 'soviets') which contended for authority. In the second revolution that October, the Provisional Government was toppled and all power was given to the soviets.

The February Revolution (March 1917) was a revolution focused around Petrograd (now Saint Petersburg), the capital of Russia at that time. In the chaos, members of the Imperial parliament (the Duma) assumed control of the country, forming the Russian Provisional Government which was heavily dominated by the interests of large capitalists and the noble aristocracy. The army leadership felt they did not have the means to suppress the revolution, resulting in Nicholas's abdication. The soviets, which were dominated by soldiers and the urban industrial working class, initially permitted the Provisional Government to rule, but insisted on a prerogative to influence the government and control various militias. The February Revolution took place in the context of heavy military setbacks during the First World War (1914–18), which left much of the Russian Army in a state of mutiny.

A period of dual power ensued, during which the Provisional Government held state power while the national network of soviets, led by socialists, had the allegiance of the lower classes and, increasingly, the left-leaning urban middle class. During this chaotic period there were frequent mutinies, protests and many strikes. Many socialist political organizations were engaged in daily struggle and vied for influence within the Duma and the soviets, central among which were the Bolsheviks ("Ones of the Majority") led by Vladimir Lenin who campaigned for an immediate end to the war, land to the peasants, and bread to the workers. When the Provisional Government chose to continue fighting the war with Germany, the Bolsheviks and other socialist factions were able to exploit virtually universal disdain towards the war effort as justification to advance the revolution further. The Bolsheviks turned workers' militias under their control into the Red Guards (later the Red Army) over which they exerted substantial control.[1]

In the October Revolution (November in the Gregorian calendar), the Bolsheviks led an armed insurrection by workers and soldiers in Petrograd that successfully overthrew the Provisional Government, transferring all its authority to the soviets with the capital being relocated to Moscow shortly thereafter. The Bolsheviks had secured a strong base of support within the soviets and, as the now supreme governing party, established a federal government dedicated to reorganizing the former empire into the world's first socialist republic, practicing soviet democracy on a national and international scale. The promise to end Russia's participation in the First World War was honored promptly with the Bolshevik leaders signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany in March 1918. To further secure the new state, the Cheka was established which functioned as a revolutionary security service that sought to weed out and punish those considered to be "enemies of the people" in campaigns consciously modeled on similar events during the French Revolution.

Soon after, civil war erupted among the "Reds" (Bolsheviks), the "Whites" (counter-revolutionaries), the independence movements and the non-Bolshevik socialists. It continued for several years, during which the Bolsheviks defeated both the Whites and all rival socialists and thereafter reconstituted themselves as the Communist Party. In this way, the Revolution paved the way for the creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1922. While many notable historical events occurred in Moscow and Petrograd, there was also a visible movement in cities throughout the state, among national minorities throughout the empire and in the rural areas, where peasants took over and redistributed land.

Background


Soldiers blocking Narva Gate on Bloody Sunday

The Russian Revolution of 1905 was said to be a major factor contributing to the cause of the Revolutions of 1917. The events of Bloody Sunday triggered nationwide protests and soldier mutinies. A council of workers called the St. Petersburg Soviet was created in this chaos.[2] While the 1905 Revolution was ultimately crushed, and the leaders of the St. Petersburg Soviet were arrested, this laid the groundwork for the later Petrograd Soviet and other revolutionary movements during the leadup to 1917. The 1905 Revolution also led to the creation of a Duma (parliament), that would later form the Provisional Government following February 1917.[3]

The outbreak of World War I prompted general outcry directed at Tsar Nicholas II and the Romanov family. While the nation was initially caught up in a wave of nationalism, increasing numbers of defeats and poor conditions soon made the opposite true. The Tsar attempted to remedy the situation by taking personal control of the army in 1915. This proved disastrous, as the Tsar was now held personally responsible for Russia's continuing defeats and losses. In addition, the Tsarina Alexandra, left to rule in while the Tsar was commanding at the front, was German born, leading to suspicion of collusion, only exacerbated by rumors relating to her relationship with the controversial mystic Rasputin. Rasputin's influence led to disastrous ministerial appointments and corruption, resulting in a worsening of conditions within Russia. This led to general dissatisfaction with the Romanov family, and was a major factor contributing to the retaliation of the Russian Communists against the royal family.[3]

After the entry of the Ottoman Empire on the side of the Central Powers in October 1914, Russia was deprived of a major trade route through the Dardanelles, which further contributed to the economic crisis, in which Russia became incapable of providing munitions to their army in the years leading to 1917. However, the problems were primarily administrative, and not industrial, as Germany was producing great amounts of munitions whilst constantly fighting on two major battlefronts.[4]

The conditions during the war resulted in devastating loss of morale within the Russian army, as well as the general population. This was particularly apparent in the cities, owing to a lack of food in response to the disruption of agriculture. Food scarcity had become a considerable problem in Russia, but the cause of this did not lie in any failure of the harvests, which had not been significantly altered during wartime. The indirect reason was that the government, in order to finance the war, had been printing millions of ruble notes, and by 1917 inflation had made prices increase up to four times what they had been in 1914. Farmers were consequently faced with a higher cost of living, but little increase in income. As a result, they tended to hoard their grain and to revert to subsistence farming. Thus the cities were constantly short of food. At the same time, rising prices led to demands for higher wages in the factories, and in January and February 1916 revolutionary propaganda, in part aided by German funds, led to widespread strikes. This resulted in a growing criticism of the government, including an increased participation of workers in revolutionary parties.

Liberal parties too had an increased platform to voice their complaints, as the initial fervor of the war had resulted in the Tsarist government creating a variety of political organizations. In July 1915, a Central War Industries Committee was established under the chairmanship of a prominent Octobrist, Alexander Guchkov (1862-1936), including ten workers' representatives. The Petrograd Mensheviks agreed to join despite the objections of their leaders abroad. All this activity gave renewed encouragement to political ambitions, and, in September 1915, a combination of Octobrists and Kadets in the Duma demanded the forming of a responsible government. The Tsar rejected these proposals.[5]

All these factors had given rise to a sharp loss of confidence in the regime, even within the ruling class, growing throughout the war. Early in 1916, Guchkov discussed with senior army officers and members of the Central War Industries Committee about a possible coup to force the abdication of the Tsar. In December, a small group of nobles assassinated Rasputin, and in January 1917 the Tsar's uncle, Grand Duke Nicholas, was asked indirectly by Prince Lvov whether he would be prepared to take over the throne from his nephew, Tsar Nicholas II. None of these incidents were in themselves the immediate cause of the February Revolution, but they do help to explain why the monarchy survived only a few days after it had broken out.[5]

Meanwhile, Socialist Revolutionary leaders in exile, many of them living in Switzerland, had been the glum spectators of the collapse of international socialist solidarity. French and German Social Democrats had voted in favour of their respective governments' war efforts. Georgi Plekhanov in Paris had adopted a violently anti-German stand, while Parvus supported the German war effort as the best means of ensuring a revolution in Russia. The Mensheviks largely maintained that Russia had the right to defend herself against Germany, although Martov (a prominent Menshevik), now on the left of his group, demanded an end to the war and a settlement on the basis of national self-determination, with no annexations or indemnities.[5]

It was these views of Martov that predominated in a manifesto drawn up by Leon Trotsky (at the time a Menshevik) at a conference in Zimmerwald, attended by 35 Socialist leaders in September 1915. Inevitably Vladimir Lenin, supported by Zinoviev and Radek, strongly contested them. Their attitudes became known as the Zimmerwald Left. Lenin rejected both the defence of Russia and the cry for peace. Since the autumn of 1914, he had insisted that "from the standpoint of the working class and of the labouring masses from the lesser evil would be the defeat of the Tsarist Monarchy"; the war must be turned into a civil war of the proletarian soldiers against their own governments, and if a proletarian victory should emerge from this in Russia, then their duty would be to wage a revolutionary war for the liberation of the masses throughout Europe.[6]

Economic and social changes


Russian soldiers marching in Petrograd in February 1917

An elementary theory of property, believed by many peasants, was that land should belong to those who work on it. At the same time, peasant life and culture was changing constantly. Change was facilitated by the physical movement of growing numbers of peasant villagers who migrated to and from industrial and urban environments, but also by the introduction of city culture into the village through material goods, the press, and word of mouth.[nb 1]

Workers also had good reasons for discontent: overcrowded housing with often deplorable sanitary conditions, long hours at work (on the eve of the war a 10-hour workday six days a week was the average and many were working 11–12 hours a day by 1916), constant risk of injury and death from poor safety and sanitary conditions, harsh discipline (not only rules and fines, but foremen's fists), and inadequate wages (made worse after 1914 by steep wartime increases in the cost of living). At the same time, urban industrial life was full of benefits, though these could be just as dangerous, from the point of view of social and political stability, as the hardships. There were many encouragements to expect more from life. Acquiring new skills gave many workers a sense of self-respect and confidence, heightening expectations and desires. Living in cities, workers encountered material goods such as they had never seen in villages. Most important, living in cities, they were exposed to new ideas about the social and political order.[nb 2]

The social causes of the Russian Revolution mainly came from centuries of oppression of the lower classes by the Tsarist regime, and Nicholas's failures in World War I. While rural agrarian peasants had been emancipated from serfdom in 1861, they still resented paying redemption payments to the state, and demanded communal tender of the land they worked. The problem was further compounded by the failure of Sergei Witte's land reforms of the early 20th century. Increasing peasant disturbances and sometimes actual revolts occurred, with the goal of securing ownership of the land they worked. Russia consisted mainly of poor farming peasants, with 1.5% of the population owning 25% of the land.

The rapid industrialization of Russia also resulted in urban overcrowding and poor conditions for urban industrial workers (as mentioned above). Between 1890 and 1910, the population of the capital, Saint Petersburg, swelled from 1,033,600 to 1,905,600, with Moscow experiencing similar growth. This created a new 'proletariat' which, due to being crowded together in the cities, was much more likely to protest and go on strike than the peasantry had been in previous times. In one 1904 survey, it was found that an average of sixteen people shared each apartment in Saint Petersburg, with six people per room. There was also no running water, and piles of human waste were a threat to the health of the workers. The poor conditions only aggravated the situation, with the number of strikes and incidents of public disorder rapidly increasing in the years shortly before World War I. Because of late industrialization, Russia's workers were highly concentrated. By 1914, 40% of Russian workers were employed in factories of 1,000+ workers (32% in 1901). 42% worked in 100–1,000 worker enterprises, 18% in 1–100 worker businesses (in the US, 1914, the figures were 18, 47 and 35 respectively).[7]

Years / Average annual strikes[8]

1862–69 / 6
1870–84 / 20
1885–94 / 33
1895–1905 / 176

World War I added to the chaos. Conscription swept up the unwilling across Russia. The vast demand for factory production of war supplies and workers caused many more labor riots and strikes. Conscription stripped skilled workers from the cities, who had to be replaced with unskilled peasants, and then, when famine began to hit due to the poor railway system, workers abandoned the cities in droves seeking food. Finally, the soldiers themselves, who suffered from a lack of equipment and protection from the elements, began to turn against the Tsar. This was mainly because, as the war progressed, many of the officers who were loyal to the Tsar were killed, and were replaced by discontented conscripts from the major cities, who had little loyalty to the Tsar.

Political issues


The Petrograd Soviet Assembly meeting in 1917

Many sections of the country had reason to be dissatisfied with the existing autocracy. Nicholas II was a deeply conservative ruler and maintained a strict authoritarian system. Individuals and society in general were expected to show self-restraint, devotion to community, deference to the social hierarchy and a sense of duty to the country. Religious faith helped bind all of these tenets together as a source of comfort and reassurance in the face of difficult conditions and as a means of political authority exercised through the clergy. Perhaps more than any other modern monarch, Nicholas II attached his fate and the future of his dynasty to the notion of the ruler as a saintly and infallible father to his people.[nb 3]

This idealized vision of the Romanov monarchy blinded him to the actual state of his country. With a firm belief that his power to rule was granted by Divine Right, Nicholas assumed that the Russian people were devoted to him with unquestioning loyalty. This ironclad belief rendered Nicholas unwilling to allow the progressive reforms that might have alleviated the suffering of the Russian people. Even after the 1905 revolution spurred the Tsar to decree limited civil rights and democratic representation, he worked to limit even these liberties in order to preserve the ultimate authority of the crown.[nb 3]

Despite constant oppression, the desire of the people for democratic participation in government decisions was strong. Since the Age of Enlightenment, Russian intellectuals had promoted Enlightenment ideals such as the dignity of the individual and the rectitude of democratic representation. These ideals were championed most vociferously by Russia's liberals, although populists, Marxists, and anarchists also claimed to support democratic reforms. A growing opposition movement had begun to challenge the Romanov monarchy openly well before the turmoil of World War I.

Dissatisfaction with Russian autocracy culminated in the huge national upheaval that followed the Bloody Sunday massacre of January 1905, in which hundreds of unarmed protesters were shot by the Tsar's troops. Workers responded to the massacre with a crippling general strike, forcing Nicholas to put forth the October Manifesto, which established a democratically elected parliament (the State Duma). The Tsar undermined this promise of reform but a year later with Article 87 of the 1906 Fundamental State Laws, and subsequently dismissed the first two Dumas when they proved uncooperative. Unfulfilled hopes of democracy fueled revolutionary ideas and violent outbursts targeted at the monarchy.

One of the Tsar's principal rationales for risking war in 1914 was his desire to restore the prestige that Russia had lost amid the debacles of the Russo-Japanese war. Nicholas also sought to foster a greater sense of national unity with a war against a common and ancient enemy.
The Russian Empire was an agglomeration of diverse ethnicities that had shown significant signs of disunity in the years before the First World War. Nicholas believed in part that the shared peril and tribulation of a foreign war would mitigate the social unrest over the persistent issues of poverty, inequality, and inhuman working conditions. Instead of restoring Russia's political and military standing, World War I led to the horrifying slaughter of Russian troops and military defeats that undermined both the monarchy and society in general to the point of collapse.

World War I

The outbreak of war in August 1914 initially served to quiet the prevalent social and political protests, focusing hostilities against a common external enemy, but this patriotic unity did not last long. As the war dragged on inconclusively, war-weariness gradually took its toll. More important, though, was a deeper fragility: although many ordinary Russians joined anti-German demonstrations in the first few weeks of the war, the most widespread reaction appears to have been skepticism and fatalism. Hostility toward the Kaiser and the desire to defend their land and their lives did not necessarily translate into enthusiasm for the Tsar or the government.[9][10][11]

Russia's first major battle of the war was a disaster: in the 1914 Battle of Tannenberg, over 30,000 Russian troops were killed or wounded and 90,000 captured, while Germany suffered just 12,000 casualties.

The Battle of Tannenberg was fought between Russia and Germany between the 26th and 30th of August 1914, the first month of World War I. The battle resulted in the almost complete destruction of the Russian Second Army and the suicide of its commanding general, Alexander Samsonov. A series of follow-up battles (First Masurian Lakes) destroyed most of the First Army as well and kept the Russians off balance until the spring of 1915. The battle is particularly notable for fast rail movements by the Germans, enabling them to concentrate against each of the two Russian armies in turn, and also for the failure of the Russians to encode their radio messages. It brought considerable prestige to Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg and his rising staff-officer Erich Ludendorff.

Although the battle actually took place near Allenstein (Olsztyn) [Poland], Hindenburg named it after Tannenberg, 30 km to the west, in order to, in German eyes, avenge the defeat of the Teutonic Knights 500 years earlier at the Battle of Grunwald (which was always known as the Battle of Tannenberg in German).

-- Battle of Tannenberg, by Wikipedia

The Battle of Grunwald, First Battle of Tannenberg or Battle of Žalgiris, was fought on 15 July 1410 during the Polish–Lithuanian–Teutonic War. The alliance of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, led respectively by King Władysław II Jagiełło (Jogaila) and Grand Duke Vytautas, decisively defeated the German–Prussian Teutonic Knights, led by Grand Master Ulrich von Jungingen. Most of the Teutonic Knights' leadership were killed or taken prisoner. Although defeated, the Teutonic Knights withstood the siege of their fortress in Marienburg (Malbork) and suffered minimal territorial losses at the Peace of Thorn (1411) (Toruń), with other territorial disputes continuing until the Peace of Melno in 1422. The knights, however, would never recover their former power, and the financial burden of war reparations caused internal conflicts and an economic downturn in the lands under their control. The battle shifted the balance of power in Central and Eastern Europe and marked the rise of the Polish–Lithuanian union as the dominant political and military force in the region.[8]

The battle was one of the largest in medieval Europe and is regarded as one of the most important victories in the histories of Poland and Lithuania and is also widely celebrated in Belarus.[9]

-- Battle of Grunwald, by Wikipedia

However, Austro-Hungarian forces allied to Germany were driven back deep into the Galicia region by the end of the year. In the autumn of 1915, Nicholas had taken direct command of the army, personally overseeing Russia's main theatre of war and leaving his ambitious but incapable wife Alexandra in charge of the government. Reports of corruption and incompetence in the Imperial government began to emerge, and the growing influence of Grigori Rasputin in the Imperial family was widely resented. In the eyes of Michael Lynch, a revisionist historian (member of the School of Historical Studies at the University of Leicester) who focuses on the role of the people, Rasputin was a "fatal disease" to the Tsarist regime.

In 1915, things took a critical turn for the worse when Germany shifted its focus of attack to the Eastern front. The superior German army – better led, better trained and better supplied – was terrifyingly effective against the ill-equipped Russian forces, driving the Russians out of Galicia, as well as Russian Poland, during the Gorlice–Tarnów Offensive campaign. By the end of October 1916, Russia had lost between 1,600,000 and 1,800,000 soldiers, with an additional 2,000,000 prisoners of war and 1,000,000 missing, all making up a total of nearly 5,000,000 men.

These staggering losses played a definite role in the mutinies and revolts that began to occur. In 1916, reports of fraternizing with the enemy started to circulate. Soldiers went hungry, and lacked shoes, munitions, and even weapons. Rampant discontent lowered morale, which was further undermined by a series of military defeats.


Russian troops awaiting German attack in trenches

Casualty rates were the most vivid sign of this disaster. Already, by the end of 1914, only five months into the war, around 390,000 Russian men had lost their lives and nearly 1,000,000 were injured. Far sooner than expected, barely trained recruits had to be called up for active duty, a process repeated throughout the war as staggering losses continued to mount. The officer class also saw remarkable changes, especially within the lower echelons, which were quickly filled with soldiers rising up through the ranks. These men, usually of peasant or working-class backgrounds, were to play a large role in the politicization of the troops in 1917.

The huge losses on the battlefields were not limited to men. The army quickly ran short of rifles and ammunition (as well as uniforms and food), and, by mid-1915, men were being sent to the front bearing no arms. It was hoped that they could equip themselves with the arms that they recovered from fallen soldiers, of both sides, on the battlefields. The soldiers did not feel that they were being treated as valuable soldiers, or even as human beings, but rather as raw materials to be squandered for the purposes of the rich and powerful.

By the spring of 1915, the army was in steady retreat, which was not always orderly; desertion, plunder and chaotic flight were not uncommon. By 1916, however, the situation had improved in many respects. Russian troops stopped retreating, and there were even some modest successes in the offensives that were staged that year, albeit at great loss of life. Also, the problem of shortages was largely solved by a major effort to increase domestic production. Nevertheless, by the end of 1916, morale among soldiers was even worse than it had been during the great retreat of 1915. The fortunes of war may have improved, but the fact of the war, still draining away strength and lives from the country and its many individuals and families, remained an oppressive inevitability. The crisis in morale (as was argued by Allan Wildman, a leading historian of the Russian army in war and revolution) "was rooted fundamentally in the feeling of utter despair that the slaughter would ever end and that anything resembling victory could be achieved."[12]

The war devastated not only soldiers. By the end of 1915, there were manifold signs that the economy was breaking down under the heightened strain of wartime demand. The main problems were food shortages and rising prices. Inflation dragged incomes down at an alarmingly rapid rate, and shortages made it difficult to buy even what one could afford. These shortages were a problem especially in the capital, St. Petersburg, where distance from supplies and poor transportation networks made matters particularly bad. Shops closed early or entirely for lack of bread, sugar, meat and other provisions, and lines lengthened massively for what remained. It became increasingly difficult both to afford and actually buy food.

Not surprisingly, strikes increased steadily from the middle of 1915, and so did crime; but, for the most part, people suffered and endured, scouring the city for food. Working class women in St. Petersburg reportedly spent about forty hours a week in food lines, begging, turning to prostitution or crime, tearing down wooden fences to keep stoves heated for warmth, grumbling about the rich, and wondering when and how this would all come to an end.

Government officials responsible for public order worried about how long people's patience would last. A report by the St. Petersburg branch of the security police, the Okhrana, in October 1916, warned bluntly of "the possibility in the near future of riots by the lower classes of the empire enraged by the burdens of daily existence."[13]

Nicholas was blamed for all of these crises, and what little support he had left began to crumble. As discontent grew, the State Duma issued a warning to Nicholas in November 1916. It stated that, inevitably, a terrible disaster would grip the country unless a constitutional form of government was put in place. Nicholas ignored these warnings and Russia's Tsarist regime collapsed a few months later during the February Revolution of 1917. One year later, the Tsar and his entire family were executed.

February Revolution


Revolutionaries protesting in February 1917


Meeting Germans in No Man's Land


Meeting before the Russian wire entanglements

At the beginning of February, Petrograd workers began several strikes and demonstrations. On 7 March [O.S. 22 February], workers at Putilov, Petrograd's largest industrial plant, announced a strike.[14]

The next day, a series of meetings and rallies were held for International Women's Day, which gradually turned into economic and political gatherings. Demonstrations were organised to demand bread, and these were supported by the industrial working force who considered them a reason for continuing the strikes. The women workers marched to nearby factories bringing out over 50,000 workers on strike.[15] By 10 March [O.S. 25 February], virtually every industrial enterprise in Petrograd had been shut down, together with many commercial and service enterprises. Students, white-collar workers and teachers joined the workers in the streets and at public meetings.

To quell the riots, the Tsar looked to the army. At least 180,000 troops were available in the capital, but most were either untrained or injured. Historian Ian Beckett suggests around 12,000 could be regarded as reliable, but even these proved reluctant to move in on the crowd, since it included so many women. It was for this reason that when, on 11 March [O.S. 26 February], the Tsar ordered the army to suppress the rioting by force, troops began to mutiny.[16] Although few actively joined the rioting, many officers were either shot or went into hiding; the ability of the garrison to hold back the protests was all but nullified, symbols of the Tsarist regime were rapidly torn down around the city, and governmental authority in the capital collapsed – not helped by the fact that Nicholas had prorogued the Duma that morning, leaving it with no legal authority to act. The response of the Duma, urged on by the liberal bloc, was to establish a Temporary Committee to restore law and order; meanwhile, the socialist parties establish the Petrograd Soviet to represent workers and soldiers. The remaining loyal units switched allegiance the next day.[17]

The Tsar directed the royal train back towards Petrograd, which was stopped 14 March [O.S. 1 March],[16] by a group of revolutionaries at Malaya Vishera. When the Tsar finally arrived in Pskov, the Army Chief Nikolai Ruzsky, and the Duma deputees Guchkov and Vasily Shulgin suggested in unison that he abdicate the throne. He did so on 15 March [O.S. 2 March], on behalf of himself, and then, having taken advice, on behalf of his son, the Tsarevich.[16] Nicholas nominated his brother, the Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich, to succeed him. But the Grand Duke realised that he would have little support as ruler, so he declined the crown on 16 March [O.S. 3 March],[16] stating that he would take it only if that was the consensus of democratic action.[18] Six days later, Nicholas, no longer Tsar and addressed with contempt by the sentries as "Nicholas Romanov", was reunited with his family at the Alexander Palace at Tsarskoye Selo.[19] He was placed under house arrest with his family by the Provisional Government.

The immediate effect of the February Revolution was a widespread atmosphere of elation and excitement in Petrograd.[20] On 16 March [O.S. 3 March], a provisional government was announced. The center-left was well represented, and the government was initially chaired by a liberal aristocrat, Prince Georgy Yevgenievich Lvov, a member of the Constitutional Democratic party (KD).[21] The socialists had formed their rival body, the Petrograd Soviet (or workers' council) four days earlier. The Petrograd Soviet and the Provisional Government competed for power over Russia.

Between February and throughout October: "Dual Power" (dvoevlastie)

The effective power of the Provisional Government was challenged by the authority of an institution that claimed to represent the will of workers and soldiers and could, in fact, mobilize and control these groups during the early months of the revolution – the Petrograd Soviet [Council] of Workers' Deputies. The model for the soviet were workers' councils that had been established in scores of Russian cities during the 1905 Revolution. In February 1917, striking workers elected deputies to represent them and socialist activists began organizing a citywide council to unite these deputies with representatives of the socialist parties. On 27 February, socialist Duma deputies, mainly Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, took the lead in organizing a citywide council. The Petrograd Soviet met in the Tauride Palace, the same building where the new government was taking shape.

The leaders of the Petrograd Soviet believed that they represented particular classes of the population, not the whole nation. They also believed Russia was not ready for socialism. So they saw their role as limited to pressuring hesitant "bourgeoisie" to rule and to introduce extensive democratic reforms in Russia (the replacement of the monarchy by a republic, guaranteed civil rights, a democratic police and army, abolition of religious and ethnic discrimination, preparation of elections to a constituent assembly, and so on).[22] They met in the same building as the emerging Provisional Government not to compete with the Duma Committee for state power but to best exert pressure on the new government, to act, in other words, as a popular democratic lobby.

The relationship between these two major powers was complex from the beginning and would shape the politics of 1917. The representatives of the Provisional Government agreed to "take into account the opinions of the Soviet of Workers' Deputies", though they were also determined to prevent "interference in the actions of the government", which would create "an unacceptable situation of dual power."[23] In fact, this was precisely what was being created, though this "dual power" (dvoevlastie) was the result less of the actions or attitudes of the leaders of these two institutions than of actions outside their control, especially the ongoing social movement taking place on the streets of Russia's cities, in factories and shops, in barracks and in the trenches, and in the villages.


The 2nd Moscow Women Death Battalion protecting the Winter Palace as the last guards of the stronghold.

A series of political crises – see the chronology below – in the relationship between population and government and between the Provisional Government and the soviets (which developed into a nationwide movement with a national leadership, The All-Russian Central Executive Committee of Soviets (VTsIK)) undermined the authority of the Provisional Government but also of the moderate socialist leaders of the Soviet. Although the Soviet leadership initially refused to participate in the "bourgeois" Provisional Government, Alexander Kerensky, a young and popular lawyer and a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party (SRP), agreed to join the new cabinet, and became an increasingly central figure in the government, eventually taking leadership of the Provisional Government. As minister of war and later Prime Minister, Kerensky promoted freedom of speech, released thousands of political prisoners, did his very best to continue the war effort and even organised another offensive (which, however, was no more successful than its predecessors). Nevertheless, Kerensky still faced several great challenges, highlighted by the soldiers, urban workers and peasants, who claimed that they had gained nothing by the revolution:

• Other political groups were trying to undermine him.
• Heavy military losses were being suffered on the front.
• The soldiers were dissatisfied and demoralised and had started to defect. (On arrival back in Russia, these soldiers were either imprisoned or sent straight back into the front.)
• There was enormous discontent with Russia's involvement in the war, and many were calling for an end to it.
• There were great shortages of food and supplies, which was difficult to remedy because of the wartime economic conditions.

The political group that proved most troublesome for Kerensky, and would eventually overthrow him, was the Bolshevik Party, led by Vladimir Lenin. Lenin had been living in exile in neutral Switzerland and, due to democratization of politics after the February Revolution, which legalized formerly banned political parties, he perceived the opportunity for his Marxist revolution. Although return to Russia had become a possibility, the war made it logistically difficult. Eventually, German officials arranged for Lenin to pass through their territory, hoping that his activities would weaken Russia or even – if the Bolsheviks came to power – led to Russia's withdrawal from the war. Lenin and his associates, however, had to agree to travel to Russia in a sealed train: Germany would not take the chance that he would foment revolution in Germany. After passing through the front, he arrived in Petrograd in April 1917.

On the way to Russia, Lenin prepared the April Theses, which outlined central Bolshevik policies. These included that the soviets take power (as seen in the slogan "all power to the soviets") and denouncing the liberals and social revolutionaries in the Provisional Government, forbidding co-operation with it. Many Bolsheviks, however, had supported the Provisional Government, including Lev Kamenev.[24]


Street demonstration on Nevsky Prospekt in Petrograd just after troops of the Provisional Government opened fire in the July Days


Soviets attacking the tsarist police in the early days of the March Revolution.

With Lenin's arrival, the popularity of the Bolsheviks increased steadily. Over the course of the spring, public dissatisfaction with the Provisional Government and the war, in particular among workers, soldiers and peasants, pushed these groups to radical parties. Despite growing support for the Bolsheviks, buoyed by maxims that called most famously for "all power to the Soviets," the party held very little real power in the moderate-dominated Petrograd Soviet. In fact, historians such as Sheila Fitzpatrick have asserted that Lenin's exhortations for the Soviet Council to take power were intended to arouse indignation both with the Provisional Government, whose policies were viewed as conservative, and the Soviet itself, which was viewed as subservient to the conservative government. By some historians' accounts, Lenin and his followers were unprepared for how their groundswell of support, especially among influential worker and soldier groups, would translate into real power in the summer of 1917.

On 18 June, the Provisional Government launched an attack against Germany that failed miserably. Soon after, the government ordered soldiers to go to the front, reneging on a promise. The soldiers refused to follow the new orders. The arrival of radical Kronstadt sailors – who had tried and executed many officers, including one admiral – further fueled the growing revolutionary atmosphere. The sailors and soldiers, along with Petrograd workers, took to the streets in violent protest, calling for "all power to the Soviets." The revolt, however, was disowned by Lenin[25] and the Bolshevik leaders and dissipated within a few days. In the aftermath, Lenin fled to Finland under threat of arrest while Trotsky, among other prominent Bolsheviks, was arrested. The July Days confirmed the popularity of the anti-war, radical Bolsheviks, but their unpreparedness at the moment of revolt was an embarrassing gaffe that lost them support among their main constituent groups: soldiers and workers.

The Bolshevik failure in the July Days proved temporary. The Bolsheviks had undergone a spectacular growth in membership. Whereas, in February 1917, the Bolsheviks were limited to only 24,000 members, by September 1917 there were 200,000 members of the Bolshevik faction.[26] Previously, the Bolsheviks had been in the minority in the two leading cities of Russia—St. Petersburg and Moscow behind the Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries, by September the Bolsheviks were in the majority in both cities.[27] Furthermore, the Bolshevik-controlled Moscow Regional Bureau of the Party also controlled the Party organizations of the thirteen (13) provinces around Moscow. These thirteen provinces held 37% of Russia's population and 20% of the membership of the Bolshevik faction.[27]

In August, poor or misleading communication led General Lavr Kornilov, the recently appointed Supreme Commander of Russian military forces, to believe that the Petrograd government had already been captured by radicals, or was in serious danger thereof. In response, he ordered troops to Petrograd to pacify the city. To secure his position, Kerensky had to ask for Bolshevik assistance. He also sought help from the Petrograd Soviet, which called upon armed Red Guards to "defend the revolution". The Kornilov Affair failed largely due to the efforts of the Bolsheviks, whose influence over railroad and telegraph workers proved vital in stopping the movement of troops. With his coup failing, Kornilov surrendered and was relieved of his position. The Bolsheviks' role in stopping the attempted coup further strengthened their position.

In early September, the Petrograd Soviet freed all jailed Bolsheviks and Trotsky became chairman of the Petrograd Soviet. Growing numbers of socialists and lower-class Russians viewed the government less and less as a force in support of their needs and interests. The Bolsheviks benefited as the only major organized opposition party that had refused to compromise with the Provisional Government, and they benefited from growing frustration and even disgust with other parties, such as the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, who stubbornly refused to break with the idea of national unity across all classes.

In Finland, Lenin had worked on his book State and Revolution[28] and continued to lead his party, writing newspaper articles and policy decrees. By October, he returned to Petrograd (St. Petersburg), aware that the increasingly radical city presented him no legal danger and a second opportunity for revolution. Recognising the strength of the Bolsheviks, Lenin began pressing for the immediate overthrow of the Kerensky government by the Bolsheviks. Lenin was of the opinion that taking power should occur in both St. Petersburg and Moscow simultaneously, parenthetically stating that it made no difference which city rose up first, but expressing his opinion that Moscow may well rise up first.[29] The Bolshevik Central Committee drafted a resolution, calling for the dissolution of the Provisional Government in favor of the Petrograd Soviet. The resolution was passed 10–2 (Lev Kamenev and Grigory Zinoviev prominently dissenting) and the October Revolution began.

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

October Revolution

The October Revolution was led by Vladimir Lenin and was based upon Lenin's writing on the ideas of Karl Marx, a political ideology often known as Marxism–Leninism. It marked the beginning of the spread of communism in the 20th century. It was far less sporadic than the revolution of February and came about as the result of deliberate planning and coordinated activity to that end.

Though Lenin was the leader of the Bolshevik Party, it has been argued that since Lenin was not present during the actual takeover of the Winter Palace, it was really Trotsky's organization and direction that led the revolution, merely spurred by the motivation Lenin instigated within his party.[30] Critics on the Right have long argued that the financial and logistical assistance of German intelligence via their key agent, Alexander Parvus was a key component as well, though historians are divided, since there is little evidence supporting that claim.

Chapter III: LENIN AND GERMAN ASSISTANCE FOR THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION

It was not until the Bolsheviks had received from us a steady flow of funds through various channels and under varying labels that they were in a position to be able to build up their main organ Pravda, to conduct energetic propaganda and appreciably to extend the originally narrow base of their party.

-- Von Kühlmann, minister of foreign affairs, to the kaiser, December 3, 1917

In April 1917 Lenin and a party of 32 Russian revolutionaries, mostly Bolsheviks, journeyed by train from Switzerland across Germany through Sweden to Petrograd, Russia. They were on their way to join Leon Trotsky to "complete the revolution." Their trans-Germany transit was approved, facilitated, and financed by the German General Staff. Lenin's transit to Russia was part of a plan approved by the German Supreme Command, apparently not immediately known to the kaiser, to aid in the disintegration of the Russian army and so eliminate Russia from World War I. The possibility that the Bolsheviks might be turned against Germany and Europe did not occur to the German General Staff. Major General Hoffman has written, "We neither knew nor foresaw the danger to humanity from the consequences of this journey of the Bolsheviks to Russia."1

At the highest level the German political officer who approved Lenin's journey to Russia was Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, a descendant of the Frankfurt banking family Bethmann, which achieved great prosperity in the nineteenth century. Bethmann-Hollweg was appointed chancellor in 1909 and in November 1913 became the subject of the first vote of censure ever passed by the German Reichstag on a chancellor. It was Bethmann-Hollweg who in 1914 told the world that the German guarantee to Belgium was a mere "scrap of paper." Yet on other war matters — such as the use of unrestricted submarine warfare — Bethmann-Hollweg was ambivalent; in January 1917 he told the kaiser, "I can give Your Majesty neither my assent to the unrestricted submarine warfare nor my refusal." By 1917 Bethmann-Hollweg had lost the Reichstag's support and resigned — but not before approving transit of Bolshevik revolutionaries to Russia. The transit instructions from Bethmann-Hollweg went through the state secretary Arthur Zimmermann — who was immediately under Bethmann-Hollweg and who handled day-to-day operational details with the German ministers in both Bern and Copenhagen — to the German minister to Bern in early April 1917. The kaiser himself was not aware of the revolutionary movement until after Lenin had passed into Russia.

While Lenin himself did not know the precise source of the assistance, he certainly knew that the German government was providing some funding. There were, however, intermediate links between the German foreign ministry and Lenin, as the following shows:



From Berlin Zimmermann and Bethmann-Hollweg communicated with the German minister in Copenhagen, Brockdorff-Rantzau. In turn, Brockdorff-Rantzau was in touch with Alexander Israel Helphand (more commonly known by his alias, Parvus), who was located in Copenhagen.2 Parvus was the connection to Jacob Furstenberg, a Pole descended from a wealthy family but better known by his alias, Ganetsky. And Jacob Furstenberg was the immediate link to Lenin.

Although Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg was the final authority for Lenin's transfer, and although Lenin was probably aware of the German origins of the assistance, Lenin cannot be termed a German agent. The German Foreign Ministry assessed Lenin's probable actions in Russia as being consistent with their own objectives in the dissolution of the existing power structure in Russia. Yet both parties also had hidden objectives: Germany wanted priority access to the postwar markets in Russia, and Lenin intended to establish a Marxist dictatorship.

The idea of using Russian revolutionaries in this way can be traced back to 1915. On August 14 of that year, Brockdorff-Rantzau wrote the German state undersecretary about a conversation with Helphand (Parvus), and made a strong recommendation to employ Helphand, "an extraordinarily important man whose unusual powers I feel we must employ for duration of the war .... "3 Included in the report was a warning: "It might perhaps be risky to want to use the powers ranged behind Helphand, but it would certainly be an admission of our own weakness if we were to refuse their services out of fear of not being able to direct them."4

Brockdorff-Rantzau's ideas of directing or controlling the revolutionaries parallel, as we shall see, those of the Wall Street financiers. It was J.P. Morgan and the American International Corporation that attempted to control both domestic and foreign revolutionaries in the United States for their own purposes.

A subsequent document5 outlined the terms demanded by Lenin, of which the most interesting was point number seven, which allowed "Russian troops to move into India"; this suggested that Lenin intended to continue the tsarist expansionist program. Zeman also records the role of Max Warburg in establishing a Russian publishing house and adverts to an agreement dated August 12, 1916, in which the German industrialist Stinnes agreed to contribute two million rubles for financing a publishing house in Russia.6

Consequently, on April 16, 1917, a trainload of thirty-two, including Lenin, his wife Nadezhda Krupskaya, Grigori Zinoviev, Sokolnikov, and Karl Radek, left the Central Station in Bern en route to Stockholm. When the party reached the Russian frontier only Fritz Plattan and Radek were denied entrance into Russia. The remainder of the party was allowed to enter. Several months later they were followed by almost 200 Mensheviks, including Martov and Axelrod.

It is worth noting that Trotsky, at that time in New York, also had funds traceable to German sources. Further, Von Kuhlmann alludes to Lenin's inability to broaden the base of his Bolshevik party until the Germans supplied funds. Trotsky was a Menshevik who turned Bolshevik only in 1917. This suggests that German funds were perhaps related to Trotsky's change of party label.

THE SISSON DOCUMENTS

In early 1918 Edgar Sisson, the Petrograd representative of the U.S. Committee on Public Information, bought a batch of Russian documents purporting to prove that Trotsky, Lenin, and the other Bolshevik revolutionaries were not only in the pay of, but also agents of, the German government.

These documents, later dubbed the "Sisson Documents," were shipped to the United States in great haste and secrecy. In Washington, D.C. they were submitted to the National Board for Historical Service for authentication. Two prominent historians, J. Franklin Jameson and Samuel N. Harper, testified to their genuineness. These historians divided the Sisson papers into three groups. Regarding Group I, they concluded:

We have subjected them with great care to all the applicable tests to which historical students are accustomed and ... upon the basis of these investigations, we have no hesitation in declaring that we see no reason to doubt the genuineness or authenticity of these fifty-three documents.7

The historians were less confident about material in Group II. This group was not rejected as outright forgeries, but it was suggested that they were copies of original documents. Although the historians made "no confident declaration" on Group III, they were not prepared to reject the documents as outright forgeries.

The Sisson Documents were published by the Committee on Public Information, whose chairman was George Creel, a former contributor to the pro-Bolshevik Masses. The American press in general accepted the documents as authentic. The notable exception was the New York Evening Post, at that time owned by Thomas W. Lamont, a partner in the Morgan firm. When only a few installments had been published, the Post challenged the authenticity of all the documents.8

We now know that the Sisson Documents were almost all forgeries: only one or two of the minor German circulars were genuine. Even casual examination of the German letterhead suggests that the forgers were unusually careless forgers perhaps working for the gullible American market. The German text was strewn with terms verging on the ridiculous: for example, Bureau instead of the German word Büro; Central for the German Zentral; etc.

That the documents are forgeries is the conclusion of an exhaustive study by George Kennan9 and of studies made in the 1920s by the British government. Some documents were based on authentic information and, as Kennan observes, those who forged them certainly had access to some unusually good information. For example, Documents 1, 54, 61, and 67 mention that the Nya Banken in Stockholm served as the conduit for Bolshevik funds from Germany. This conduit has been confirmed in more reliable sources. Documents 54, 63, and 64 mention Furstenberg as the banker-intermediary between the Germans and the Bolshevists; Furstenberg's name appears elsewhere in authentic documents. Sisson's Document 54 mentions Olof Aschberg, and Olof Aschberg by his own statements was the "Bolshevik Banker." Aschberg in 1917 was the director of Nya Banken. Other documents in the Sisson series list names and institutions, such as the German Naptha-Industrial Bank, the Disconto Gesellschaft, and Max Warburg, the Hamburg banker, but hard supportive evidence is more elusive. In general, the Sisson Documents, while themselves outright forgeries, are nonetheless based partly on generally authentic information.

One puzzling aspect in the light of the story in this book is that the documents came to Edgar Sisson from Alexander Gumberg (alias Berg, real name Michael Gruzenberg), the Bolshevik agent in Scandinavia and later a confidential assistant to Chase National Bank and Floyd Odium of Atlas Corporation. The Bolshevists, on the other hand, stridently repudiated the Sisson material. So did John Reed, the American representative on the executive of the Third International and whose paycheck came from Metropolitan magazine, which was owned by J.P. Morgan interests.10 So did Thomas Lamont, the Morgan partner who owned the New York Evening Post. There are several possible explanations. Probably the connections between the Morgan interests in New York and such agents as John Reed and Alexander Gumberg were highly flexible. This could have been a Gumberg maneuver to discredit Sisson and Creel by planting forged documents; or perhaps Gumberg was working in his own interest.

The Sisson Documents "prove" exclusive German involvement with the Bolsheviks. They also have been used to "prove" a Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy theory along the lines of that of the Protocols of Zion. In 1918 the U.S. government wanted to unite American opinion behind an unpopular war with Germany, and the Sisson Documents dramatically "proved" the exclusive complicity of Germany with the Bolshevists. The documents also provided a smoke screen against public knowledge of the events to be described in this book.

-- Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, by Antony C. Sutton

The dissolution of the Constituent Assembly on 6 January 1918. The Tauride Palace is locked and guarded by Trotsky, Sverdlov, Zinoviev and Lashevich.

On 7 November 1917, Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin led his leftist revolutionaries in a revolt against the ineffective Provisional Government (Russia was still using the Julian calendar at the time, so period references show a 25 October date). The October revolution ended the phase of the revolution instigated in February, replacing Russia's short-lived provisional parliamentary government with government by soviets, local councils elected by bodies of workers and peasants. Liberal and monarchist forces, loosely organized into the White Army, immediately went to war against the Bolsheviks' Red Army, in a series of battles that would become known as the Russian Civil War.

Soviet membership was initially freely elected, but many members of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, anarchists, and other leftists created opposition to the Bolsheviks through the soviets themselves. The elections to the Russian Constituent Assembly took place in November 1917. The Bolsheviks gained 24% of the vote.[31] When it became clear that the Bolsheviks had little support outside of the industrialized areas of Saint Petersburg and Moscow, they simply barred non-Bolsheviks from membership in the soviets.[citation needed] The Bolsheviks dissolved the Constituent Assembly in January 1918.[31] Not surprisingly, this caused mass domestic tension with many individuals who called for another series of political reform, revolting, and calling for "a third Russian revolution," a movement that received a significant amount of support. The most notable instances of this anti-Bolshevik mentality were expressed in the Tambov rebellion, 1919–1921, and the Kronstadt rebellion in March 1921. These movements, which made a wide range of demands and lacked effective coordination, were eventually defeated along with the White Army during the Civil War.

Russian Civil War


American, British, and Japanese Troops parade through Vladivostok in armed support to the White Army

The Russian Civil War, which broke out in 1918 shortly after the October Revolution, brought death and suffering to millions of people regardless of their political orientation. The war was fought mainly between the Red Army ("Reds"), consisting of the uprising majority led by the Bolshevik minority, and the "Whites" – army officers and cossacks, the "bourgeoisie", and political groups ranging from the far Right to the Socialist Revolutionaries who opposed the drastic restructuring championed by the Bolsheviks following the collapse of the Provisional Government to the soviets (under clear Bolshevik dominance).[32][33] The Whites had backing from nations such as Great Britain, France, USA and Japan, while the Reds possessed internal support which proved to be much more effective. Though the Allied nations, using external interference, provided substantial military aid to the loosely knit anti-Bolshevik forces, they were ultimately defeated.[32]

The Bolsheviks firstly assumed power in Petrograd, expanding their rule outwards. They eventually reached the Easterly Siberian Russian coast in Vladivostok, 4 years after the war began, an occupation that is believed to have ended all significant military campaigns in the nation. Less than one year later the last area controlled by the White Army, the Ayano-Maysky District, directly to the north of the Krai containing Vladivostok, was given up when General Anatoly Pepelyayev capitulated in 1923.

Several revolts were initiated against the Bolsheviks and their army near the end of the war, notably the Kronstadt Rebellion. This was a naval mutiny engineered by Soviet Baltic sailors, former Red Army soldiers, and the people of Kronstadt. This armed uprising was fought against the antagonizing Bolshevik economic policies that farmers were subjected to, including seizures of grain crops by the Communists.[34] This all amounted to large-scale discontent. When delegates representing the Kronstadt sailors arrived at Petrograd for negotiations, they raised 15 demands primarily pertaining to the Russian right to freedom.[35] The Government firmly denounced the rebellions and labelled the requests as a reminder of the Social Revolutionaries, a political party that was popular among Soviets before Lenin, but refused to cooperate with the Bolshevik Army. The Government then responded with an armed suppression of these revolts and suffered 10 thousand casualties before entering the city of Kronstadt.[36] This ended the rebellions fairly quickly, causing many of the rebels to flee to political exile.[37]

During the Civil War, Nestor Makhno led a Ukrainian anarchist movement, the Black Army allied to the Bolsheviks thrice, one of the powers ending the alliance each time. However, a Bolshevik force under Mikhail Frunze destroyed the Makhnovist movement, when the Makhnovists refused to merge into the Red Army. In addition, the so-called "Green Army" (peasants defending their property against the opposing forces) played a secondary role in the war, mainly in the Ukraine.

Execution of the imperial family


Execution of the Romanov family, Le Petit Journal

The Bolsheviks executed the tsar and his family on 16 July 1918.[38] In early March, the Provisional Government placed Nicholas and his family under house arrest in the Alexander Palace at Tsarskoye Selo, 24 kilometres (15 mi) south of Petrograd. In August 1917 the Kerensky government evacuated the Romanovs to Tobolsk in the Urals, to protect them from the rising tide of revolution. After the Bolsheviks came to power in October 1917, the conditions of their imprisonment grew stricter and talk of putting Nicholas on trial increased. As the counter revolutionary White movement gathered force, leading to full-scale civil war by the summer, the Romanovs were moved during April and May 1918 to Yekaterinburg, a militant Bolshevik stronghold.

During the early morning of 16 July, Nicholas, Alexandra, their children, their physician, and several servants were taken into the basement and shot. According to Edvard Radzinsky and Dmitrii Volkogonov, the order came directly from Lenin and Sverdlov in Moscow. That the order came from the top has long been believed, although there is a lack of hard evidence. The execution may have been carried out on the initiative of local Bolshevik officials, or it may have been an option pre-approved in Moscow should White troops approach Yekaterinburg. Radzinsky noted that Lenin's bodyguard personally delivered the telegram ordering the execution and that he was ordered to destroy the evidence.[39][40]

The revolution and the world

Leon Trotsky said that the goal of socialism in Russia would not be realized without the success of the world revolution. Indeed, a revolutionary wave caused by the Russian Revolution lasted until 1923. Despite initial hopes for success in the German Revolution of 1918–19, in the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic and others like it, no other Marxist movement at the time succeeded in keeping power in its hands.

This issue is subject to conflicting views on communist history by various Marxist groups and parties. Joseph Stalin later rejected this idea, stating that socialism was possible in one country.

The confusion regarding Stalin's position on the issue stems from the fact that, after Lenin's death in 1924, he successfully used Lenin's argument – the argument that socialism's success needs the support of workers of other countries in order to happen – to defeat his competitors within the party by accusing them of betraying Lenin and, therefore, the ideals of the October Revolution.

Historiography

Few events in historical research have been as conditioned by political influences as the October Revolution. The historiography of the Revolution generally divides into three camps: the Soviet-Marxist view, the Western-Totalitarian view, and the Revisionist view.[41] Since the fall of Communism in Russia in 1991, the Western-Totalitarian view has again become dominant and the Soviet-Marxist view has practically vanished.[42]

Lenin's biographer Robert Service, says he, "laid the foundations of dictatorship and lawlessness. Lenin had consolidated the principle of state penetration of the whole society, its economy and its culture. Lenin had practised terror and advocated revolutionary amoralism."[43]

Chronology

Chronology of events leading to the revolution

Dates are correct for the Julian calendar, which was used in Russia until 1918. It was twelve days behind the Gregorian calendar during the 19th century and thirteen days behind it during the 20th century.

Date(s) / Event(s)

1874–81 / Growing anti-government terrorist movement and government reaction.
1881 / Alexander II assassinated by revolutionaries; succeeded by Alexander III.
1883 / First Russian Marxist group formed.
1894 / Start of reign of Nicholas II.
1898 / First Congress of Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP).
1900 / Foundation of Socialist Revolutionary Party (SR).
1903 / Second Congress of Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. Beginning of split between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.
1904–5 / Russo-Japanese War; Russia loses war.
1905 / Revolution of 1905.
1905 / January Bloody Sunday in Saint Petersburg.
1905 / June Battleship Potemkin uprising at Odessa on the Black Sea (see movie The Battleship Potemkin).
1905 / October General strike, Saint Petersburg Soviet formed; October Manifesto: Imperial agreement on elections to the State Duma.
1906 / First State Duma. Prime Minister: Petr Stolypin. Agrarian reforms begin.
1907 / Third State Duma, until 1912.
1911 / Stolypin assassinated.
1912 / Fourth State Duma, until 1917. Bolshevik/Menshevik split final.
1914 / Germany declares war on Russia.
1914 30 July / The All Russian Zemstvo Union for the Relief of Sick and Wounded Soldiers is created with Lvov as president.
1914 August–November / Russia suffers heavy defeats and a large shortage of supplies, including food and munitions, but holds onto Austrian Galicia.
1914 3 August / Germany declares war on Russia, causing a brief sense of patriotic union amongst the Russian nation and a downturn in striking.
1914 18 August / St. Petersburg is renamed Petrograd as 'Germanic' names are changed to sound more Russian, and hence more patriotic.
1914 5 November / Bolshevik members of the Duma are arrested; they are later tried and exiled to Siberia.
1915 / Serious defeats, Nicholas II declares himself Commander in Chief.
1915 19 February / Great Britain and France promise Russia Istanbul and other Turkish lands.
1915 5 June / Strikers shot at in Kostromá; casualties.
1915 9 July / The Great Retreat begins, as Russian forces pull back out of Galicia and Russian Poland into Russia proper.
1915 9 August / The Duma's bourgeois parties form the 'Progressive bloc' to push for better government and reform; includes the Kadets, Octobrist groups and Nationalists.
1915 10 August / Strikers shot at in Ivánovo-Voznesénsk; casualties.
1915 17–19 August / Strikers in Petrograd protest at the deaths in Ivánovo-Voznesénsk.
1915 23 August / Reacting to war failures and a hostile Duma, the Tsar takes over as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, prorogues the Duma and moves to military headquarters at Mogilev. Central government begins to seize up.
1916 / Food and fuel shortages and high prices. Progressive Bloc formed.
1916 January–December / Despite successes in the Brusilov offensive, the Russian war effort is still characterised by shortages, poor command, death and desertion. Away from the front, the conflict causes starvation, inflation and a torrent of refugees. Both soldiers and civilians blame the incompetence of the Tsar and his government.
1916 6 February / Duma reconvened.
1916 29 February / After a month of strikes at the Putílov Factory, the government conscripts the workers and takes charge of production. Protest strikes follow.
1916 20 June / Duma prorogued.
1916 October / Troops from 181st Regiment help striking Russkii Renault workers fight against the Police.
1916 1 November / Miliukov gives his 'Is this stupidity or treason?' speech in reconvened Duma.
1916 29 December / Rasputin is killed by Prince Yusupov.
1916 30 December / The Tsar is warned that his army will not support him against a revolution.
1917 S/ trikes, mutinies, street demonstrations lead to the fall of autocracy.

Chronology of the 1917 revolutions

Gregorian Date / Julian Date / Event

-- / January / Strikes and unrest in Petrograd.
-- / February / February Revolution.
8 March / 23 February / International Women's Day: strikes and demonstrations in Petrograd, growing over the next few days.
11 March / 26 February / 50 demonstrators killed in Znamenskaya Square Tsar Nicholas II prorogues the State Duma and orders commander of Petrograd military district to suppress disorders with force.
12 March / 27 February / * Troops refuse to fire on demonstrators, deserters. Prisons, courts, and police bumbs attacked and looted by angry crowds. Okhrana buildings set on fire. Garrison joins revolutionaries. Petrograd Soviet formed. Formation of Provisional Committee of the Duma by liberals from Constitutional Democratic Party (Kadets).
14 March / 1 March / Order No.1 of the Petrograd Soviet.
15 March / 2 March / Nicholas II abdicates. Provisional Government formed under Prime Minister Prince Lvov.
16 April / 3 April / Return of Vladimir Lenin to Russia. He publishes his April Theses.
3–4 May / 20–21 April / "April Days": mass demonstrations by workers, soldiers, and others in the streets of Petrograd and Moscow triggered by the publication of the Foreign Minister Pavel Miliukov's note to the allies, which was interpreted as affirming commitment to the war policies of the old government. First Provisional Government falls.
18 May / 5 May / First Coalition Government forms when socialists, representatives of the Soviet leadership, agree to enter the cabinet of the Provisional Government. Alexander Kerensky, the only socialist already in the government, made minister of war and navy.
16 June / 3 June / First All-Russian Congress of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies opens in Petrograd. Closed on 24 June. Elects Central Executive Committee of Soviets (VTsIK), headed by Mensheviks and SRs.
23 June / 10 June / Planned Bolshevik demonstration in Petrograd banned by the Soviet.
29 June / 16 June / Kerensky orders offensive against Austro-Hungarian forces. Initial success only.
1 July / 18 June / Official Soviet demonstration in Petrograd for unity is unexpectedly dominated by Bolshevik slogans: "Down with the Ten Capitalist Ministers", "All Power to the Soviets".
15 July / 2 July / Russian offensive ends. Trotsky joins Bolsheviks.
16–17 July / 3–4 July / The "July Days"; mass armed demonstrations in Petrograd, encouraged by the Bolsheviks, demanding "All Power to the Soviets".
19 July / 6 July / German and Austro-Hungarian counter-attack. Russians retreat in panic, sacking the town of Tarnopol. Arrest of Bolshevik leaders ordered.
20 July / 7 July / Lvov resigns and asks Kerensky to become Prime Minister and form a new government. Established 25 July.
4 August / 22 July / Trotsky and Lunacharskii arrested.
8 September / 26 August / Second coalition government ends.
8–12 September / 26–30 August / "Kornilov mutiny". Begins when the commander-in-chief of the Russian army, General Lavr Kornilov, demands (or is believed by Kerensky to demand) that the government give him all civil and military authority and moves troops against Petrograd.
13 September / 31 August / Majority of deputies of the Petrograd Soviet approve a Bolshevik resolution for an all-socialist government excluding the bourgeoisie.
14 September / 1 September / Russia declared a republic.
17 September / 4 September / Trotsky and others freed.
18 September / 5 September / Bolshevik resolution on the government wins majority vote in Moscow Soviet.
2 October / 19 September / Moscow Soviet elects executive committee and new presidium, with Bolshevik majorities, and the Bolshevik Viktor Nogin as chairman.
8 October / 25 September / Third coalition government formed. Bolshevik majority in Petrograd Soviet elects Bolshevik Presidium and Trotsky as chairman.
23 October / 10 October / Bolshevik Central Committee meeting approves armed uprising.
24 October / 11 October / Congress of Soviets of the Northern Region, until 13 October.
2 November / 20 October / First meeting of the Military Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet.
7 November / 25 October / October Revolution is launched as MRC directs armed workers and soldiers to capture key buildings in Petrograd. Winter Palace attacked at 9:40pm and captured at 2am. Kerensky flees Petrograd. Opening of the 2nd All-Russian Congress of Soviets.
8 November / 26 October / Second Congress of Soviets: Mensheviks and right SR delegates walk out in protest against the previous day's events. Congress approves transfer of state authority into its own hands and local power into the hands of local soviets of workers', soldiers', and peasants' deputies, abolishes capital punishment, issues Decree on Peace and Decree on Land, and approves the formation of an all-Bolshevik government, the Council of People's Commissars (Sovnarkom), with Lenin as chairman.

Cultural portrayal

George Orwell's classic novella Animal Farm is an allegory of the Russian Revolution and its aftermath. It describes the dictator Stalin as a big Berkshire boar named, "Napoleon." Trotsky is represented by a pig called Snowball who is a brilliant talker and makes magnificent speeches. However, Napoleon overthrows Snowball as Stalin overthrew Trotsky and Napoleon takes over the farm the animals live on. Napoleon becomes a tyrant and uses force and propaganda to oppress the animals.[44]

Film

The Russian Revolution has been portrayed in or served as backdrop for many films. Among them, in order of release date:

• The White Guard, Mikhail Bulgakov, 1926. Partially autobiographical novel, portraying the life of one family torn apart by uncertainty of the Civil War times. Also, Dni Turbinykh (IMDB profile), 1976 – film based on the novel.
• Konets Sankt-Peterburga AKA The End of Saint Petersburg (IMDB profile). 1927. Directed by Vsevolod Pudovkin and Mikhail Doller, USSR.
• October: Ten Days That Shook the World (IMDB profile). 1927. Directed by Sergei Eisenstein and Grigori Aleksandrov. Soviet Union. Black and White. Silent.
• Arsenal (IMDB profile). 1929. Set in the Ukraine. Written and directed by Aleksandr Dovzhenko.
• Scarlet Dawn, a 1932 Pre-Code American romantic drama starring Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. and Nancy Carroll caught up in the fallout of the Russian Revolution.
• Knight Without Armour. 1937. A British historical drama starring Marlene Dietrich and Robert Donat, with Dietrich as an imperiled aristocrat on the eve of the Russian Revolution.
• Lenin v 1918 godu AKA Lenin in 1918 (IMDB profile). 1939. Directed by Mikhail Romm, E. Aron, and I. Simkov. Historical-revolutionary film about Lenin's activities in the first years of Soviet power.
• Doctor Zhivago. 1965. A drama-romance-war film directed by David Lean, filmed in Europe with a largely European cast, loosely based on the famous novel of the same name by Boris Pasternak.
• Reds (IMDB profile). 1981. Directed by Warren Beatty, it is based on the book Ten Days that Shook the World.
• Anastasia (IMDB profile). 1997. An American animated feature, directed by Don Bluth and Gary Goldman.

See also

• April Crisis
• Arthur Ransome
• Jacob Schiff
• John Reed (journalist)
• White Terror (Russia)
• Iranian Revolution

Footnotes

1. Scholarly literature on peasants is now extensive. Major recent works that examine themes discussed above (and can serve as a guide to older scholarship) Christine Worobec, Peasant Russia: Family and Community in the Post Emancipation Period (Princeton, 1955); Frank and Steinberg, eds., Cultures in Flux(Princeton, 1994); Barbara Alpern Engel, Between the Fields and the City: Women, Work, and Family in Russia, 1861–1914 (Cambridge, 1994); Jeffrey Burds, Peasant Dreams and Market Politics (Pittsburgh, 1998); Stephen Frank, Crime, Cultural Conflict and Justice in Rural Russia, 1856–1914 (Berkeley, 1999).
2. Among the many scholarly works on Russian workers, see especially Reginald Zelnik (pl), Labor and Society in Tsarist Russia: The Factory Workers of St. Petersburg, 1855–1870 (Stanford, 1971); Victoria Bonnell, Roots of Rebellion: Workers' Politics and Organizations in St. Petersburg and Moscow, 1900–1914(Berkeley, 1983).
3. See, especially, Dominic Lieven, Nicholas II: Emperor of all the Russias (London, 1993); Andrew Verner, The Crisis of the Russian Autocracy: Nicholas II and the 1905 Revolution (Princeton, 1990); Mark Steinberg and Vladimir Khrustalev, The Fall of the Romanovs: Political Dreams and Personal Struggles in a Time of Revolution (New Haven, 1995); Richard Wortman, Scenarios of Power, vol. 2 (Princeton, 2000); Orlando Figes, A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891–1924, Part One.

Notes

1. Orlando Figes, A Peoples Tragedy, p370
2. Wood, 1979. p. 18
3. Perfect; Ryan; Sweeny (2016). Reinventing Russia. Collingwood: History Teachers Association of Victoria. ISBN 9781875585052.
4. Wood, 1979. p. 24
5. Wood, 1979. p. 25
6. Wood, 1979. p. 26
7. Joel Carmichael, A short history of the Russian Revolution, pp 23–24
8. Abraham Ascher, The Revolution of 1905: A Short History, page 6
9. Allan Wildman, The End of the Russian Imperial Army, vol. 1 (Princeton, 1980): 76–80
10. Hubertus Jahn, Patriotic Culture in Russia During World War I (Ithaca, 1995)
11. Figes, A People's Tragedy, 257–258.
12. Wildman: The End of the Russian Imperial Army (I), p. 85–89, 99–105, 106 (quotation).
13. "Doklad petrogradskogo okhrannogo otdeleniia osobomu otdelu departamenta politsii" ["Report of the Petrograd Okhrana to the Special Department of the Department of the Police"], October 1916, Krasnyi arkhiv 17 (1926), 4–35 (quotation 4).
14. Service, 2005. p. 32.
15. When women set Russia ablaze, Fifth International 11 July 2007.
16. Beckett, 2007. p. 523.
17. Wade, 2005. pp. 40–43.
18. Browder and Kerensky, 1961. p. 116.
19. Tames, 1972.
20. Malone, 2004. p. 91.
21. Service, 2005. p. 34.
22. N. N. Sukhanov, The Russian Revolution: A Personal Record, ed. and trans. Joel Carmichael (Oxford, 1955; originally published in Russian in 1922), 101–8.
23. "Zhurnal [No. 1] Soveta Ministrov Vremennogo Pravitel'stva," 2 March 1917, GARF (State Archive of the Russian Federation), f. 601, op. 1, d. 2103, l. 1
24. Smele, Jonathan (2017). The "Russian" Civil Wars, 1916-1926. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 27.
25. Lenin, Vladimir (27 September 1964) [1917]. Apresyan, Stephen, ed. One of the Fundamental Questions of the Revolution (in Russian). 25. Jim Riordan (4th ed.). Moscow: Progress Publishers. pp. 370–77.
26. Stephen Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography 1888–1938 (Oxford University Press: London, 1980) p. 46.
27. Stephen Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography 1888–1938, p. 46.
28. V. I. Lenin, "State and Revolution" contained in the Collected Works of Lenin: Volume 25 (Progress Publishers: Moscow, 1974) pp. 3395–487.
29. V. I. Lenin, "The Bolsheviks Must Assume Power" contained in the Collected Works of Lenin: Volume 26(Progress Publishers: Moscow, 1972) p. 21.
30. Isaac Deutscher The Prophet Armed
31. Caplan, Bryan. "Lenin and the First Communist Revolutions, IV". George Mason University.
32. Riasanovsky, Nichlas V.; Steinberg, Mark D. (2005). A History of Russia (7th ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195153944.
33. article "Civil War and military intervention in Russia 1918–20", Big Soviet Encyclopedia, third edition (30 volumes), 1969–78
34. "The Kronstadt Mutiny notes on Orlando Figes, A People's Tragedy (1996)"
35. Petrograd on the Eve of Kronstadt rising 1921 Archived 15 July 2012 at Archive.is. Flag.blackened.net (10 March 1921). Retrieved on 2013-07-26.
36. Orlando Figes, A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891–1924 (New York: Viking Press 1997), 767.
37. Kronstadtin kapina 1921 ja sen perilliset Suomessa (Kronstadt Rebellion 1921 and Its Descendants in Finland) by Erkki Wessmann.
38. Robert K. Massie (2012). The Romanovs: The Final Chapter. Random House. pp. 3–24.
39. Dmitrii Volkogonov, Lenin: A New Biography (New York: Free Press, 1994).
40. Edvard Radzinsky, The Last Tsar: The Life And Death Of Nicholas II (New York: Knopf, 1993).
41. Acton, Critical Companion, 5-7.
42. Edward Acton, ed. Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1914–1921 (Indiana University Press, 1997), pp 3-17.
43. Robert Service, "Lenin" in Edward Acton; et al. (1997). Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1914-1921. Indiana University Press. p. 159.
44. Robert W. Menchhofer (1990). Animal Farm. Lorenz Educational Press. pp. 1–8.

Further reading

• Acton, Edward, Vladimir Cherniaev, and William G. Rosenberg, eds. A Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1914–1921 (Bloomington, 1997).
• Ascher, Abraham. The Russian Revolution: A Beginner's Guide (Oneworld Publications, 2014)
• Beckett, Ian F.W. (2007). The Great war (2 ed.). Longman. ISBN 1-4058-1252-4.
• Brenton, Tony. Was Revolution Inevitable?: Turning Points of the Russian Revolution (Oxford UP, 2017).
• Cambridge History of Russia, vol. 2–3, England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-81529-0(vol. 2) ISBN 0-521-81144-9 (vol. 3).
• Chamberlin, William Henry. The Russian Revolution, Volume I: 1917-1918: From the Overthrow of the Tsar to the Assumption of Power by the Bolsheviks; The Russian Revolution, Volume II: 1918-1921: From the Civil War to the Consolidation of Power (1935), famous classic
• Figes, Orlando (1996). A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891-1924. Pimlico.
• Daly, Jonathan, and Leonid Trofimov, eds. "Russia in War and Revolution, 1914-1922: A Documentary History." (Indianapolis and Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing Company, 2009). ISBN 978-0-87220-987-9.
• Fitzpatrick, Sheila. The Russian Revolution. 199 pages. Oxford University Press; (2nd ed. 2001). ISBN 0-19-280204-6.
• Lincoln, W. Bruce. Passage Through Armageddon: The Russians in War and Revolution, 1914–1918. (New York, 1986).
• Malone, Richard (2004). Analysing the Russian Revolution. Cambridge University Press. p. 67. ISBN 0-521-54141-7.
• Marples, David R. Lenin's Revolution: Russia, 1917-1921 (Routledge, 2014).
• Mawdsley, Evan. Russian Civil War(2007). 400p.
• Piper, Jessica. Events That Changed the Course of History: The Story of the Russian Revolution 100 Years Later (Atlantic Publishing Company, 2017), popular history.
• Rappaport, Helen. Caught in the Revolution: Petrograd, Russia, 1917–A World on the Edge(Macmillan, 2017).
• Pipes, Richard. The Russian Revolution (New York, 1990)
• Pipes, Richard (1997). Three "whys" of the Russian Revolution. Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0-679-77646-8.
• Service, Robert. Lenin: A Biography (2000); one vol edition of his three volume scholarly biography
• Robert Service (2005). A history of modern Russia from Nicholas II to Vladimir Putin. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-01801-3.
• Service, Robert (1993). The Russian Revolution, 1900-1927. Basingstoke: MacMillan. ISBN 0333560361.
• Shukman, Harold, ed. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of the Russian Revolution (1998) articles by over 40 specialists
• Smele, Jonathan. The 'Russian' Civil Wars, 1916-1926: Ten Years That Shook the World (Oxford UP, 2016).
• Stoff, Laurie S. They Fought for the Motherland: Russia's Women Soldiers in World War I & the Revolution (2006) 294pp
• Swain, Geoffrey. Trotsky and the Russian Revolution (Routledge, 2014)
• Tames, Richard (1972). Last of the Tsars. London: Pan Books Ltd. ISBN 978-0-330-02902-5.
• Wade, Rex A. (2005). The Russian Revolution, 1917. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-84155-9.
• Wade, R. (2000). The Russian Revolution, 1917. Cambridge: University Press.
• Walston, Oliver (2005). Russian revolution. 76: Farmers Weekly.
• White, James D. Lenin: The Practice & Theory of Revolution (2001) 262pp
• Wood, Alan (1993). The origins of the Russian Revolution, 1861-1917. London: Routledge. ISBN 0415102324.

Historiography

• Gatrell, Peter. "Tsarist Russia at War: The View from Above, 1914–February 1917" Journal of Modern History 87#4 (2015) 668-700 online
• Haynes, Mike and Wolfreys, Jim (eds). History and Revolution: Refuting Revisionism. Verso Books, 2007. ISBN 978-1844671502
• Smith, S. A. "The historiography of the Russian revolution 100 years on." Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 16.4 (2015): 733-749.
• Smith, Steve. "Writing the History of the Russian Revolution after the Fall of Communism." Europe‐Asia Studies 46.4 (1994): 563-578.
• Wade, Rex A. "The Revolution at One Hundred: Issues and Trends in the English Language Historiography of the Russian Revolution of 1917." Journal of Modern Russian History and Historiography 9.1 (2016): 9-38.
• Warth, Robert D. "On the Historiography of the Russian Revolution." Slavic Review 26.2 (1967): 247-264.

Participants' accounts

• Reed, John. Ten Days that Shook the World. 1919, 1st Edition, published by BONI & Liveright, Inc. for International Publishers. Transcribed and marked by David Walters for John Reed Internet Archive. Penguin Books; 1st edition. 1 June 1980. ISBN 0-14-018293-4. Retrieved 14 May 2005.
• Serge, Victor. Year One of the Russian Revolution. L'An l de la revolution russe, 1930. Year One of the Russian Revolution, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Translation, editor's Introduction, and notes © 1972 by Peter Sedgwick. Reprinted on Victor Serge Internet Archive by permission. ISBN 0-86316-150-2. Retrieved 14 May 2005.
• Steinberg, Mark, Voices of Revolution, 1917. Yale University Press, 2001
• Trotsky, Leon. The History of the Russian Revolution. Translated by Max Eastman, 1932. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 8083994. ISBN 0-913460-83-4. Transcribed for the World Wide Web by John Gowland (Australia), Alphanos Pangas (Greece) and David Walters (United States). Pathfinder Press edition. 1 June 1980. ISBN 0-87348-829-6. Retrieved 14 May 2005.

Primary documents

• Ascher, Abraham, ed. The Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution (Ithaca, 1976).
• Browder, Robert Paul and Alexander F. Kerensky, eds., The Russian Provisional Government, 1917: Documents. 3 volumes (Stanford, 1961).
• Bunyan, James and H. H. Fisher, eds. The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917–1918: Documents and Materials (Stanford, 1961; first ed. 1934).
• Daly, Jonathan, and Leonid Trofimov, eds. "Russia in War and Revolution, 1914-1922: A Documentary History." (Indianapolis and Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing Company, 2009). ISBN 978-0-87220-987-9.
• Miller, Martin A., ed. Russian Revolution: The Essential Readings (2001) 304pp
• Steinberg, Mark D. Voices of Revolution, 1917. In the series "Annals of Communism," Yale University Press, 2001. 404pp On-line publication of these texts in the Russian original: Golosa revoliutsii, 1917 g. (Yale University Press, 2002)
• Zeman, Z. A. B. ed. Germany and the Revolution in Russia, 1915-1918: Documents from the Archives of the German Foreign Ministry (1958) in Questia

External links

• Read, Christopher: Revolutions (Russian Empire) , in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.
• Brudek, Paweł: Revolutions (East Central Europe) , in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.
• Sumpf, Alexandre: Russian Civil War , in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.
• Mawdsley, Evan: International Responses to the Russian Civil War (Russian Empire) , in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.
• Melancon, Michael S.: Social Conflict and Control, Protest and Repression (Russian Empire) , in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.
• Sanborn, Joshua A.: Russian Empire , in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.
• Gaida, Fedor Aleksandrovich: Governments, Parliaments and Parties (Russian Empire) , in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.
• Albert, Gleb: Labour Movements, Trade Unions and Strikes (Russian Empire) , in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.
• Gatrell, Peter: Organization of War Economies (Russian Empire) , in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.
• Marks, Steven G.: War Finance (Russian Empire) , in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.
• Orlando Figes's free educational website on the Russian Revolution and Soviet history, May 2014
• Avrahm Yarmolinsky, Road to Revolution: A Century of Russian Radicalism, 1956.
• Soviet history archive at http://www.marxists.org
• Précis of Russian Revolution A summary of the key events and factors of the 1917 Russian Revolution.
• Kevin Murphy's Isaac and Tamara Deutscher Memorial Prize lecture Can we Write the History of the Russian Revolution, which examines historical accounts of 1917 in the light of newly accessible archive material.
• Thanks to Trotsky, the 'insurrection' was bloodless
• Violence and Revolution in 1917. Mike Haynes for Jacobin. 17 July 2017.