Chapter 17 Part III The World at the Time of Western Occupation Dominance, 1763-1914 (Part 2)

It seems reasonable to examine the influence of Europe on Russia, because Russia is, after all, a part of Europe, and Russians are a nation of Europe.But Russia is on the edge of Europe, consisting of a large buffer zone between Europe and Asia.Because of this position, the Russians had a completely different historical experience than other Europeans, and the culture they developed was correspondingly different.Generation after generation of Russian thinkers, therefore, tormented themselves with the fundamental question of national orientation and national goals. Russia's relationship with the West has generally been one of passive acceptance.Only in the past century and a half has Russia been able to repay the West, first with the works of its great writers and composers, and later with the techniques of economic planning and means of social promotion resulting from the Bolshevik revolution.However, before the 20th century, European influence on Russia was much greater than Russia's influence on Europe, and this influence has always been a major factor in Russia's development.

The first Russian state developed around the Principality of Kyiv in the 9th century AD (see Chapter 8, Section 2).This early Russian state had many connections with the rest of Europe.It not only conducted a large number of trade exchanges with Byzantium across the Black Sea, but also conducted a large number of trade exchanges with Northwest Europe across the Baltic Sea.It is worth noting that in the 11th century, Grand Duke Yaroslav established marriage relations with major European dynasties: his sister married Kazimierz I of Poland, his son married a Byzantine princess, his The two daughters were married to Henry I of France and Harald III of Norway.

Over the next few centuries, two decisive developments combined to isolate Russia quite effectively.One development is that Vladimir VI decided around 990 AD to accept the Byzantine Orthodox form of Christianity rather than the Roman Catholic form.At that time, there was not much difference between the two religions.However, the two Churches parted ways in 1054 due to the development of doctrine and practice concerning the papal supremacy over the next few decades.Russia inevitably began to become embroiled in the resulting long-term discord between the Catholic and Orthodox worlds.This was especially the case after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks (1453), which made Russia the only independent stronghold of the Orthodox Church.These events made Russians smug, self-righteous, and self-isolated.The greatest good imaginable is the Russian Orthodox way of life, and the greatest evil imaginable is the Western Latin way of thinking.Scorning and ignoring the great changes that were transforming the rest of Europe, Orthodox Russia had but one goal—to remain untainted by pagan Catholics.

Another development that cut Russia off from the West was the Mongol invasion in 1237 (see Chapter VIII, Section 2).The Mongols provided only that their Russian subjects recognized the suzerainty of the Khan.Pay tribute to the Khan every year and don't interfere in their affairs.Mongol rule, however, severed most of Russia's remaining links with the rest of Europe.The severance of this link, which lasted for two centuries of Mongol rule, came at a time when the West was undergoing the Renaissance, Reformation, overseas expansion, and commercial revolution.But an undamaged Russia remained largely unaffected by these far-reaching economic and cultural movements.In the Orthodox East there were no scholars like Erasmus or Vinci, no families like the Fuers or Medicis, no cities like Lisbon or Antwerp.Furthermore, the Mongols left their own imprint on Russian society.Their ideas and management methods paved the way for the establishment of a semi-Oriental despotism in the later Russian Shashi. It is not for nothing that at the end of the seventeenth century some 17 percent of the members of the Moscow upper class were of non-Russian or Oriental origin.

When the Russians got rid of the Mongols in the fifteenth century, the Russian civilization that emerged was quite different from that of Western Europe.It was a harmonious civilization in the sense that the Orthodox Church influenced and shaped people's views and actions.But it was also a civilization largely devoid of the commerce, industry, and science that made the West so vital and so expansive.The less blind, more forward-looking Russian leaders quickly saw that their economic and technological backwardness was an intolerable threat to their own national security.Thus the Russians in the sixteenth century, like the Turks, Japanese, and Chinese in later centuries, began to borrow from the West as a means of self-defense.They were first interested in borrowing military technology from the West.

This policy is not unrealistic or moot.Rather, it was a matter of life and death, as Russia was surrounded by the powerful Swedes, Lithuanians and Poles to the west and the Turks and Crimean Tatars to the south.It is worth noting that when Tsar Ivan IV (reigned 1533-1584) proposed to Queen Elizabeth of England a military alliance or even a marriage, the Polish king hurriedly wrote to Elizabeth begging her to reject the proposal. "So far," he wrote, "we have been able to defeat it (Russia) only because it is a layman to education and does not understand technology." At Elva, the Polish king complained to Elizabeth that the growing power of the Grand Duchy of Moscow had been caused by British technical assistance.

Therefore, Russia's neighbors deliberately try to prevent Russia from acquiring Western weapons and technology.On the part of the Russians, they naturally attempted to break the siege that isolated them, and in doing so they continued to succeed. During the 17th century, the Russians hired many foreign officers to train and lead their armies.Among these newcomers, the lucky Scottish soldier was particularly distinguished.While most of them served in Russia for only a short period, some settled permanently and became Russified.For example, in the 17th century, there was a captain named Lilmont who stopped serving the Poles and switched to serving the Russians. He was the ancestor of the famous Russian poet Lermontov in the 19th century.Likewise, Barclay of Towy, Aberdeenshire, settled at Riga, and one of his descendants was General Barclay de Tolly, who led the Russian army against Napoleon's army.

Tsar Peter the Great (reigned 1682-1725) greatly accelerated this process of Westernization.He promulgated more than 3,000 decrees with iron will and great drive, many of which were written by himself, and almost all of them were enacted at his behest.He reformed his administration and army in the Western manner, established industries to feed his army, brought in thousands of specialists of all kinds, sent groups of young Russians to study abroad, and established many Schools—All schools are of a materialistic character: the Schools of Mathematics and Navigation, the Naval School, the Army School, the School of Computing and, at the top, the Academy of Sciences.Peter also broke all precedents and traveled to Western Europe to learn directly the various systems and practices of foreign countries.He had no interest in French culture or the British parliamentary system, but he worked like an ordinary laborer in the shipyards of England and Holland in order to learn what seemed to him most useful to his country.

By all these means, Peter largely achieved what he called the opening of a "window to the west."Moreover, he opened the window in a strict sense by defeating Sweden and acquiring the Baltic coast; on the Baltic coast he founded the new capital St. Petersburg - a symbol of the new Russia, just as Moscow was the symbol of the old Russia Same.These changes, however, were made against fierce opposition from a large section of the population.Peter's father, Tsar Alexei, had been compelled by such conformism to abandon his efforts to build a permanent theater and relax the ban on foreign dress.Likewise, throughout his reign Peter had to contend not only with the indifference and suspicion of the masses but also with the overt or covert opposition of the conservative great nobles and clergy.Even the changes which he did bring about were limited in two important respects: they were essentially military, economic, and technological in character, and they affected only a small number of the general population. Some approving members of the upper class.

Peter's work was continued by the talented and compelling Catherine the Great (reigned 1762-1796).Catherine saw herself and her court as vehicles for the Europeanization of Russia.She was far more knowledgeable than the dogmatic Peter, and was an active patron of literature, art, theater and the press.Although she is not an original thinker, she is willing to absorb the ideas of others, especially philosophers.In fact, she prided herself on being an enlightened despot, often citing Enlightenment maxims.During her reign, the Russian high aristocracy had begun to Europeanize to the point of breaking away from national traditions.The nobles with beards and flowing oriental robes during Peter's reign now imitated the court of Versailles in their speech, dress, residence, and social position.During this period, the children of the nobility were educated by French governesses, first learning French as their mother tongue, and then picking up the smattering of Russian, just enough to manage servants.Thus, the Europeanization of Russia was no longer limited to technical aspects, although it continued to be confined to the upper classes.In fact, the chasm between the Europeanized upper classes and the mass of peasants bound as serfs to the estates was widening and irritating.This division is reflected in the following description of a luxurious and voluptuous ruling class fed by serf labor:

This glaring injustice of Russian society was simply at odds with the principles of the Enlightenment that Catherine boasted.But Ekaterina is too much of a realist to care too much about the disconnect between theory and reality.She knew that her status depended on the support of the nobles, so she never seriously challenged the interests and privileges of the nobles.On the contrary, when the French Revolution broke out, she turned vehemently against the teachings of the philosophers.She condemned the revolution as "an anti-religious, immoral, anarchic, hateful, violent plague, the enemy of God and the king".She also said: "The National Assembly should burn all the most powerful French writers, and all those who have spread the language of these writers throughout Europe, although all these people have expressed their opposition to the abominable confusion they have created.  … As for The people and their opinion, that's irrelevant." Catherine was so flippant about disregarding the opinion of the "people," but her successors were different.This was especially the case after the great Russian victory over Napoleon's Grande Armée. Between 1815 and 1818, a Russian occupying force was stationed in France.Naturally, these events had a profound effect on Russian public opinion.The majority's sense of Western superiority and condescension was heightened, but many officers of the occupying forces were deeply impressed by the relatively liberal Western society in which they had lived for four years.They absorbed the liberal and radical ideas of France at that time, and were deeply influenced by these ideas.When they returned to Russia in 1818, they found the tsarist dictatorship intolerable.One veteran described his reaction upon returning to his home country as follows: It is sentiments such as the above that explain the so-called Decembrist uprising.The uprising broke out in December 1825 after the death of Alexander I.Most of its leaders were military officers who hoped to abolish serfdom and autocracy and Westernize Russia.Unfortunately, the uprising failed due to lack of support from the masses.At that time, the living environment of the Russians was completely different from the general living environment in Western Europe, so they were indeed not ready to accept Western political ideas and political systems.More precisely, Russia lacked the commerce, industry, and middle class that had played a decisive role in the political development of the West.Instead, there was a fettered, lifeless mass of serfs at the bottom of society, commonly known as the "black people," and aristocrats and courts at the top.As a result, the various reforms and the Western-style society that the Decembrists wanted were not supported by the masses. The significance of these fundamental differences between Russia and the West is that it divides Russian thinkers into two schools—Western Europeans and Slavophiles.Western Europeans deplore these differences, seeing them as a product of Russia's slower rate of development.Their hero, therefore, was Peter the Great, and they urged other rulers to do as much as Peter did to drive Russia to catch up with the West.However, the Slavophiles denied the basic view of the Western Europeans that human civilization is unified.They maintain that each nation embodies and expresses the particular ethos of its people, and that any attempt to make one nation imitate another will inevitably result in contradiction and inconsistency.The differences between Russia and the West, they believed, were fundamental and intrinsic, reflecting deep differences in national ethos rather than in degree of progress.The Slavophiles thus idealized the harmonious Russian society of the pre-St. Peter period and saw Peter as the main enemy of Russian civilization and national unity.They don't think western society is better at all, they don't accept western society, they think it is materialistic, faithless, torn apart by conflicts and revolutions. "In contrast to Russia's strength, unity, and harmony," wrote one Slavophile, "there is only quarrel, division, and weakness against which our greatness stands out—as light against shadow. . . . " Therefore, a member of the Western European faction on the opposing side retorted: "Civilization there (Western Europe) is all the fruit of labor; science and technology have cost so much sweat and so many generations! If you throw away Superstition, if you cast aside your prejudices, if you do not fear the loss of your barbaric past, if you do not boast of your ignorance through the ages, if you aspire to possess the fruits of all peoples and the riches of the human spirit in all parts of the world, then , then everything can be yours.” The dispute between Slavophiles and Western Europeans was resolved not by the persuasion of one side over the other, but by the irresistible pressure of rapidly developing and expanding Western society.This pressure was dramatically illustrated by the Crimean War (1854-1856) between Russia and a number of Western powers, the most important of which were Britain and France.The war was fought on Russia's land - the Crimea Peninsula. However, Russia was defeated and had to accept the humiliating Treaty of Paris.The treaty required Russia to withdraw its naval forces and demolish its fortifications along the Black Sea coast, and it also forced other countries to surrender certain small but strategic areas along the Danube. The defeat in Crimea was a serious blow to Russian nationalists and Slavophiles.They had predicted with confidence that the superiority of the Russian autocracy would lead to a victory comparable to that of Napoleon in 1812.A member of the Slavophile declared: "The West will learn that its vaunted liberty and liberal institutions are of little use in times of danger, and the Russians who praise them will be forced to admit that a strong, guiding despotism is the the only means of national greatness." The West Europeans did not share this optimism about the outcome of the war.In fact, they predicted catastrophic failure, and they made that prediction because Russia failed to keep up with Europe. This prophecy of the Western European school proved to be correct in every respect.Russia was defeated, and this defeat had the effect of exposing the corruption and backwardness of the old regime.Russian soldiers fought as bravely in 1855 as in 1812.But the odds were hopelessly against the Russian soldiers: the rifles they used had a range one-third of that of Western armies.They had only sailing ships against English and French steamers.They have no medical services or rations worthy of the name.Because of the lack of railroads in the Crimea, they had to haul supplies in carts and had to walk hundreds of miles before reaching the front.In short, the war was lost for the reason, as Western Europeans perceive it, that "Europe has been steadily advancing on the path of progress, while we have been standing still." The bankruptcy shown by the old system led to the transformation of the old system.The first change was the emancipation of the serfs; even before the war the serfs had been extremely restless.In fact, during the 30 years of Nicholas I's reign from 1825 to 1855, more than 500 peasant riots broke out.With the disaster in Crimea, the rising pressure on the serfs became so irresistible that Nicholas's successor, Alexander II, saw the emancipation of the serfs as the only alternative to revolution.Alexander's decision was also encouraged by many nobles who favored the emancipation of the serfs in order to take advantage of the growing demand for grain in an increasingly industrialized and urbanized Europe.They found that as long as all the land was allocated to the serfs, they could not produce a large surplus of grain for export, because the grain grown by the serfs barely met their own needs, and only a small part could be given to the noble landowners.The more far-sighted nobles, therefore, favored the emancipation of farming and herding from the compacts which had hitherto bound them to small holdings.Thus, the nobility intended to combine small plots of land, employ efficient, large-scale agricultural techniques, and employ only those former serf laborers whose labor actually served their needs, so that they would not have to feed the entire rapidly growing serf population.In other words, the progressive Russian aristocracy favored the emancipation of the serfs for the same reasons that the English aristocracy had supported and practiced enclosure for the preceding three centuries. Thanks to the combination of these circumstances, Alexander II was able to issue a decree on March 1, 1861, abolishing serfdom.Under the terms of the decree, all farming and herding were declared free, and the land cultivated by the serfs was divided between the serfs and the noble landowners.Aristocratic landowners received long-term treasury bills paid by the government for the distribution of land to peasants.In return, farmers must pay 49 years of land redemption fees to repay the government.This is a major turning point in Russian history, even more significant than the 1863 "Emancipation Proclamation" in American history.In America the Emancipation Proclamation concerned only a minority of blacks, while in Russia the decree abolishing serfdom concerned an overwhelming majority of the population.The effects of the emancipation of the serfs were so far-reaching that a series of other reforms proved inevitable, including those of the court system and local government. In the decades following the Crimean War, Western Europe further weakened the Russian ancien regime by contributing decisively to its industrialization.The number of factory workers rose from 381,000 in 1865 to 162,000 in 1890, and then to 3,000,000 in 1898.By 1913, Russia produced as much iron as France, and Russia produced three-quarters as much coal as France.This rapid pace of industrialization in the half-century preceding World War I was not due solely to Western aid.The tsarist regime took various measures to accelerate industrialization, including providing subsidies and imposing protective tariffs.But the significance of the Western contribution can be perceived from the fact that in 1917 just over a third of the total of £500 million invested in Russian industry consisted of foreign investment.Foreign capital controls 50% of coal and oil production, 60% of copper and iron ore production, and 80% of coke production. These developments meant that Russia in 1914 was far more similar to Europe than the Russia of the Decembrists in 1825.However, these growing similarities, as the Slavophiles warned, gave rise to certain divisions and conflicts in Russian society.One of these was the growing unrest and growing political consciousness of the peasant masses.They were by no means content with the terms of the decree abolishing serfdom, which, they felt, left too large a portion of the land to the nobility.In the following decades, as the number of peasants increased rapidly, so did their desire for land, becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo.Another source of peasant discontent is the unbearably heavy tax burden.Not only did they have to pay redemption fees for the land they acquired in 1861, but they also had to pay various local taxes.Moreover, they were responsible for much of the cost of Russia's industrialization, since high protective duties made the manufactured goods they bought more expensive.The scope and intensity of peasant dissatisfaction became apparent as peasant backlash against landlords and unpopular government officials became more frequent.The events described in the following passage took place in 1917, but there are many, many other events of a similar nature that occurred in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This peasant dissatisfaction was expressed politically by the Socialist-Revolutionary Party organized in 1898.Because before the revolution broke out in 1905, no political parties were allowed in Russia.So the Socialist-Revolutionary Party had to operate as an illegal secret society.The main point of its program was the distribution of state and aristocratic lands to the peasantry.They differ from various Marxist socialists in two important respects.First, they believed that the peasantry, not the urban proletariat, was the main revolutionary force in Russia.Second, they promote and carry out individual acts of terrorism rather than relying on mass organization and pressure.Within the Socialist-Revolutionary Party there is a very secret combat organization directing terrorist activities.Its success can be gauged from the long list of its famous victims, including provincial governors, state ministers and even the Tsar's uncle, the Grand Duke Sergius.After each successful operation, the fighting organization issued a statement explaining and praising the operation.After the assassination of D. S. Sipiagin, Minister of the Interior, it declared: "Until our ministers learn to understand the language of man and to listen to their subjects, the sound of bullets is the only possible means by which we can communicate with them. We need not explain why Sipiagin is to be executed. His crimes are too obvious, his life is very universally cursed, and his death is very universally welcomed." Consistent with the peasant unrest was that of the urban proletariat that arose with the growth of industry.In the early days of Russian industrialization.As elsewhere in Europe, there was serious exploitation of labor: 16-hour working day, low wages, child labour, poor working and living conditions.According to a report on the construction of working-class housing in Moscow in 1895, "it is no exaggeration to say that these places can only be compared with cattle-raising places. Even in winter, when the doors and windows are open, the air is dull; along the walls and On the sleeping bench, traces of mildew were visible. The floor was invisible. It was covered with dirt." Under these conditions, Russian workers were as much influenced by Marxist teachings as those in Central and Western Europe.Thus a Social Democratic Party was formed in 1898, just as similar Socialist Parties had been formed elsewhere in Europe.Russian Social-Democracy, like other socialist parties, split into revisionist and orthodox factions, so-called Mensheviks and Bolsheviks in this case. The split occurred at the party's Second Congress in London in 1903.The points of contention have to do with party membership and party discipline.The leader of the Orthodox faction, Nikolai Lenin, insisted that because of the Tsar's repressive dictatorship, the Social Democrats had to work distinctly from other socialist parties.Membership should not be given to any dues-paying sympathizer, but only to a small group of dedicated professional revolutionaries.This select group of members operates according to the principles of "democratic centralism".Any important issue facing the party can be freely discussed by members until it is decided by a vote in a democratic manner.However, when a decision is made, the "centralization" part of the principle comes into play.Every member of the party, regardless of his personal orientation, must unswervingly support the "party line" at this time, and those who violate it will be expelled from the party. Lenin emphasized that only by exercising such strict discipline could Russian socialists be able to work effectively underground.Lenin won the support of a majority of the delegates at the 1903 Congress, so that his supporters were henceforth known as the Bolsheviks—the Russian word for "majority"—and his opponents the Bolsheviks. Vic, that is, "minority".It should be noted, however, that before the outbreak of the First World War the Bolsheviks were still a very small group.After the outbreak of World War I, the chaos and suffering caused by the defeat at the front gave the Bolsheviks the opportunity to use their excellent organization to mobilize and lead the disaffected masses. At the beginning of the 20th century, in addition to peasants and urban workers, there was a middle class in Russia that also grew dissatisfied with the tsarist regime.The political organization that reflects the views of this group is the Cadets, often called the Cadets by their abbreviated name.Founded in 1905, the party's platform is similar to that of the British Liberal Party: implement a constitutional monarchy and balance it with a parliamentary body similar to the British House of Commons.The Cadets included many of Russia's prominent intellectuals and businessmen.When the tsar had to accept an elected parliament (the Duma) after the revolution of 1905, the Cadets, because of their knowledge and articulation of parliamentary procedure, took the lead in deliberations.However, the Cadets never won a large following comparable to those of the Social Democrats and Socialist Revolutionaries.One reason was that Russia had a small middle class as commerce and industry were hindered.The middle class is further weakened by the control of large parts of the national economy by foreign powers.Furthermore, the Cadets were particularly vulnerable to the pressure of the tsarist dictatorship because, from their middle-class background, they were less inclined to meet violence with violence.A British observer at the time analyzed the weakness of their position as follows: "The Cadets, though they deserved their reputation as the best organized party in the Reich, did not hold the country firmly because they did not have the This control, they cannot practice their views, they cannot correctly evaluate their world philosophy, they do not take root among the people. Therefore, they do not have the support of peasants and workers as a party of theirs, they represent only themselves.” This was the case with the influence of the West on Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.The invasion of the West had gradually undermined a unique and harmonious society; the resulting pressures and conflicts echoed in the great revolutions of 1905 and 1917.Before examining these upheavals, we shall provide an overview of Russian policy in Asia and the Russo-Japanese War, which set the stage for the Revolution of 1905. Just as the relationship between Russia and Europe is basically determined by Europe's economic and technological advantages, the relationship between Russia and Asia is determined by Russia's advantages.Because of this advantage, even Russia in the 18th century was able to subdue the tribal peoples in Siberia and expand eastward to the Pacific Ocean.In the southeast, however, the Russians, held back by the powerful and populous Chinese Empire, had to accept the Treaty of Nerchinsk (1689) which restricted them to the area north of the Amur River. During the 18th and 19th centuries, the Russians completed their empire by pushing back east and south, acquiring Alaska, the Amur Valley, and Central Asia.The acquisition of Alaska was merely a continuation of the earlier push across Siberia into emptier regions.However, in the Amur Valley, the Russians defeated the Chinese Empire, and in Central Asia, they imposed their rule on the ancient Muslim founding states.These successes were only possible because Russia was making steady technological advances.This progress was not sufficient compared with the West - indeed it was received from the West - but it was enough to give the Russians a decisive advantage in dealing with the Chinese in East Asia and the Muslims in Central Asia.The Russians thus continued to expand the boundaries of their empire until they were stopped by those technologically equal or superior forces—namely, the Americans in Alaska, the British in India and Persia, and the Russians in Manchuria. Japanese. The Russian advance into Alaska began during the reign of Peter the Great.The Westernized Tsar was as interested in the Far East as in Europe, so he chose Captain Vitus Bering, a naval officer of Danish descent, to lead an expedition to the American continent.Peter's instruction was concise and to the point, which is also a characteristic of his instruction. Bering made two expeditions in 1728 and 1740.He did not resolve the question of whether Siberia and America were connected by land, because he first sailed east across the Bering Sea before reaching the strait that still bears his name and separates the two continents.However, Bering and his colleagues did survey the Aleutian Islands and landed on the coast of Alaska.Russian merchants, attracted by the lucrative trade in sea otter skins, followed the explorers.Merchants first exploited the Aleutian islanders and then established trading posts along the coast of Alaska. In 1799, various private trading companies united to form the Russian American Company.The eminent leader of Russia in Alaska was Alexander Baranov, who directed activities actively and dictatorially for years.His main problem was getting grain from Siberia across one of the most stormy and foggy oceans in the world.Baranov therefore sent expeditions along the coast of America to establish colonies where fresh food could be grown for trading posts in Alaska. In November 1811, the Russians established Roseburg on the Russian River north of San Francisco. By 1819, they had established 19 colonies on the American coast. This expansion led to discord between Russia and Spain and the United States.In fact, the Russian presence in the Pacific Northwest clearly contributed to the publication of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823.In the end, the Russians decided to give up their lands in America.The decline of the fur trade brought Russian-American companies to the brink of bankruptcy.The Russians worried that Alaska was too far away for them to protect it from American expansionism.Anticipating that they would lose the area sooner or later, they sold it to the United States in 1867 for $7 million, or less than two cents an acre. At the time, Russian activities in North America revived Russian interest in the Amur Valley.The Russians needed an outlet in the Pacific Ocean as a base for supplies to their American colonies.They did have the port of Okhotsk, but it was not enough, because the port was frozen every year until June, and was almost constantly shrouded in fog.In addition, the port borders on a shallow river with dangerous sand banks blocking the mouth of the river.Thus the Russians looked again with longing eyes at the broad, navigable Amur from which they had been expelled by the Treaty of Nerchinsk in 1689. Russian interest was further fueled by the so-called Opium War between China and Britain in 1839-1842 (see Chapter XVI, Section 1).As a result of the war, Britain annexed Hong Kong and gained great influence in the Yangtze River valley.The Russians were now determined to settle in the Amur valley, lest the British should next gain control of the Amur estuary, thereby blocking their natural outlet to the Pacific Ocean.In just 10 years, the Russians achieved all their goals in this vitally important region.One reason for their success was the ambition and drive of the young purchaser, Count Gula Muraviev, who was appointed Governor of Eastern Siberia in 1847 at the age of 38.Another reason was the weakness of China, which at that time was just a shell compared to the mighty empire that drove the Russians from the Amur valley in the 17th century. Count Muraviev had the broad powers of the governor, but he still exceeded his authority by sending expeditions to plant the Russian flag on foreign lands.One of his officers, Captain Levierskoy (later admiral), established the Petropavlovsk fortress on the Kamchatka Peninsula. After driving out the Japanese immigrants on Sakhalin Island, he visited并占领了该岛，使汽船在阿穆尔河下水，鼓励俄国殖民者定居阿穆尔河流域，并沿阿穆尔河河口和朝鲜边界之间的海岸建立了许多贸易站。对一个巨大地区的这种侵入的显著特点是仅使用了少量的人。东维尔斯科伊只有其船上的全体船员可由他支配，因此，他派6个人守卫一个贸易站，派7个人守卫另一贸易站。再各派8个人守卫其他两个贸易越。由于整个地区是一片中国人对它只有模糊的宗主权、没有任何控制的无人地带，这种小规模的行动是可行的。实际上，中国朝廷完全不知道俄国的做法，是俄国政府自己于1851年5月把所发生的事通知了中国人。 5 年后，也就是1856年，战事再一次在中国和英国之间爆发。中国人又遭惨败，不得不因天津条约（1858年）而向西方商人开放更多的港口和作其他的让步。穆拉维约夫抓住这一机会警告中国人注意英国人控制阿穆尔河的危险，并提议俄、中两国共同防守这一地区。结果是订立瑷珲条约（1858年）；根据这一条约，俄国获得阿穆尔河的至乌苏里江为止的左岸，此外，俄国和中国对阿穆尔河的直到大海为止的两岸行使共同的主权。 穆拉维约夫这时仔细地勘探了新赢得的地区，发现由于阿穆尔河下游区的冰的形成情况，控制该河的两岸对航行方面的目的来说是必不可少的。他还在朝鲜边界附近的海岸发现了一个极好的港湾。他不顾瑷珲条约的规定，在那里建立了一个城市（1860 年），用意深长地把它取名为符拉迪沃斯托克即东方的王后。当时，中国已卷入与西方强国的进一步的纠纷中，1860年，北京被英、法联军占领。俄国驻北京的公使尼古拉·伊格纳蒂夫伯爵作为调解人提供了帮助，成功地使同盟国在不太烦苛的条件下撤离首都。作为对这一帮助的报酬，中国政府心甘情愿地议订了北京条约（1860年），把阿穆尔河的从乌苏里江直到大海为止的两岸以及从阿穆尔河河口到朝鲜边界的整个沿海地区给了俄国。随着赢得这些新的辽阔的（存在到今天的）边远地区，俄国在远东的扩张开始停止。这种扩张直到别世纪初才又重新开始，因为20世纪初，沙皇尼古拉二世试图向南侵入朝鲜和满洲，从而加速与日本的一场灾难性的战争。 在此期间，俄国人也正在侵入中亚，不过，他们向这一地区的推进是直到19 世纪第二个25年时才开始的。之所以会耽搁，在某种程度上是由于缺乏可与北方有利可图的皮毛贸易相比的经济刺激。但是，还有其他一些原因：中亚的气候和植被全然不同于俄国人所习惯的气候和植被。紧靠着西伯利亚南部的是居住着哈萨克游牧民的草原区。再往南去，是大沙漠，上面点缀着供养了布哈拉、希瓦和浩罕这些古老的穆斯林汗国的肥沃绿洲。19世纪末叶以前，这些汗国在军事上比分散的西伯利亚部落强大得多，能够一直避免与俄国人亲近。实际上，俄国人为了挡住游牧民对其西伯利亚居留地的袭击，已在18世纪期间从奥伦堡到鄂木斯克修筑了一系列防御工事。 在1824 至1854年的30年间，俄国人征服了直到锡尔河的哈萨克草原，从而首次进入中亚。他们希望锡尔河充当一条永久的天然边界，但情况证明并非如此。远离首都、渴求荣誉和晋升的地方指挥官野心勃勃，时常通过造成既成事实来迫使政府有所行动。掳掠集团的经常性的骚扰也致使俄国人不顾圣彼得堡的疑虑和英国的抗议，进一步奋力前进。甚至英国政治家寇松勋爵也承认：“由于缺乏实际的障碍，由于所面临的敌人对生命的统治是劫掠，而且他们除了失败外不懂得外交上的逻辑，所以，俄国正象地球理应要绕太阳转一样，不得不前进。” 中亚穆斯林文明的传说中的中心，一个又一个地陷入正在前进中的俄国人之手——塔什干于1865 年陷落，布哈拉手1868年陷落，希瓦于1873年陷落，格奥克-杰彼于1881年陷落，梅尔夫于1884年陷落。这些猛烈的推进使在印度的英国人大为惊恐，遂战争的危机和谣言一再发生。然而，这一世纪是在没有公开冲突的情况下过去的，主要原因在于英、俄相隔的距离非常遥远、运输工具又十分有限。英、俄之间的斗争不是围绕武器的较量，而是围绕控制介于它们之间的国家、尤其是波斯和阿富汗而进行的。 俄国的统治大大地改变了中亚，不过程度上仍不及美国的统治对印度的改变。在积极方面，俄国人废除了普遍的奴隶制度和奴隶贸易，仅仅在撒马尔罕及其附近地方就解放了10， 000名奴隶。俄国人还铺筑铁路，其中著名的是奥伦堡-塔什干铁路线，它帮助俄国人进行征服和实现现代化。由于廉价的运输和俄国纺织工业的不断增长的需要，棉花栽培有了惊人的增长。1884年，在俄国人的倡议下，有300俄亩土地（1俄亩=2.7英亩）用于种棉花；到1899年，棉花的种植面积已猛增到90000俄亩。俄国人还引进某些土地改革，包括减少农民的税和农民对国家及地主所须履行的义务劳动。 另一方面，由于俄国人有计划地征用哈萨克人的放牧地，牲畜的数目减少，并出现普遍的饥荒。俄国人没有为土著的教育做什么事，把这一工作几乎完全留给了穆斯林的毛拉。在其他诸如法院系统和地方政府之类的领域，他们不及在印度的英国人活跃。最后结果是，在给中亚和沙皇帝国的其他地区一样带来许多变化的布尔什维克革命以前，众多的哈萨克人、吉尔吉斯人、土库曼人、乌兹别克人和塔吉克人并没有因俄国人的到来而受到什么影响。尽管有了铁路建设和棉花栽培的传播，征服者和被征服者还是生活在为语言、宗教和风俗习惯的障壁所分隔的不同世界里。 19世纪90年代，俄国的兴趣从中亚转移到远东。横贯西伯利亚的铁路正慢慢地接近完成，为俄国的经济扩张和政治扩张提供了新的机会。新任命的财政大臣塞奇·维特伯爵向沙皇亚历山大三世呈递了一份报告（1892年11月6日），他在报告中说，横贯西伯利亚的铁路线将代替苏伊士运河、成为前往中国的主要商人路线。他预见到俄国将处于亚洲和西方世界之间的仲裁人的地位，主张建立中俄联盟作为实现上述地位的最好手段。 1895 年中日战争的爆发（见第十六章第一节）为维特所赞成的联盟铺平了道路。中国又轻易地被打败，再三恳求英国和美国进行调解。英、美两国的拒绝迫使中国接受马关条约（1895年4月17日）；根据条约，中国割让台湾、澎湖列岛及辽东半岛给日本。但是，俄国这时与德国和法国一起进行干涉，迫使日本人归还辽东半岛。 这一帮助给中国人留下了深刻印象，第二年，中国人心甘情愿地与俄国签订一个秘密条约。该条约规定在日本侵略的情况下相互援助，而且还将建造穿过满洲、直抵符拉迪沃斯托克的中东铁路的特许权授予一家共同的中俄银行。这家银行名义上是一个私营公司，但实际上却为俄国政府所拥有、归俄国政府管理。到1904年日俄战争爆发时，它已在满洲敷设了总长为1596哩的铁路。 1898 年，为了对包括战略港口旅顺在内的辽东半岛进行为期25年的租借，俄国跟中国谈判；随后，俄国开始了在远东的下一步推进。两年后，俄国人利用伴随义和团起义而来的动乱占领了整个满洲地区。俄国这种稳步的侵占使日本人惊恐，因为日本人对亚洲大陆有他们自己的野心。日本人不能独力阻挡俄国人，所以决定通过获得同盟国来加强自己的力量。1902年1月30日，他们与英国缔结军事联盟（详见第十六章第八节）；这一后盾增强了日本人的力量，他们决心向俄国进行清算。 1903年7月，日本人提议，俄国应该承认日本在朝鲜的“占优势的利益”，作为回报，他们将承认俄国在满洲铁路事业方面的“特殊利益”。 对日本人的这一提议，俄国人的意见有分歧。财政大臣维特伯爵赞成接受提议，因为他感兴趣的是经济侵入而不是带有战争危险的政治并吞。但是，有影响的俄国冒险家们在朝鲜北部有巨大的木材租借地，希望能使自己的政府专心一意地促进他们的个人财富。俄国军界由于他们在旅顺港的现有基地和符拉迪沃斯托克之间的漫长距离，想在朝鲜沿海一带获得一个基地。俄国某些政治家因为担心国内不断高涨的革命浪潮，赞成以一次“小小的胜利的战争”充当民众骚动的避雷针。无疑，在他们的心目中，或者说在军人的心目中，俄国将在与日本的战争中取胜。事实上，他们轻蔑地称日本人为“马卡基”即“小猴子”，而且他们还认真地辩论一个俄国士兵是否抵得上一个半甚至二个日本士兵。 这批冒险家、军国主义者和政治家独行其是，设法免去维特的职务，实际拒绝了日本人的提议。由于有与英国的联盟作保障，再加上担心横贯西伯利亚的铁路即将竣工，日本人迅速、果断地发动了攻击。1904年2月5日，日本人停止谈判，三天后，他们未经正式宣战就进攻在旅顺港的俄国舰队。 在随后的战役中，日本的大卫始终击败俄国的歌利亚。由于俄国军队在离欧洲俄国的工业中心数千里远的地方作战，横贯西伯利亚的单轨铁路完全不能满足他们的供应需要。在战争的第一阶段，日本人包围了旅顺港，经过148 天的围攻，于1904年12月19日占领了这座要塞。第二阶段由在满洲平原上的一系列战役构成。日本人在这些战役中也获得了胜利，把俄国人赶到沈阳以北。然而，这些战役并不是决定性的，因为俄国军队仍未受损，而且还随着交通的改善而得到增援和加强。但是在海上，日本人赢得了一个导致和平谈判开始的压倒的胜利。由于令人难以置信的目光短浅，俄国人把他们的经过仓促整修的波罗的海舰队派往日本；这支舰队沿着欧洲和非洲的整个西海岸往下航行，绕过好望角，然后穿过印度洋，向北沿东亚海岸驶向日本——航行的距离相当于地球圆周的三分之二以上。1905年5月27日，俄国舰队终于到达日本和朝鲜之间的对马海峡。它立刻遭到在数量和实力上均占优势的日本舰队的攻击。实际上，短短几小时内，所有俄国舰船就被击沉或捕获，而日本人仅仅失去几艘驱逐舰。 由于这一毁灭，特别是由于战争在国内很不得人心、1905年革命已经开始，俄国人准备讨论和平。日本人也需要和平谈判，因为尽管他们赢得了胜利，但他们的贫乏的资源已因战争负担而被滥用。1905年9月5日，朴次茅斯和约被签订；根据和约，俄国承认日本在朝鲜的“最高的政治利益、军事利益和经济利益”，放弃在满洲的所有优惠减让或独家特许权，并将萨哈林岛南部割给日本、把辽东半岛的租借权转与日本。 如此，日本人阻挡了俄国在远东的扩张。直到40 年后，也就是日本人在第二次世界大战中遭到惨败时，俄国才能够恢复在朴次茅斯和约中失去的领土。不过，俄国在1905年仅被迫放弃了数平方哩的边缘地区。它仍然象今天那样，是一个巨大的亚洲强国，拥有包括西伯利亚的广阔区域和中亚的沙漠地带的领土。因此，在所有欧洲强国中，只有俄国如今拥有一条穿过亚洲中心——从黄海边的朝鲜到黑海沿岸的土耳其——的边界。在欧洲强国中，只有俄国如今在亚洲之内朝外看，而不是象西方强国那样，仅留有如澳门和香港之类的帝国残余物。对我们自己的时代来说，这就是从叶尔马克越过乌拉尔山脉到日、俄两国在满洲平原上交战这三个世纪中俄国陆上扩张的意义。 当日俄战争在远东打响时，革命正在战线后面的俄国内部传播开来。革命的根源可以在农民、城市工人和中产阶级的长期的不满中找到。这种不满由于与日本的战争而更趋严重，因为与日本的战争一开始就不得人心，在遭受一连串失败后愈来愈如此。最后，发生了1905年1月22日的所谓的“流血星期日”——这一事件提供了使第一次俄国革命爆发的火星。 在那个重大的星期日，由数千人组成的一大群人平静地朝圣彼得堡的冬宫行进，这是一次独特的示威，实际上是一支宗教队伍，以教士乔治·加邦神父为首，后面跟随带着圣像、唱着俄国赞美诗、手无寸铁的男人、妇女和儿童。他们的情愿包括恭敬地请求实现诸如代议制议会、免费教育、八小时工作日、涨工资和较好的工作条件之类的改革。如果当时抄皇或其代表接受请愿、答应予以仔细的考虑，那么人群本来很可能会平静地散去。相反，沙皇的叔父莫名其妙地命令是家禁卫军向聚集的群众开枪。75至1，000人被枪杀，200至2，000人受伤。伤亡数字之所以会有这么大的差异，是因为某些目击者仅报告了星期日的伤亡人数，而骚乱在首都又继续了两天。 无缘无故的大屠杀在全国激起猛烈的反应。向来爱好和平的加邦神父的感情的迸发是很有代表性的；他在流血星期日傍晚的一饮演讲中宣称： 流血星期日无可挽救地打碎了这么许多俄国人历来所珍爱的沙皇的仁慈的“小父亲”的形象。整个帝国的公民转而反对沙皇政权，使1905 年俄国大革命突然发生。这一初步的大动乱在帝国政府能够再宣称自己的权力以前经历了三个阶段。第一阶段在1905年1月至10月之间，是革命浪潮兴起的阶段。所有的阶级和势力都起来反对独裁政府：诸从属民族要求自治，农民抢劫庄园主的住宅、夺取地产，城市工人组织地方议会即苏维埃进行革命活动，各地的大学生走出教室，黑海舰队的水兵发动兵变、夺取他们的舰船。世界目睹了整个民族举行罢工的非凡景象。沙皇除了屈服外别无选择，因此，他颁布了著名的。十月宣言，（10月30日）。这个宣言读起来象是政府的一份罪行自供状。它允诺给予言论、出版和集会的自由，而且还准许俄国有一部宪法和一个民选的国民议会即杜马。 在1905 年10月至1906年1月的革命的第二阶段中，起义继续处于高潮，但是，革命者已不再团结。主要由中产阶级分子组成的温和派接受了《十月宣言》，而包括社会民主党人和社会革命党人在内的激进派要求制宪议会而不是沙皇的大臣来制订新宪法。为了达到目的，激进派试图通过组织更多的罢工和骚动来延长革命。然而这时，政府已强大起来。能够进行回击。1905年9月5日与日本的朴次茅斯和约的签订，使许多军队能够被派回国内去恢复秩序，而从巴黎和伦敦得到的4亿美元的适时的贷款大大地加强了摇摇欲坠的沙皇政府。因而，它能够扑灭12月22日至1月1日在莫斯科猛烈进行的危险的工人起义。其时，温和派因长期的暴力行为而和激进派疏远，正转移到政府一边。因此，到1906年初，革命浪潮的高峰已经过去。 从1906 年1月至7月21日的革命的第三阶段，是沙皇政权得到巩固的阶段。政府军队追捕缉拿激进派成员和反抗的农民，在有些情况下，还烧毁整个的村庄。5月6日，政府颁布了所谓的《基本法》；按照这一法律，沙皇被宣布为专制君主，对行政部门、军队和外交政策保持完全的控制。民选的杜马可以与上议院一起分享立法权。而它的预算权则受到严密限制。杜马于5月10日开会，拒绝接受《基本法》，并激烈地批评政府。随即出现了一个僵局；7月21日，沙皇解散杜马。杜马的不受束缚的成员以牙还牙，号召国民拒绝纳税，然而，响应是微弱的。事实上，到这时，革命的潮流已经衰退，第一次俄国革命已走完其应走的历程。 虽然革命失败了，但它给俄国的历史进程留下了自己的印记。俄国这时有了一个立宪政体，尽管杜马是柔弱的。1907 年2月，第二届杜马经选举产生，但结果证明它甚至比第一届杜马更敢于挑战。于是，政府大幅度地减少选举权，使分别于1907年和1912年选举出来的第三届和第四届杜马变得令人满意地保守和屈从。不过，专制主义的沙皇独裁政治确随着《十月宣言》的颁布而终止；第一次世界大战开始后，杜马愈来愈受到人们应有的重视，直到随着布尔什维克革命的到来而被扫除为止。 1905年的种种事件之所以重要，还因为它们对俄国的革命经验和革命传统作出了贡献。关于沙皇的“小父亲”的观念已永远一去不复返了，政治气候也受到相应的影响，苏维埃已在一些城市中成立，并已证明了它们作为进行革命活动的机关的价值。诚然，1906 年以后，一种平静似乎降临，但事实证明这是一种短暂的平静。例如，举行罢工的工人人数从1905年的100万人下降到1908年的9万人，进而下降到1910年的4，000人。但是，到1912年，罢工人数又上升到100万人，并在以后两年中保持在这一水平上。然后，所有的冲突随着第一次世界大战的爆发而突然停止。但是，由于在前线所遭到的灾难性的失败，新的暴风云聚集起来，沙皇政权进入了它再也未能摆脱的一个新的动乱时期。因此，1905年的俄国革命作为震撼世界的1917年革命的一次彩排而惹人注目。 19 世纪的俄国呈现了这样一个不发达国家的悲惨景象：它试图使自己现代化，但仅获得不充分的成果，产生破坏性的影响。现代化的伟大倡导者是1892至1903 年的财政大臣塞奇·维特伯爵。他曾在1900年8月给沙皇的一份报告中，告诫沙皇注意迅速工业化的需要，他当时所说的话与25年后斯大林说的话惊人地相似： 维特不顾一切地试图实现他所想望的工业化。他采用金本位制，给予某些工业以津贴，给外国资本家以特许权，在国外募集大量贷款，并设立很高的保护关税。俄国工业在这些刺激下确取得了良好进展，但整个国家与西方相比仍明显地、令人痛苦地落后。 1897年1月的统计数字揭示了人们所熟悉的所有不发达的症状——文盲率高、婴儿死亡率高、按人口计算的公路和铁路的哩数很低、农业生产率和工业生产率也同样地低。 俄国不仅是落后的，而且正在进一步落后于西方各国。例如，它的经济增长率尽管在20 世纪初突然上升，但仍赶不上德国的经济增长率。俄国愈是试图迎头赶上，便愈是落后。同样使人惊恐的是，俄国社会多数成员从根本上反对维特的工业化纲领。不仅心怀不满的工人是如此，农民和土地贵族也是如此，因为农民承担了工业化的大部分费用，而土地贵族生来就希望保持其传统的土地制度、憎恨上升中的资本家，无论他们是本国的还是外国的。 因而，维特成为沙皇的一个政治包袱，于1903年8月被免职。他的免职使沙皇俄国的致命的困境显得更为突出——一方面渴望工业化的西方的物质成就，另一方面从根本上偏爱本国的农民传统。关于这一矛盾的结果，有位高级官员在1914 年2月准备的、关于与德国的战争的含意的一份备忘录中作了描述。他强调了俄国工业的“未发达的状况”、国家“对于外国工业的过于巨大的依赖”、“技术的落后”和“战略铁路网的不充分”。他下结论说，战争将象在1905年那样带来失败，而失败又将通过被唤醒的群众而带来革命。