The historians' history of the world in twenty-five volumes, volume 17

by Unknown

CHAPTER XIII. REACTION, EXPANSION, AND THE WAR WITH JAPAN

[1881-1904 A.D.]

In the history of Russia the period extending from 1882 to 1902 was much less eventful than the thirty years immediately preceding. The reign of Alexander II had been a time of important administrative reforms and of great economic, social, and intellectual changes in the life of the nation. Serfage had been abolished, the emancipated peasantry had been made communal proprietors of the soil, a democratic system of rural and municipal self-government for local affairs had been introduced, the tribunals of all degrees had been radically reorganised, means had been taken for developing more energetically the vast natural resources of the country, public instruction had received an unprecedented impetus, a considerable amount of liberty had been accorded to the press, a liberal spirit had been suddenly evoked and had spread rapidly among all sections of the educated classes, a new imaginative and critical literature dealing largely with economic, philosophical, and social questions had sprung into existence, and for a time the young generation fondly imagined that Russia, awakening from her traditional lethargy, was about to overtake, and soon to surpass, on the paths of national progress, the more advanced nations of western Europe.

These sanguine expectations were not fully realised. The economic and moral condition of the peasantry was not much improved, and in many districts there were signs of positive impoverishment and demoralisation. Local self-government, after a short period of feverish and not always well-directed activity, showed symptoms of organic exhaustion. The reformed tribunals, though incomparably better than their predecessors, did not give universal satisfaction. In the imperial administration the corruption and long-established abuses which had momentarily vanished began to reappear. Industrial enterprises did not always succeed. Education produced many unforeseen and undesirable practical results. The liberty of the press not unfrequently degenerated into license. The liberal spirit, which had at first confined itself to demanding feasible reforms, soon soared into the region of socialistic dreaming and revolutionary projects.

In short, it became only too evident that there was no royal road to national prosperity, and that Russia, like other nations, must be content to advance slowly and laboriously along the rough path of painful experience. In these circumstances sanguine enthusiasm naturally gave way to despondency, and the reforming zeal of the government was replaced by tendencies of a decidedly reactionary kind. Already in the last years of the reign of Alexander II, these tendencies had found expression in ukases and ministerial circulars, and zealous liberalism was more and more discountenanced in the official world. Partly from a feeling of despondency, and partly from a conviction that the country required rest in order to judge the practical results of the reforms already accomplished, the czar refrained from initiating any new legislation of an important kind, and the government gave it to be understood that the period of radical reforms was closed.

[1881 A.D.]

In the younger ranks of the educated classes this state of things had produced much dissatisfaction, which soon found expression in revolutionary agitation. At first the agitation was of an academic character, and was dealt with by the press censure, but it gradually took the form of secret associations, and the police had to interfere. There were no great, well-organised secret societies, but there were many small groups, composed chiefly of male and female students of the universities and technical schools, which worked independently for a common purpose. That purpose was the overthrow of the existing régime and the reorganisation of society on collectivist principles. Finding that the walls of autocracy could not be overturned by blasts of revolutionary trumpets, the young enthusiasts determined to seek the support of the masses, or, as they termed it, “to go in among the people” (idti v narod). Under the guise of doctors, midwives, teachers, governesses, factory hands, or common labourers, they sought to make proselytes among the peasantry and the workmen in the industrial centres by revolutionary pamphlets and oral explanations.

For a time the propaganda had very little success, because the uneducated peasants and factory workers could not easily understand the phraseology and principles of scientific socialism; but when the propagandists descended to a lower platform and spread rumours that the czar had given all the land to the peasants, and that the proprietors were preventing his benevolent intentions from being carried into effect, there was a serious danger of agrarian disturbances, and energetic measures were adopted by the authorities. Wholesale arrests were made by the police, and many of the accused were imprisoned or exiled to distant provinces, some by the regular judicial procedure, and others by so-called “administrative procedure,” without trial. The activity of the police and the sufferings of the victims naturally produced intense excitement and bitterness among those who escaped, and a secret body calling itself the executive committee announced in its clandestinely printed organs that those who distinguished themselves by endeavouring to suppress the propaganda would be removed. A number of officials had been condemned to death by this secret terrorist tribunal, and in some cases its sentences were carried out. As these terrorist measures had quite the opposite of the desired effect, repeated attempts had been made on the life of the emperor. At last, on the 13th of March, 1881, the carefully-laid plans of the conspirators, [as related in the last chapter], were successful.

THE REACTIONARY POLICY UNDER ALEXANDER III

Finding repressive police measures insufficient to suppress the revolutionary movement, Alexander II had entertained the idea of giving a certain satisfaction to moderate liberal opinion without restricting his autocratic power. With this object in view he had appointed General Loris-Melikov, who was credited with liberal views, minister of the interior, and on the morning of his death he had signed a ukase creating several commissions, composed of high official personages and eminent private individuals, who should prepare reforms in various branches of the administration.

His son and successor Alexander III (1881-94), who had never shown much sympathy with liberalism in any form, entered frankly on a reactionary policy, which was pursued consistently during the whole of his reign. He could not, of course, undo the great reforms of his predecessor, but he amended them in such a way as to counteract what he considered the exaggerations of liberalism. Local self-government in the village communes, the rural districts, and the towns was carefully restricted, and placed to a greater extent under the control of the regular officials.

Alexander III

(1845-1894)

The reformers of the previous reign had endeavoured to make the emancipated peasantry administratively and economically independent of the landed proprietors; the conservatives of this later era, proceeding on the assumption that the peasants did not know how to make a proper use of the liberty prematurely conferred upon them, endeavoured to re-establish the influence of the landed proprietors by appointing from amongst them “land-chiefs,” who were to exercise over the peasants of their district a certain amount of patriarchal jurisdiction. The reformers of the previous reign had sought to make the new local administration (zemstvo) a system of genuine rural self-government and a basis for future parliamentary institutions; these later conservatives transformed it into a mere branch of the ordinary state administration, and took precautions against its ever assuming a political character. Even municipal institutions, which had never shown much vitality, were subjected to similar restrictions. In short, the various forms of local self-government, which were intended to raise the nation gradually to the higher political level of western Europe, were condemned as unsuited to the national character and traditions, and as productive of disorder and demoralisation. They were accordingly replaced in great measure by the old autocratic methods of administration, and much of the administrative corruption which had been cured, or at least repressed, by the reform enthusiasm again flourished luxuriantly.

In a small but influential section of the educated classes there was a conviction that the revolutionary tendencies, which culminated in nihilism and anarchism, proceeded from the adoption of cosmopolitan rather than national principles in all spheres of educational and administrative activity, and that the best remedy for the evils from which the country was suffering was to be found in a return to the three great principles of nationality, orthodoxy, and autocracy. This doctrine, which had been invented by the Slavophils of a previous generation, was early instilled into the mind of Alexander III by Pobiedonostsev, who was one of his teachers, and later his most trusted adviser, and its influence can be traced in all the more important acts of the government during that monarch’s reign. His determination to maintain autocracy was officially proclaimed a few days after his accession. Nationality and eastern orthodoxy, which are so closely connected as to be almost blended together in the Russian mind, received not less attention.

THE RUSSIFICATION OF THE PROVINCES.

Even in European Russia the regions near the frontier contain a great variety of nationalities, languages, and religions. In Finland the population is composed of Finnish-speaking and Swedish-speaking Protestants; the Baltic provinces are inhabited by German-speaking, Lett-speaking, and Esth-speaking Lutherans; the inhabitants of the southwestern provinces are chiefly Polish-speaking Roman Catholics and Yiddish-speaking Jews; in the Crimea and on the middle Volga there are a considerable number of Tatar-speaking Mohammedans; and in the Caucasus there is a conglomeration of races and languages such as is to be found on no other portion of the earth’s surface. Until recent times these various nationalities were allowed to retain unmolested the language, religion, and peculiar local administration of their ancestors, but when the new nationality doctrine came into fashion attempts were made to spread among them the language, religion, and administrative institutions of the dominant race. In the reigns of Nicholas I and Alexander II these attempts were merely occasional and intermittent; under Alexander III they were made systematically and with very little consideration for the feelings, wishes, and interests of the people concerned. The local institutions were assimilated to those of the purely Russian provinces; the use of the Russian language was made obligatory in the administration, in the tribunals, and to some extent in the schools; the spread of eastern orthodoxy was encouraged by the authorities, whilst the other confessions were placed under severe restrictions; foreigners were prohibited from possessing landed property, and in some provinces administrative measures were taken for making the land pass into the hands of orthodox Russians. In this process some of the local officials displayed probably an amount of zeal beyond the intentions of the government, but any attempt to oppose the movement was rigorously punished.

Of all the various races the Jews were the most severely treated. The great majority of them had long been confined to the western and southwestern provinces. In the rest of the country they had not been allowed to reside in the villages, because their habits of keeping vodka-shops and lending money at usurious interest were found to demoralise the peasantry, and even in the towns their number and occupations had been restricted by the authorities. But, partly from the usual laxity of the administration and partly from the readiness of the Jews to conciliate the needy officials, the rules had been by no means strictly applied. As soon as this fact became known to Alexander III he ordered the rules to be strictly carried out, without considering what an enormous amount of hardship and suffering such an order entailed. He also caused new rules to be enacted by which his Jewish subjects were heavily handicapped in education and professional advancement. In short, complete russification of all non-Russian populations and institutions was the chief aim of the government in home affairs.

FOREIGN POLICY; THE FRENCH ALLIANCE

In the foreign policy of the empire Alexander III likewise introduced considerable changes. During his father’s reign its main objects were: in the west, the maintenance of the alliance with Germany; in southeastern Europe, the recovery of what had been lost by the Crimean war, the gradual weakening of the sultan’s authority, and the increase of Russian influence among the minor slav nationalities; in Asia, the gradual but cautious expansion of Russian domination. In the reign of Alexander III the first of these objects was abandoned. Already, before his accession, the bonds of friendship which united Russia to Germany had been weakened by the action of Bismarck in giving to the cabinet of St. Petersburg at the Berlin congress less diplomatic support than was expected, and by the Austro-German treaty of alliance (October, 1879), concluded avowedly for the purpose of opposing Russian aggression; but the old relations were partly re-established by secret negotiations in 1880, by a meeting of the young czar and the old emperor at Dantzic in 1881, and by the meeting of the three emperors at Skiernewice in 1884, by which the Three Emperors’ League was reconstituted for a term of three years.

Gradually, however, a great change took place in the czar’s views with regard to the German alliance. He suspected Bismarck of harbouring hostile designs against Russia, and he came to recognise that the permanent weakening of France was not in accordance with Russian political interests. He determined, therefore, to oppose any further disturbance of the balance of power in favour of Germany, and when the treaty of Skiernewice expired in 1887, he declined to renew it. From that time Russia gravitated slowly towards an alliance with France, and sought to create a counterpoise against the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria, and Italy. The czar was reluctant to bind himself by a formal treaty, because the French government did not offer the requisite guarantees of stability, and because he feared that it might be induced, by the prospects of Russian support, to assume an aggressive attitude towards Germany. He recognised, however, that in the event of a great European war the two nations would in all probability be found fighting on the same side, and that if they made no preparations for concerted military action they would be placed at a grave disadvantage in comparison with their opponents of the Triple Alliance, who were believed to have already worked out an elaborate plan of campaign. In view of this contingency the Russian and French military authorities studied the military questions in common, and the result of their labours was the preparation of a military convention, which was finally ratified in 1894. During this period the relations between the two governments and the two countries became much more cordial. In the summer of 1891 the visit to Kronstad of a French squadron under Admiral Gervais was made the occasion for an enthusiastic demonstration in favour of a Franco-Russian alliance; and two years later (October, 1893) a still more enthusiastic reception was given to the Russian admiral Avelan and his officers when they visited Toulon and Paris. But it was not till after the death of Alexander III that the word “alliance” was used publicly by official personages. In 1895 the term was first publicly employed by Ribot, then president of the council, in the chamber of deputies, but the expressions he used were so vague that they did not entirely remove the prevailing doubts as to the existence of a formal treaty. Two years later (August, 1897), during the official visit of President Félix Faure to St. Petersburg, a little more light was thrown on the subject. In the complimentary speeches delivered by the president of the French Republic and the czar, France and Russia were referred to as allies, and the term nations alliées was afterwards repeatedly used on occasions of a similar kind.

In southeastern Europe Alexander III adopted an attitude of reserve and expectancy. He greatly increased and strengthened his Black Sea fleet, so as to be ready for any emergency that might arise, and in June, 1886, contrary to the declaration made in the Treaty of Berlin (Article 59), he ordered Batum to be transformed into a fortified naval port, but in the Balkan Peninsula he persistently refrained, under a good deal of provocation, from any intervention that might lead to a European war. The Bulgarian government, first under Prince Alexander and afterwards under the direction of Stambolov, pursued systematically an anti-Russian policy, but the cabinet of St. Petersburg confined itself officially to breaking off diplomatic relations and making diplomatic protests, and unofficially to giving tacit encouragement to revolutionary agitation. In Asia, during the reign of Alexander III, the expansion of Russian domination made considerable progress.[b]

THE CONQUEST OF THE TEKKE-TURCOMANS (1877-1881 A.D.)

Transcaspia is the official name given to the territory east of the Caspian which was annexed by Russia in 1881 shortly after the accession of Alexander III. The country was inhabited by the Turcomans—a branch of the Turkish race—who have been identified with the old Parthians. They were a brave but wild and lawless people, bands of whom would frequently sweep down upon a peaceful village, kill the men, and carry off the women and children to be sold as slaves in Bokhara and Khiva. Whole villages were sometimes wiped out in this way. The marauding raids of the Turcomans were a constant menace to the northern frontier of Persia and we frequently find the Persians engaged in war with them. The great Nadir Shah was himself a Turcoman. In 1861 the Persians had made a final attack on the Turcomans or Tekkes, as they are commonly called, and defeated them.

The Russian conquest of the Central Asian khanates, however, materially altered the situation of these nomadic robbers; they could no longer sell slaves in Bokhara, as the Russian laws forbade slavery, neither could they carry on their depredations in lands guarded by the Russians, hence they turned to Persia and offered her their allegiance in return for her support against these civilised intruders. But they were now a serious obstacle in the way of these same Russians. Caravans from Bokhara and the East, to reach the Caspian, had to cross the Turcoman desert or else make a long detour to the north, and these plundering tribes seriously interfered with commerce.

In 1877 General Lomakin was sent against the Tekkes, but the Russo-Turkish war intervened before he had accomplished anything. In 1878 Lomakin attacked Dengil Teppe, was defeated by the Tekkes, and forced to retreat. The natives were greatly encouraged by this victory, their raids increased, and they tried to stir up the Bokharans and Khivans to revolt. The Russians now undertook more vigorous measures. General Skobelev was put in charge of the campaign, a portable railway was started from the shores of the Caspian towards the Amu Daria, a large force of artillery was conveyed to the front, and a water distillery—of the greatest service in this waterless region—was established at Krasnovodsk. Colonel Kuropatkin, who had been on Skobelev’s staff in the Russo-Turkish war, came by forced marches to assist his former chief.

The Turcomans were intrenched in three camps—Yangi Kala, Dangil Teppe, and Geok Teppe. The Russians began the main attack on January 1st, 1881, charging first upon Yangi Kala. The Tekkes fought with the greatest bravery, but the Russian artillery forced them to evacuate. The Turcoman sorties were made usually a little after sunset and the attacks were exceedingly fierce. The Tekkes had their wives and children in camp with them, huddled in their felt tents, and their sufferings under the continual artillery fire must have been terrible. Finally upon January 24th, after three weeks of fighting, the Russians were successful, the Tekkes were routed with great loss to both Russians and Turcomans. There are different estimates given as the total number killed.

Cathedral of the Archangel Michael

Beveridge’s[c] figures, given below, cannot be far from right. He uses this siege to illustrate the Russian method of conquest. Their method, he says, “is to wage war while war exists and to employ the methods of peace only when war is over. Skobelev at Geok Teppe refused to accept the surrender of the heroic Tekkes who had terrorised Central Asia for centuries, and he slaughtered more than twenty thousand men, women and children in twenty days. It seemed quite terrible and was as terrible as it seemed; but it is hard to see that it is much worse to destroy 20,000 men, women, and children and secure peace for all time than it is to kill that number during twenty years and in the process increase the irritation, the disorder, and the feud. For from the red day of Geok Teppe to this hour, order, law, safety to travellers, security of commerce and all other things which help to make up civilisation have existed in Central Asia, as firmly guarded as they are in the United States. War is bad under any circumstances, but if it must be it should be thorough, that it may be brief and not fruitless.”

[1885-1894 A.D.]

After calling attention to the efficacy of this method in Manchuria during the Boxer movement, the author continues: “It is worth the attention of all men that when Russia has once inflicted her punishment there has seldom been any recurrence of insurrection. Where Russian law and order and system have been established they have remained, upheld not by the bayonets of the soldiers who established them, but by the hands of the very people among whom and against whose resistance they were planted. Among all the defects of Russian civilisation, its virtues are striking and elemental, and one of the chief of them is stability.”

The country of the Turcomans thus conquered was annexed to the Russian Empire, the final annexation of Merv taking place in 1884.[a] Alexander III then allowed the military authorities to push forward in the direction of Afghanistan, until in March, 1885, an engagement took place between Russian and Afghan forces at Penjdeh. Thereupon the British government, which had been for some time carrying on negotiations with the cabinet of St. Petersburg for a delimitation of the Russo-Afghan frontier, intervened energetically and prepared for war; but a compromise was effected, and after more than two years of negotiation a delimitation convention was signed at St. Petersburg on July 20th, 1887. The forward movement of Russia was thus stopped in the direction of Herat, but it continued with great activity farther east in the region of the Pamir, until another Anglo-Russian convention was signed in 1895. During the whole reign of Alexander III the increase of territory in central Asia is calculated by Russian authorities at 429,895 square kilometres.

ACCESSION OF NICHOLAS II (1894 A.D.)

On November 1st, 1894, Alexander III died, and was succeeded by his son, Nicholas II, who, partly from similarity of character and partly from veneration for his father’s memory, continued the existing lines of policy in home and foreign affairs. The expectation entertained in many quarters that great legislative changes would at once be made in a liberal sense was not realised. When an influential deputation from the province of Tver, which had long enjoyed a reputation for liberalism, ventured to hint in a loyal address that the time had come for changes in the existing autocratic régime they received a reply which showed that the emperor had no intention of making any such changes. Private suggestions in the same sense, offered directly and respectfully, were no better received and no important changes were made in the legislation of the preceding reign. But a great alteration took place noiselessly in the manner of carrying out the laws and ministerial circulars.

Though resembling his father in the main points of his character, the young czar was of a more humane disposition, and he was much less of a doctrinaire. With his father’s aspiration of making holy Russia a homogeneous empire he thoroughly sympathised in principle, but he disliked the systematic persecution of Jews, heretics, and schismatics to which it gave rise, and he let it be understood, without any formal order or proclamation, that the severe measures hitherto employed would not meet with his approval. The officials were not slow to take the hint, and their undue zeal at once disappeared. Nicholas II showed, however, that his father’s policy of russification was neither to be reversed nor to be abandoned. When an influential deputation was sent from Finland to St. Petersburg to represent to him respectfully that the officials were infringing the local rights and privileges solemnly accorded at the time of the annexation, it was refused an audience, and the leaders of the movement were informed indirectly that local interests must be subordinated to the general welfare of the empire. In accordance with this declaration, the policy of russification in Finland was steadily maintained and caused much disappointment, not only to the Finlanders, but also to the other nationalities who desired the preservation of their ancient rights.

[1895-1896 A.D.]

In foreign affairs Nicholas II likewise continued the policy of his predecessor, with certain modifications suggested by the change of circumstances. He strengthened the cordial understanding with France by a formal agreement, the terms of which were not divulged, but he never encouraged the French government in any aggressive designs, and he maintained friendly relations with Germany. In the Balkan Peninsula a slight change of attitude took place. Alexander III, indignant at what he considered the ingratitude of the Slav nationalities, remained coldly aloof, as far as possible, from all intervention in their affairs. About three months after his death, De Giers, who thoroughly approved of this attitude, died (January 26th, 1895), and his successor, Prince Lobanov, minister of foreign affairs from March 19th, 1895, to August 30th, 1896, endeavoured to recover what he considered Russia’s legitimate influence in the Slav world.

Count Lyeff Tolstoi

(1828-)

For this purpose Russian diplomacy became more active in southeastern Europe. The result was perceived first in Montenegro and Servia, and then in Bulgaria. Prince Ferdinand of Bulgaria had long been anxious to legalise his position by a reconciliation, and as soon as he got rid of Stambulov he made advances to the Russian government. They were well received, and a reconciliation was effected on certain conditions, the first of which was that Prince Ferdinand’s eldest son and heir should become a member of the Eastern orthodox church. As another means of opposing Western influence in southeastern Europe, Prince Lobanov inclined to the policy of protecting rather than weakening the Ottoman empire. When the British government seemed disposed to use coercive measures for the protection of the Armenians, he gave it clearly to be understood that any such proceeding would be opposed by Russia.

[1897 A.D.]

After Prince Lobanov’s death and the appointment of Count Muraviev as his successor in January, 1897, this tendency of Russian policy became less marked. In April, 1897, it is true, when the Greeks provoked a war with Turkey, they received no support from St. Petersburg, but at the close of the war the czar showed himself more friendly to them; and afterwards, when it proved extremely difficult to find a suitable person as governor-general of Crete he recommended the appointment of his cousin, Prince George of Greece—a selection which was pretty sure to accelerate the union of the island with the Hellenic kingdom. How far the recommendation was due to personal feeling, as opposed to political considerations, it is impossible to say.

In Asia, after the accession of Nicholas II the expansion of Russia, following the line of least resistance and stimulated by the construction of the Siberian railway, was effected at the expense of China. As a necessary basis for a strong foreign policy the army was systematically strengthened. At one moment the schemes for military reorganisation involved such an enormous expenditure that the czar conceived the idea of an agreement among the great powers to arrest the increase of national armaments. The idea was communicated to the powers somewhat abruptly by Count Muraviev, Prince Lobanov’s successor in the direction of foreign affairs, and an international conference was held at the Hague to discuss the subject; but it had very little practical result, and certainly did not attain the primary object in view. [Its final act is given in the appendix to this volume.]

A sketch of the recent history of Russia, however brief, would be incomplete without some mention of the remarkable industrial progress made during the period under consideration. Protected by high tariffs and fostered by the introduction of foreign capital, Russian manufacturing industry made enormous strides. By way of illustration a few figures may be cited. In the space of ten years (1887-1897) the number of workers employed in the various branches of industrial enterprise rose from 1,318,048 to 2,098,262. The consumption of cotton for spinning purposes, which was only 117 million kilograms in 1886, was 257 millions in 1898, and the number of spindles, according to the weekly journal Russia of August 2nd, 1902, was estimated at that date at 6,970,000. Thanks chiefly to this growth of the cotton industry, the town of Lódz, which was little more than a big village in 1875, has now a population of over 300,000. The iron, steel, and petroleum industries have likewise made enormous progress. Between 1892 and 1900 the estimated value of metallic articles manufactured in the country rose from 142 millions to 276 millions of rubles. As is generally the case in such circumstances, protection led to temporary over-production, which brought about a financial and economic crisis; but if we may accept certain figures given by Henry Norman,[d] the crisis could not have been very severe, for he states that “no fewer than 580 companies declared a dividend during the first nine months of 1901, their total nominal capital being £105,000,000, and the average dividend no less than 10.1 per cent.” Much of this progress is due to the intelligence and energy of M. Witte, minister of finance.[b]

KUROPATKIN ON THE RUSSIAN POLICY OF EXPANSION

In connection with the Russian advance in Asia with its climax in the war with Japan, it may be interesting to notice an address made by General Kuropatkin to a party of English tourists at Askabad in November, 1897. Its protestations of peaceful intent will come as a surprise to many who have seen in the Russian advance only an insatiable land-hunger. General Kuropatkin, whose fortune it was seven years later to command the Russian army in the war with Japan, said in part, as quoted in a recent work:[a]

A Russian Child

“The policy of our government in Central Asia, since the accession of the late czar, has been eminently one of peace; and recourse has never been had to arms until every other means of gaining a given object had failed. The principles which govern the policy of Russia are very simple. They are the maintenance of peace, of order, and of prosperity in all classes of the population. The means employed to compass these ends are equally free from complexity. Those who fill responsible positions are expressly informed by our government that the assumption of sovereignty over alien nationalities must not be attempted without very serious deliberation, inasmuch as such become, on annexation, Russian subjects, children of the czar, and invested with every privilege enjoyed by citizens of the empire. His majesty has enjoined on his representatives, as their first duty, a fatherly care of his Asiatic subjects. In order to prevent the possibility of internal discord, we have disarmed the natives, and no pains have been spared to induce them to adopt peaceful pursuits. The fruits of this action are already visible. A solitary traveller can now cross central Asia, from the Caspian to the Siberian frontier, without incurring the smallest risk of attack.

“We may boast with perfect truth that the thirty-five years during which central Asia has enjoyed the blessings of a firm and civilised rule, have been years of sustained progress, of daily-increasing strength in bonds of attachment and good-will, which unite these subject peoples to the inhabitants of other Russian provinces. Between 1885 and 1888 we established a stable and logical frontier with the aid of Great Britain; and in the twelve years which have since elapsed there have been no expeditions throughout its length of 600 miles bordering on Persia, and 400 on Afghanistan. The latter country contains much inflammable material, but we have taken every means in our power to ensure that the internal disorders of that state shall not react on our frontier. So scrupulous is our regard for the status quo, that whole tribes have cast themselves on our protection in vain.

“Piruzkuhis, Khezaris, and Jamshidis have crossed our borders in troops of as many as 1,000 families, but we have always repatriated such refugees. There have been similar cases in our dealings with Persian subjects. Turkestan proper has been free from war since the occupation of Farghana—twenty-one years ago. The Bokhara frontier has remained intact since the capture of Samarkand in 1868. The last complication on the Persian border dates from 1829—nearly 70 years ago. Throughout our frontier conterminous with China we have had no disturbance for more than a century. I am led to mention these significant facts in order to show that our policy in Asia is essentially a peaceful one, and that we are perfectly satisfied with our present boundaries. And I may claim to speak with authority, apart from my official position, for I have been personally concerned in all our important military and political movements in Central Asia since 1868, when, only twenty, I took part in storming Samarkand.”[e]

RUSSIA IN MANCHURIA

[1900-1902 A.D.]

Russian advance in the Far East has been going on so steadily and so quietly that few realise to what an extent northeastern Asia is becoming russianised. Russian ships are seen in Chinese and Japanese harbours, Russian banks are found on Chinese territory, Russian railways are connecting those remote parts of the world with Europe, and, most important of all, Russian peasants are being landed in the Far East. The russification movement is especially active in Manchuria, which province has become prominent in the last few years. Although on a map of Asia Manchuria does not look very large, it covers nearly as much space as France and Germany together. Beveridge[c] recently said of it: “It is an empire more favourably situated as to its climatic conditions than any part of Asia. It is in the same latitude as southern Canada and the northern portion of the United States. Its northern limits are about the same as the northern limits of Quebec. Its southern limits are about the same as the southern limits of Maryland. It is bounded on the north by the richest portions of Siberia, which not many years ago was itself a part of the dominion of the Manchus; for several hundred miles on the east by the grain-fields of the Ussuri district of Russian Siberia, also until recently a part of the Chinese Empire; on the east and south by Korea, over which the world’s next great war will probably be fought, and soon; on the west by Mongolia, and on the south by Korea, China, and the gulfs and extensions of the Yellow Sea, which touches or commands much of that empire. On these gulfs are two of the finest military and commercial ports of Asia, or the world—Port Arthur and Talienwan, or, as the Russians call it, Dalny.”

Russian designs upon Manchuria first became prominent after the Chino-Japanese war when Russia objected to Japan’s acquiring any territory in that quarter. During the Boxer uprising in 1900 Russian troops overran Manchuria and in a convention concluded between Russia and China at the end of the movement, the civil and military administration of the province was placed practically under the control of Russia. Owing to objections on the part of the other powers, however, Russia withdrew this convention and another was signed in place of it on April 8th, 1902. According to this Manchuria was to remain “an integral portion of the Chinese Empire”; China pledged herself to protect the railway and all Russian subjects and their enterprises in Manchuria, while Russia for her part agreed to withdraw her troops gradually. This agreement on the part of Russia remained a promise only. In the meanwhile Manchuria was rapidly becoming russianised. The important cities along the railway such as New-Chwang, Mukden, Liauyang and Kirin became centres of Russian forces. Russian immigrants built and inhabited whole towns laid out like European cities with all modern improvements. Harbin, which in 1897 was a collection of mud huts, became a Russian city and a centre of Manchurian trade.

THE WAR WITH JAPAN

[1903-1904 A.D.]

Russia’s policy in the Far East was the cause of friction with England and the United States, and especially with Japan; relations with the latter becoming more and more strained until they finally led to a war which broke out in February, 1904. In April of the preceding year Russia’s representative at Peking presented certain demands to the Chinese government which virtually excluded all foreigners—except Russians—from Manchuria, and were a plain violation of the principle of the “open door” which Russia had pledged herself to maintain in that province. Owing to the opposition of the United States and Japan, however, most of these demands were withdrawn and permission was granted to open two Manchurian ports, although this was not carried out. In Korea also Russia opposed Japan, refusing to allow her to open the port of Wi-ju to foreign trade, and objecting to a Japanese telegraph from Seul to Fusan, although Russia herself laid a telegraph line on Korean territory.

In August, 1903, Russia took the important step of establishing a special vice-royalty in the Amur provinces which had been leased to her in the Liao-tung peninsula. Vice-admiral Alexiev was appointed as first Russian viceroy of the Far East, and was invested with civil and military authority which made him to a great extent independent of St. Petersburg.

In September the Russian ambassador at Peking had announced that New-Chwang and Mukden would be evacuated on October 8th, but that date passed and Russian troops were still there, while Russia continued to strengthen her army and navy in the Far East. Japan demanded that Russia should evacuate Manchuria in agreement with her promises and that she should discontinue her aggressive attitude in Korea.

Russia’s answers to Japan’s repeated demands were evasive, and on January 8th, 1904, Japan sent a final note to Russia and, receiving no reply, withdrew her minister and legation from St. Petersburg on February 6th, 1904. On February 7th both governments issued statements announcing the severance of diplomatic relations. On February 8th the main Japanese fleet, under Vice-admiral Togo, opened the war by surprising the Russian fleet at Port Arthur in a state of unpreparedness, and inflicting much damage.

The attack was repeated on the following day with a repetition of the result of the first day’s assault. On the same day Admiral Uriu and a small Japanese squadron attacked and destroyed two Russian cruisers in the harbour of Chemulpo. Thus at the very outset the Japanese had secured a decided advantage over their opponents on the sea. At once the cry arose in Russia that Japan, by not giving official notice of the proposed attack had violated international law, but neutral nations generally saw in Russia’s complaint only an attempt to excuse her defeats, and held that the severing of diplomatic relations was warning enough. Still that the Russians were not entirely crippled was shown by the fact that within a fortnight their squadron of four cruisers at Vladivostok cut its way out of the ice, which was supposed to hold it captive, and harried the Japanese coast. But this danger did not hinder the transportation of Japanese troops to Korea, which began on February 18th. The following month saw a continuation of Japanese successes and of Russian losses. Several times Admiral Togo attacked Port Arthur, at one time or another almost all of the Russian ships of war sustaining more or less serious damage. Vladivostok was bombarded, and a succession of minor engagements took place between the outposts of the two opposing armies advancing toward one another from opposite sides of the Yalu river. On February 24th Admiral Togo made an unsuccessful attempt to “bottle up” the Russian fleet in the harbour of Port Arthur by sinking five old steam-ships in the channel. Early in March, General Kuropatkin, the Russian minister of war, was appointed by the czar to the supreme command of the Russian armies in Manchuria to succeed Viceroy Alexiev and Admiral Makarov was at the same time appointed to the command of the fleet. By the end of the month the Japanese had, on the Manchurian border, in Korea, with which country they had concluded a close alliance, a force estimated at eighty thousand, with a base at Ping Yang. This was faced by a Russian force, slightly smaller, but increased daily by reinforcements which kept arriving in a continuous stream over the Trans-Siberian and Manchurian railways. The Japanese successes appeared well nigh to stupefy Russia, and the demoralisation of the czar’s official advisers seemed complete. Beside the loss of General Kuropatkin, who was succeeded as minister of war by General Sakarov, both Count Lamsdorf, minister of foreign affairs, and M. Witte, the finance minister, retired from the cabinet. On April 13th, the Russian battle-ship Petropavlovsk struck a mine or floating torpedo near the entrance to Port Arthur harbour and sank with all on board, including Admiral Makarov and the war artist Vereshchagin.

During the succeeding month war operations of importance or interest were confined to the land. By the first of May the principal points in the Japanese military programme had unfolded themselves. The absolute command of the sea and coast, thus assuring ease and safety in the transportation of troops and munitions of war, had been secured, and an efficient and formidable army had been landed on the Asiatic mainland. Korea too had been thoroughly occupied. The Japanese army, in the last days of April, began its forward movement under General Kuroki, the purpose being to cross the Yalu at several points and drive the Russians back into Manchuria.

On May 1st, after a six days fight on the Yalu near Wi-ju, the Japanese won their first land victory, and secured a firm footing on the Manchurian side of the Yalu. During the month of May Kuroki continued his advance into the interior, but his progress was slow owing to the difficulty in maintaining communication with the coast and constant skirmishing with the Cossacks who opposed his advance guard. Kuropatkin meanwhile proceeded to concentrate his forces at Liauyang on the Manchurian Railway south of Harbin, with the apparent intention of leaving Port Arthur to its fate.

It was about the latter place that the activity now centred and against it a second Japanese army under General Oku advanced. On May 25th Oku landed a force of some forty thousand men near Kin-chau on the narrowest point of the Liao-tung peninsula. At this point the Nan-shan hills extending from Kin-chau, on the western side of the isthmus toward Dalny on the east afforded the Russians an excellent opportunity for defence and here they had constructed a strong line of fortifications, mounted a large number of guns and manned them with the flower of the Port Arthur army. After a series of tentative attacks, Oku made a grand assault under cover of fire from warships in the harbour of Kin-chau. In the charge up the heights he lost over 4,000 men, but drove out the Russians, who lost 2,000 men and 78 cannon. Two days later the Japanese occupied Russia’s great commercial port, Dalny, finding the docks, piers, and railway yards uninjured. It was thenceforward the Japanese base.

[1904-1905 A.D.]

Port Arthur was now left to its fate, save for the single effort of General Stakelberg who was detached with 40,000 men to make a dash southward, but was defeated by Oku at Telissu (Vofangow), eighty miles north of Port Arthur (June 14-16), and by Kuroki. He made his escape, having lost some 10,000 men on his vain foray.

Kuropatkin’s tactics were Fabian and his eventual reliance was the reinforcements which the Siberian railway poured in as fast as possible. The Japanese forced the attack. Marshal Oyama was in charge of the armies opposed to Kuropatkin, his subordinates being Nodzu and the brilliant Kuroki. General Oku also joined Oyama, the Port Arthur siege being placed in the command of General Nogi. June 26-27 the Japanese took the well-nigh impregnable position at Fen-shiu-ling pass. Shortly after Kuroki took the important pass of Motien-ling. On July 17 General Count Keller made a desperate effort to recapture it, but was repulsed with heavy loss. July 24 Oku took Tashichiao and forced the Russians back to the walled city of Hai-cheng. July 29 Kuroki took the Yangtse pass, in whose defence General Keller was killed. Oku having turned his right flank, Kuropatkin was forced to evacuate Hai-cheng and retreat to his base at Liauyang. He was also compelled to give up the important city of New-Chwang.

The capture of Liauyang was a great problem. The Japanese were not ready to open battle till August 24, when they began a twelve days’ combat which takes a permanent place as one of the largest and fiercest battles in history. The Russians were estimated at 200,000; the Japanese at 240,000. The Japanese confessed a loss of 25,000; the Russian loss was perhaps still greater, as they were defeated and escaped capture or annihilation only by Kuropatkin’s ingenuity in retreat.

The Russians retired to Mukden. October 2nd Kuropatkin felt strong enough to take the offensive, and assailed Oyama on the river Shakhe or the Sha-ho. A series of battles followed, lasting till October 18, when the Russians fell back again to Mukden, after a loss of 45,000 men killed and wounded, according to a Russian staff report. Oyama claimed to have found 13,300 Russians dead on the field, and admitted a loss of 15,800 on his own side.

Meanwhile Port Arthur was undergoing one of the most important sieges in history. The siege began on May 26th, when Nan-shan hill was taken and Dalny occupied, though on August 12th the last of the outlying defences was taken and the Japanese sat down before the permanent works. They combined a patient and scientific process of sapping, trenching and tunnelling, with a series of six grand assaults. The collaboration of such skill with such reckless heroism had its inevitable result. The garrison under General Stoessel held out with splendid courage against an army totalling perhaps 100,000, but the gradual exhaustion of ammunition, food, and strength, together with the appearance of scurvy, compelled a surrender. January 3rd, 1905, the Japanese took possession, finding 878 officers, 23,491 men, besides several thousand non-combatants.

The fleet which had made several efforts to escape had been reduced by loss after loss, and finally, on the capture of 203 Metre Hill, had been subjected to the fire of the land artillery and completely destroyed.

During the leaguer of Port Arthur and the gradual beating back of Kuropatkin, other Russian activities kept diplomacy busy. The seizure of neutral ships in the Red Sea by two vessels that passed the Dardanelles as merchantmen and then equipped as cruisers, provoked such indignation in England and Germany that the seizures were discontinued. The Vladivostok squadron made daring raids upon Japanese and neutral vessels, but after a long pursuit was caught by Admiral Kamimura, who sank the Ruric and crippled the other two cruisers.

Much talk was made of sending the powerful Baltic fleet to the aid of Port Arthur under the command of Admiral Rojestvensky. It set forth in October after infinite delays. On the night of the 21st, while in the North Sea, off the Dogger Bank, it met a fleet of British fishing smacks and fired on it, sinking one boat and killing two fishermen. The indignation of the English people was intense, an inquiry was demanded, during the progress of which the Baltic fleet continued on its long voyage.

The internal condition of Russia was rendered critical by the war, and by profound commercial distress. June 15th the Governor-General over Finland, Bobrikov, was assassinated by an opponent of the russification policy. On July 29th the Czar’s minister of the interior, Von Plehve, was slain by a bomb thrown at his carriage. Rightly or wrongly, Von Plehve was considered the special author and adviser of the increasing vigour and tyranny of the czar’s internal administration. Jews abhorred him as the man responsible for the Kishinev massacres, and the Finns looked upon him as the destroyer of their national institutions. He was succeeded by Prince Peter Sviatopolk-Mirsky, a man of comparatively liberal and progressive views.

This gave some encouragement to the zemstvos, the farthest step toward representative government yet taken in Russia. They date only from the czar’s ukase of January, 1864. Each of the districts in which Russia is divided is represented by an assembly, elected by the three estates, communes, municipalities, and landowners. Each district assembly in a province sends delegates to a general provincial assembly or zemstvo, which body controls the roads, primary schools, etc. Alexander II meant that these zemstvos should acquire large power, but after his death they fell under the sway of provincial governors. November 21st, 1904, the zemstvos lifted their heads again, and their presidents met in a congress which, by a majority of 105 to 3, voted to beg the czar to grant Russia a constitution and a genuine representative government.

The czar, with some asperity of tone, refused a constitution, and while promising certain reforms, rebuked the zemstvos and forbade their further discussion of such unsettling topics. Prince Sviatopolk-Mirsky now resigned, declaring that Russia was on the brink of a great revolution, and that the bureaucracy must be supplanted by “the freely elected representatives of the people.” In January, 1905, Sergius de Witte succeeded to the office of minister of the interior. One of the most prominent European statesmen, a liberal, and an enemy of Von Plehve, his first statements were nevertheless disappointing to the believers that radical reforms alone can save Russia.