The October Manifesto was published at the peak of Revolution of 1905, following the general strike of October of 1905 in which 2 million people took to the streets and railroads were blocked. The government considered two possible solutions to the crisis: a military dictatorship and liberal reforms to win popular support. Those who supported reforms were led by Sergei Witte, who wrote a report urging Tsar Nicholas II to grant a constitution, a representative assembly, and civil freedoms. On October 27 (October 14 O.S.) Nicholas ordered that the main points of the report were to be listed in the form of a manifesto. The draft was written overnight by Prince Alexei Obolensky. Nicholas signed it on October 30 (October 17 O.S.), and the next day it was published in the newspaper Pravi-telstvennyi Vestnik (Governmental Courier).
The October Manifesto gave the ruling body permission to use every means to end disorders, disobedience, and abuse, and gave the “highest government” the responsibility to act, in accordance with the tsar’s “unbendable” will, to “Grant the population the undisputable foundation for civil freedom on the basis of protection of identity, freedom of conscience, speech, assemblies and unions.” Voting rights were promised, “to some extent, to those classes of the population that, at present, do not have the right to vote,” and it was proclaimed as an “undisputable rule that no law can be passed without the approval of the Duma and for the possibility of supervision of the lawfulness of the actions of the administration to be given to the national representatives.” The manifesto concluded by calling upon “all true sons of Russia to end . . . the unimaginable revolt” and, along with the emperor, “to concentrate all forces on restoring peace and quiet on the homeland.”
The October Manifesto was highly controversial. There were mass meetings and demonstrations
1087
welcoming its promise of freedom in the regional capitals and many other cities. Similarly, there were mass meetings and demonstrations, often violent, calling for an autocracy of “patriots” and condemning the manifesto as perpetrated by revolutionaries and Jews. In the three weeks after the manifesto was issued, there were outbreaks of violence in 108 cities, 70 small towns, and 108 villages, leaving at least 1,622 dead, and 3,544 crippled and wounded.
The liberal reaction to the manifesto was mixed. Right-wing liberals saw it as a realization of their political hopes and united as the Union of October 17. Left-wing liberals, joining together to organize the Constitutional Democratic Party, believed that further reforms were needed, and their leader, Paul Milyukov, stated that nothing changed and the struggle would continue. Left-wing parties and leaders saw the manifesto as a sign of the government’s weakness; its capitulation under revolutionary pressure showed that the pressure on the government had to be intensified.
The political program embodied in the manifesto began to take effect on October 19, 1905, with the appointment of a government headed by Witte. Between October 1905 and March 1906 the government published a series of orders regarding political amnesties, censorship, modification of the State Council, and other matters. All of these were incorporated in the second edition of the Fundamental Laws, passed on April 23, 1906.
The most important outcome of the October Manifesto was the creation of a bicameral representative institution and the legalization of political parties, trade unions and other social organizations, and a legal oppositionist press. See also: CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY; DUMA; FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF 1906; OCTOBER GENERAL STRIKE OF 1905; REVOLUTION OF 1905; WITTE, SERGEI YULIEVICH
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ascher, Abraham. (1988, 1992). The Revolution of 1905. Vol.1: Russia in Disarray; Vol. 2: Authority Restored. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Harcave, Sidney. (1970). First Blood: The Russian Revolution of 1905. New York: Macmillan. Harcave, Sidney, trans. and ed. (1990). The Memoirs of Count Witte. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Mehlinger, Howard D., and Tompson, John M. (1972). Count Witte and the Tsarist Government in the 1905 Revolution. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Szeftel, Marc. (1976). The Russian Constitution of April 23, 1906: Political Institutions of the Duma Monarchy. Brussels: Editions de la Libraire encyclop?dique.
During the October 1917 Russian Revolution, the liberal, western-oriented Provisional Government headed by Alexander Kerensky, which was established following the February 1917 Russian Revolution that overthrew Tsar Nicholas II, was removed and replaced by the first Soviet government headed by Vladimir Lenin. The October Revolution began in Petrograd (now St. Petersburg), then the capital of Russia, and quickly spread to the rest of the country. One of the seminal events of the twentieth century in terms of its worldwide historical impact, the October Revolution is also one of the most controversial and hotly debated historical events in modern times.
Most western historians, especially at the height of the Cold War, viewed the October Revolution as a brilliantly organized military coup d’?tat without significant popular support, carried out by a tightly knit band of professional revolutionaries brilliantly led by the fanatical Lenin. This interpretation, severely undermined by western “revisionist” social history in the 1970s and 1980s, was rejuvenated after the dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of the Gorbachev era, even though information from newly declassified Soviet archives reinforced the revisionist view. At the other end of the political spectrum, for nearly eighty years Soviet historians, bound by strict historical canons designed to legitimate the Soviet state and its leadership, depicted the October Revolution as a broadly popular uprising of the revolutionary Russian masses. According to them, this social upheaval was deeply rooted in Imperial Russia’s historical development and shaped by universal laws of history as formulated by Karl Marx and Lenin. There are kernels of truth and considerable distortion in both of these interpretations.
WAR AND REVOLUTION
The outbreak of World War I in August 1914 found Russian politics and society in great flux. To be
1088
Leaders of the Bolshevik party are pictured around their leader, Vladimir Lenin. Top row (from left): Rykov, Radek, Pokrovsky, Kamenev; middle row: Trotsky, Lenin, Sverdlov; bottom row: Bukharin, Zinoviev, Krylenko, Kollontai, Lunacharsky. Stalin is not included in this 1920 collage. © HULTON-DEUTSCH COLLECTION/CORBIS sure, the autocratic tsarist political system had somehow managed to remain intact throughout the revolutions of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Even the Revolution of 1905, which resulted in the creation of a constitutional monarchy with an elected parliament (the Duma), had left predominant political authority in the hands of Tsar Nicholas II. The abolition of serfdom by Alexander II in 1861 had freed the Russian peasantry, the vast bulk of the empire’s population, from personal bondage. However, the terms of the emancipation were such that most peasants remained impoverished. Moreover, a fundamental land reform program initiated by Peter Stolypin in 1906 was so complex that, irrespective of the long-term prospects, when it was interrupted by the war in 1914, the Russian countryside was in particularly great turmoil.
In the late nineteenth century, enlightened officials such as Sergei Witte had reversed government opposition to industrialization and spearheaded a program of rapid economic development. However, the pace of this development was too slow to meet Russia’s needs, and the industrial revolution resulted in the crowding of vast numbers of immiserated workers into squalid, rat-infested factory ghettos in St. Petersburg, Moscow, and other major Russian cities. It is small wonder, then, that in the opening years of the twentieth century, the major Russian liberal and socialist political parties that were destined to play key roles in 1917 took shape and began to attract popular follow-ings. Likewise, it is no surprise that the Russian government was suddenly faced with a growing, increasingly ambitious and assertive professional middle class, waves of peasant rebellions, and burgeoning labor unrest.
Framed against these political and social realities, the significant degree of popular support enjoyed by the Russian government at the start of
1089
the war, in so far as it was visible, must have been heartening to Nicholas II. The Constitutional Democratic
