The October 1905 pogroms and the Russian authorities

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (5) ◽  
pp. 788-803 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Khiterer

This article analyzes the October 1905 pogroms in the Russian Empire. It explores the reasons for the pogroms, the perpetrators, the victims, and the consequences for the Jewish population. The article shows the differences and peculiarities of the pogroms, which occurred in the cities and shtetls, rural areas, on the railroads, and in the ports. The article also explores the attitude and involvement of the higher and local authorities, police, and troops in the pogroms. Historians continue to debate whether these pogroms occurred spontaneously or were organized by the Tsarist authorities. This article provides considerable evidence that the October 1905 pogroms were not a spontaneous reaction of conservatives to the revolutionary events, but rather was the policy of the Russian government directed toward the suppression of the revolutionary movement.

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 35-38
Author(s):  
Vladislav A. Kolesnikov

By the end of 1916, the food issue had been escalating in the Russian Empire. The Russian government faced the need to supply not only the army, but also the provinces with consuming bread, and the civilians were hostages of the transport crisis. The fixed prices for bread introduced in September 1916 led to the restriction of market trade. An important step in the state regulation of the bread market was the unfolding of bread. The article provides an analysis of food policy before the introduction of the unfolding. The food distribution of the tsarist government was an attempt to mobilise grain resources for the needs of the army and the civilians. The peculiarity of the reform was the combination of the principle of duty and payment of the product at a fixed price. The expansion is considered both from the all-Russia positions, taking into account the experience of grain-producing provinces, and in terms of Kostroma Province, which had lack of developed agriculture. The article pays special attention to the measures of local authorities. The governor, the zemstvo, the volost peasant gatherings were not ready to complete the tasks in full. The article concludes that the food distribution in the bread-consuming province, experiencing a crisis of planned supply, could not end successfully.


Author(s):  
Oleksandr Bezarov

The article studies the place and role of Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire in thehistorical context of the First Russian Revolution of 1905 – 1907. It was proved that Jewish pogroms were a trigger mechanism used by opposition and revolutionary groups in the Russian Empire and beyond, in order to provoke a political confrontation with the Russian government, which was postfactum declared to be the fault of the «mass murder of peaceful Jews». The corresponding propaganda of the «pogrom policy of autocracy» was supported by the opposition and revolutionary periodical press. According to the logic of the Russian opposition it should, firstly, destabilize the internal situation in the country, and, secondly, discredit the autocracy in the eyes of the world community. The confrontation was critical when both sides of the conflict began to resort to the method of pogroms provocation. If anti-government groups used this method at the beginning of the revolutionary events, the Russian authorities turned to the corresponding «services» of the monarchists and the Russian citizens loyal to the regime at the final stage of the revolution when the government demanded more determination in its suppression. The author believes that the First Russian Revolution failed to solve the Jewish question. Accordingly, Russian Jewry again turned into a hostage in the confrontation of the autocracy with the opposition political groups, and the territory of the Jewish Pale of Settlement remained a human capacity and source of energy in the development of the Russian revolutionary movement in subsequent years as well, because if the autocracy succeeded in breaking out the victory of the hands of Jewish revolutionaries in 1905 – 1907, it was only at the cost of victims of their own citizens. Keywords: Jewish pogroms 1905 ‒ 1907, First Russian Revolution, Bund, Jewish self-defence, Russianempire


Lituanistica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga Mastianica-Stankevič

Due to the social and national policy of the government in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the majority of the Lithuanian intelligentsia was forced to seek civil service not in ethnic Lithuania but rather in other governorates of the Russian Empire. Rimantas Vėbra, who studied the social structure of the Lithuanian intelligentsia of the nineteenth century, concluded that almost 60 per cent of people from Lithuania who had completed higher education worked outside the boundaries of the North-western Region. This article discusses the problem of the shortage of the intelligentsia differently from what has been discussed in previous studies before: not by identifying the problem of the “lost intelligentsia” and its roots, but by addressing the question of how much the Lithuanian intelligentsia itself tried to address the problem, why and what methods were proposed to overcome it. The main source of the study is the Lithuanian periodical press and works of fiction, which reflect the collective thinking of the intelligentsia deeper than letters or diaries, and, most importantly, show the reflection of ideas, the context of their dissemination, and allow at least a partial assessment of the discussions and impact of ideas. In the public discourse of the problems of the intelligentsia, the issue of the shortage of the Lithuanian intelligentsia was seen as a tragedy of the nation, primarily due to the inability of the intelligentsia to organize and mobilize the masses of society to work for the benefit of the nation. Fears about the employment of the intelligentsia outside ethnic Lithuania were periodically voiced in the illegal Lithuanian press at the end of the nineteenth century; however, the views on this problem did not differ significantly. A rather peculiar promotional campaign was conducted in the public discourse of that time, defined by its moralization, castigation, and the encouragement to stay in Lithuania. A Lithuanian intellectual who had left the country was seen primarily as someone who renounced his duties to society and was compared to a person without moral principles. In the early decades of the twentieth century, the consideration of the problem of the shortage of intelligentsia changed direction and a search for specific solutions to this problem began. On the one hand, the Lithuanian intelligentsia hurried to assess the changes, first of all in education and partly in the national policy of the Russian government. Therefore, the Lithuanian intelligentsia encouraged the public to establish private schools, hospitals, and associations of an economic nature. On the other hand, people became aware that it was impossible to prevent the loss of the intelligentsia under the existing conditions of employment in Lithuania. For this reason, the Lithuanian intelligentsia, especially its younger generation, sought means to strengthen the spiritual ties of the young people in higher education with their homeland, so that even if they chose to work in the inner governorates of the Russian Empire they would remain nationally engaged and socially active. At the same time, there were suggestions in the public discourse of the intelligentsia of that time to boost engagement in the career guidance of young people, taking into account more favourable employment and working conditions in ethnic Lithuania. The representatives of the Lithuanian intelligentsia who wrote for the periodical press encouraged young people to prioritize professional activities in the fields of law and medicine and to actively join the teaching profession. Meanwhile, in ethnic Lithuania, various groups of the Lithuanian professional intelligentsia were organised: the first associations of medical workers and teachers were established and specialized professional publications were launched. It was hoped that the cooperating representatives of the Lithuanian professional intelligentsia would make a cultural, moral, and, perhaps, political impact on the life of Lithuania. In parallel, other measures that could slow down the migration of the Lithuanian intelligentsia were considered in the public discourse of the problems of the intelligentsia: the intellectuals were advised not to give up job opportunities in rural areas. The expectations were that the increase of intellectuals in rural areas would stimulate faster modernization of the Lithuanian village and would encourage it to faster absorb all economic and cultural achievements. However, in the first decades of the twentieth century, the solutions to the problem of the shortage of Lithuanian intelligentsia considered in the public discourse were isolated cases. Also, they were more theoretical in nature than a precisely elaborated programme for strengthening the Lithuanian intelligentsia in ethnic Lithuania. In other words, when assessing the public discourse on the problem of the shortage of Lithuanian intelligentsia, we should first of all talk about the search for ideas and solutions rather than their coordinated implementation. In addition, it should also be noted that in the public discourse of the issues of the intelligentsia, ways to overcome the problem of its shortage were searched and discussed most actively from 1905 to 1907, which, in turn, may have promoted a lift in the general mood of society related to the events of 1905, in the hope of significant changes in the policy of Russian government. However, as the hopes of the Lithuanian society, and more precisely of the Lithuanian intelligentsia, faded (the network of professional schools in ethnic Lithuania remained essentially unchanged, no fundamental shifts took place in the employment of Lithuanians in the civil service), it was concluded that a successful solution to the problem of the shortage of the Lithuanian intelligentsia could only be found after a change of the political situation in the Russian Empire, and at the same time in Lithuania.


2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 589-611
Author(s):  
Cynthia M. Vakareliyska

In 1762 and 1763, manifestos were issued by Catherine II, and later were extended further by her son Paul I, inviting foreign artisans and others to settle in far-flung rural areas of the Russian Empire in order to help strengthen the economy. Under a policy somewhat similar to the later US Homestead Act, under the manifestos German and other foreign-national settlers and their descendants were offered Russian citizenship, land ownership after three years, religious tolerance (including, in the case of Germans, German clergy and German-language churches), and exemption from the military draft—although by the end of the nineteenth century the last of these had been rescinded. The call was not restricted to Germans, but Germans comprised the largest group to take advantage of it, settling for the most part in Ukraine, Bessarabia, and the mid-Volga region. Those who participated in the migration, known as the Auswanderung, and their descendants are often referred to in English as “Russian Germans” or “Germans from Russia” (rossiiskie nemtsy). A second wave of German immigration occurred in 1894, when some Germans who had settled in Prussia moved across the border into Russia. By 1897, there were over 2 million German immigrants and descendants in the Russian Empire.


2020 ◽  
pp. 83-105
Author(s):  
Boris V. Nosov ◽  
Lyudmila P. Marney

The article is devoted to the problems of the regional policy of the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 19th century discussed in the latest Russian historiography, to the peculiarities of the state-legal status and administrative practice of the Kingdom of Poland. It was the time when basic principles and a special structure of management at the outlying regions of the empire were developed, and when special (historical, national, and cultural) regions were formed on the periphery of the Empire. The policy of the Russian government in relation to the Kingdom of Poland depended both on the fundamental trends in the international relations in Central and Eastern Europe (as reflected in international treaties), as well as on the internal political development of the empire, and the peculiarities of political, legal, social, economic, cultural processes in the Kingdom and on Polish lands in Austria and Prussia. All these aspects have an impact on the debate that historians and legal experts are conducting on the state and legal status of parts of the lands of the former Principality of Warsaw that were included in the Russian Empire in 1815 by the decision of the Congress of Vienna. The fundamental political principles of the Russian Empire in the Kingdom of Poland in the first half of the 19th century were a combination of autocracy (with individual elements of enlightened absolutism), based on centralized bureaucratic control, and relatively decentralized political, administrative and estate structures, which assumed the presence of local self-government.


2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-20
Author(s):  
Vladimir Shaidurov

The period between the 19th – early 20th century witnessed waves of actively forming Polish communities in Russia’s rural areas. A major factor that contributed to the process was the repressive policy by the Russian Empire towards those involved in the Polish national liberation and revolutionary movement. Large communities were founded in Siberia, the Volga region, Caucasus, and European North of Russia (Arkhangelsk). One of the largest communities emerged in Siberia. By the early 20th century, the Polonia in the region consisted of tens of thousands of people. The Polish population was engaged in Siberia’s economic life and was an important stakeholder in business. Among the most well-known Polish-Siberian entrepreneurs was Alfons Poklewski-Koziell who was called the “Vodka King of Siberia” by his contemporaries. Poles, who returned from Siberian exile and penal labor, left recollections of their staying in Siberia or notes on the region starting already from the middle of the 19th century. It was this literature that was the main source of information about the life of the Siberian full for a long time. Exile undoubtedly became a significant factor that was responsible for Russia’s negative image in the historical memory of Poles. This was reflected in publications based on the martyrological approach in the Polish historiography. Glorification of the struggle of Poles to restore their statehood was a central standpoint adopted not only in memoirs, but also in scientific studies that appeared the second half of the 19th – early 20th century. The martyrological approach dominated the Polish historiography until 1970s. It was not until the late 20th century that serious scientific research started utilizing the civilizational approach, which broke the mold of the Polish historical science. This is currently a leading approach. This enables us to objectively reconstruct the history of the Siberian Polonia in the imperial period of the Russian history. The article is intended to analyze publications by Polish authors on the history of the Polish community in Siberia the 19th – early 20th century. It focuses on memoirs and research works, which had an impact on the reconstruction of the Siberian Polonia’s history. The paper is written using the retrospective, genetic, and comparative methods.re.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-34
Author(s):  
Žygimantas Buržinskas ◽  
Vytautas Levandauskas

SummaryThis article presents the heritage of the Dominican Order, which underwent the biggest transformation and destruction in Lithuania during the occupation by tsarist Russia. After the uprisings against the tsarist Russian government in the region in 1831 and 1863–1864, a Russification policy began, primarily targeted against the Catholic Church organization. The Dominican Order, which renewed its activities and had been purposefully operating in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania since the beginning of the 16th century, was liquidated during the occupation by tsarist Russia. This article studies the original appearances of Aukštadvaris, Kaunas, Merkinė and Paparčiai monasteries, which were most affected by reconstruction and demolition works during the Russian occupation, and reconstructions of their original appearance are presented. The architectural expression of all the monasteries in question suffered the most after the uprising in 1863–1864. In Aukštadvaris and Kaunas old convent churches were reconstructed into Orthodox churches by changing their old architecture, destroying individual elements of the building volume and decoration. Russian-Neo-Byzantine style promoted in the Russian Empire emerged in this context. The buildings of Merkinė and Paparčiai monasteries were completely demolished. Based on the iconographic material, especially the drawings and plans of the buildings made before the reconstruction or demolition works as well as visitations of the monasteries and material of other historical sources, the visualizations of the Aukštadvaris, Kaunas and Merkinė monastery complexes were prepared using modern means.


2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-38
Author(s):  
Anna B. Agafonova ◽  

The article describes the history of creation and activities of sanitary guardians in the cities of the Russian Empire. The study aims to identify organizational and social contradictions in guardianships’ activities, which hindered citizens from involvement in solving local sanitary problems. Boards of sanitary guardians were established by order of local authorities to involve the population in the fight against epidemics and conducting sanitary measures. The sanitary guardians’ activities consisted of timely notification of local authorities about the emergence of epidemics, participation in sanitary inspections of households, and conducting preventive conversations with homeowners about their compliance with public health and urban improvement regulations. The practice of citizens social participation in monitoring the urban area’s cleanliness was intended to level out the contradictions between homeowners and temporary doctors and sanitary executive commissions “alien” to the city community. Still, it often provoked conflicts between sanitary guardians and homeowners who defended the rights to inviolability of their property. In general, public oversight conducted by sanitary guardians has proven ineffective in the long term.


Author(s):  
Maryna Krugliak ◽  

The purpose of the article is to trace the evolution of the attitude of the authorities and the public (both in urban and rural areas) of sub-Russian Ukraine to abortion during the 19th – beginning of the 20th centuries. punishment for this crime. The methodology of research is based on a combination of general scientific (analysis, synthesis, generalization, comparison, systematization) and special-historical methods (historical-structural, constructive-genetic, historical-comparative) with the principles of historicism, objectivity, systemicity, verification. Scientific novelty of the work lies in the fact that for the first time in domestic and foreign historiography there was made an attempt to comprehensively consider the problem of abortion in the Russian Empire in the 19th – beginning of the 20th centuries. (the case of sub-Russian Ukraine), in particular, the peculiarities of the attitude to abortion by the state and the public were determined, a comparative analysis of the reasons for their commission, conditions and means of abortion, availability of such operations in rural areas and in modernized cities. Conclusions. The legislation of the Russian Empire considered abortion as a criminal offense, the punishment for which was quite severe, although with a tendency to liberalize (from exile to Siberia and beatings with a whip to imprisonment for several years). Despite criminal liability, at the beginning of the 20-th century, abortions have become an integral part of the daily lives of the cities. Punishment for such “crimes” was infrequent, mostly only when the case gained considerable media coverage or when the operation resulted in the patient's death. Attitudes toward abortion in cities and villages were different: traditional Ukrainian culture condemned abortion as a crime against the unborn child, an attempt on moral norms and values, and a social hierarchy. In cities, attitudes toward abortion were more pragmatic; such operations were most often performed for material reasons, in the case of the lower class, or to avoid shame and to entertain (concealment of the fact of extramarital pregnancy by married nobles, etc. “new women”). On the eve of the World War I, the advanced public advocated the decriminalization of abortion.


Polar Record ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erki Tammiksaar ◽  
Tarmo Kiik

ABSTRACTIn 1819, the Russian government launched two expeditions: the first squadron of two ships departed to explore the southern polar areas, and the second set out for the northern polar areas. The expedition to the southern polar areas took place under the command of Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen. Up to the present day, very little information is available, from the Russian literature, about the initiator and main goals of the expedition. At the same time, the travels and main results of the expedition have been widely popularised, but not necessarily accurately, in Russian as well as in English. On the basis of recently discovered documents, this article attempts to establish who the initiator of these Russian expeditions was, how the expeditions were prepared, and whether the main tasks of the expeditions were realised. The conclusion is that Jean-Baptiste Prevost de Sansac, Marquis de Traversay was the initiator of the Russian Antarctic expedition, not the Russian navigators Adam Johan von Krusenstern, Otto von Kotzebue, Gavrila A. Sarychev or Vasilii M. Golovnin as stated in Soviet publications. The real aim of the expedition was to discover the Antarctic continent which would have added glory to de Traversay as well as to Emperor Alexander I and, in a wider sense, also to the Russian empire. All dates are given according to the old style calendar. The difference with the new style calendar is 12 days.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document