Wallace Russia and Revolution

8/7/2019 Wallace Russia and Revolution

1/17

Colangelo/Wallace, Russia, and Revolution/1

The first publication of Donald Mackenzie Wallaces (1841-1919)Russia in 1877 was

one of the first detailed studies of Russian society to be published in Britain, and was also among

the most sympathetic. The Crimean War (1853-1856) had been over for only twenty one years,

and Russophobia1 was rampant. It was Wallaces detailed and sympathetic study that marked the

first time that many British people saw Russia in a positive light. It is therefore not surprising

that in 1912 Wallace decided to publish a second, expanded edition. This edition began as a

possible sequel, but Wallace concluded that the changes that had occurred between 1877 and

1912 were minimal, and had followed predictable patterns. I prepared, he writes in the preface

to the 1912 edition, a list of the principal changes which had taken place during the previous

quarter of a century, and . . . I recognised that they were neither so numerous nor so important as

I had supposed.2

Of the changes that had occurred, he said that they had been nearly all on the

old lines. Everywhere I perceived continuity . . . nowhere could I discover radical changes and

new departures.3

In making this generalisation, Wallace overlooked what would turn out to be

one of the most important social changes in Russias history.

During the period from 1877 to 1912, Russias ever-present revolutionary movement had

begun changing its goal from establishing a European-style liberal democracy based on

individual rights, to the creation of a collectivist, socialist state inspired by Marxism;4

this

important shift would culminate, years afterRussias second edition, in the rise of the Bolshevik

party and the 1917 revolution. The change was entirely opposed to the likely model by which

Wallace understood Russian social development that model being the slow transition from

autocratic backwardness towards a liberal, lasses faire, parliamentary democracy. This model

had been more or less accurate ever since Peter the Great began reforming Russian society on

explicitly European terms, but was no longer true in the parts of the revolutionary movement


2/17


which would eventually triumph in the 1917 revolution. Wallace missed the subtle ebbing of the

movements more individualist thinkers, and did not foresee the rise of socialism. In Wallaces

work, Russia receives the most praise whenever it moves closer to European (and especially

British) philosophies, which if one reads Wallace uncritically is what seems to be happening

Russia almost continuously. Meanwhile, large parts of the revolutionary movement were

beginning to reject democracy and free-market capitalism in exchange for various types of

collectivist, socialist political systems. Wallace clearly missed this shift, and he did so for several

reasons. The first, and most obvious, is that he had a hard time getting access to the revolutionary

movement due to their (entirely justifiable) secrecy. The second is that he was clearly a

Slavophile,5

and so had a tendency to describe Russia in the most flattering terms (which, for

him, meant portraying it as proto-European). Wallace was also prone to generalisations, and

often made sweeping judgements, which exacerbated this issue. The third reason is that there

were indeed many signs that Russia was moving in the direction that he thought it was. The

Orthodox church, for example, had begun to adopt lichnost(roughly, individualism) as an

operating philosophy. That many member of the revolutionary movement were secular and so

unaffected by these changes is an easy detail to miss.

That Wallace didnt see these changes is entirely understandable; his goals were broad

enough in scope that it would have been difficult to encompass the minutia of the ideological

variations of the revolutionary movement, the difficulty he had in contacting the movement

would have been unavoidable, and his personal biases while glaring are hardly

incapacitating, and are entirely understandable given the time and place in which he lived.

Ultimately, his work remains solid and historically valuable, so long as one remains conscious of


3/17


the attendant biases. By pointing out its flaws through the lens of hindsight, I hope ultimately to

makeRussia a better and much more valuable document.

Before getting into a detailed examination of Wallaces views, it is important to note the

extent to which he was considered an authority on Russian culture, as well as his place in the

wider context of British scholarship. In 1919 The Times wrote thatRussia remains for

Englishmen the standard description of the life and institutions of Russia as it was before the

cataclysm of the last couple of years.6

His work made him extremely influential. He became

head ofThe Timess Foreign Department, worked as an editor of the tenth edition of the

Encyclopaedia Britannica,

7

and had personally knew Tsar Nicholas II.

8

His influence and

respect was great enough that at the start of the First World War the Victoria League asked him

to write an article on [Russias] recent advance in civilisation and to explain why England and

Russia had now become allies.9

It is clear, then, that Wallaces views were main-stream enough

for him to have attained a high level of attention and respect. His writing, then, was very much in

tune with his time.

Wallace was a Slavophile who saw Russia as a country advancing towards a European

ideal, and his interpretation of Russian society follows this line of thought as Wallace clearly

considered Europe to have the superior culture; Russias Europeanization, then, would have been

a good thing as far as he was concerned. Wallaces appraisal of Russian society is therefore

highly relevant to any criticism of his work and in order to understand that appraisal, it is

necessary to know the environment in which it was reached. Wallace was one of many

Europeans who saw and praised Russias shift towards European ideologies. According to the

historian Michael Hughes, there were many works published in Britain which praised the

emperors Peter and Catherine for their Herculean efforts to modernise and Europeanize


4/17


Russia.10

These publications only increased after the 1877 edition, as British people became

more interested in Russian culture, and many British writers made a determined effort . . . to

take issue with the kind of negative portrayal of Russia that continued to find frequent expression

. . .11 As with the other writers, Wallace often compared Russia to Europe. In his essay in

defence of Russia, Wallace wrote that [Russia] is the modern stronghold of barbarism,

ignorance and tyrannical government, and that Russian civilisation had fallen behind Western

Europe.12

Later, he speaks unflatteringly of Tsar Nicholas I, calling him the Don Quixote of

autocracy and saying that in his struggle with England and France [the Crimean War], he

learned by bitter experience that true national greatness is not to be found in militarism.

13

These

passages show that Wallace saw Russia as a country progressing towards an ideal system taken

from Europe, which was ahead of Russia in the general march of civilisation. Tsar Nicholas I

was an irrational Don Quixote who learned an important lesson from the superior English and

French. This tendency towards European exceptionalism has not escaped the notice of other

historians. Cyril E. Black, for example, writes that Wallaces own philosophy . . . was rooted in

the belief that Western civilisation, to use the term, was the goal to which Russia was slowly

moving.14

It is unsurprising, then, that one of the first things that Wallace does when writing

about the Russian Duma is to compare it to the British parliament, and to do so unflatteringly.15

Wallace clearly saw Russia as a country progressing towards the European ideal.

One of the forces driving this change was the Russian revolutionary movement, which

had been active to varying degrees for decades; Wallaces views on this movement are largely in

line with his larger views on Russian society that the nation is developing away from

despotism and towards a European liberal democracy and his understanding of how the

movement worked is best understood in light of those views. In the 1912 edition ofRussia,


5/17


Wallace wrote that he has taken care to revise his book based on the changes that had occurred

since the 1905 revolution paying special attention, he said, to the rise and development of

parliamentary institutions which must exercise great influence in the future . . .16

Of the

revolutionary movement, Wallace wrote that it had waxed and waned, but its aims were

essentially the same as of old . . .17

The movement of old which he refers to was the same one

responsible for the 1881 assassination of Tsar Alexander II, and which had prepared a letter to

his successor demanding many reforms befitting a liberal democracy.18

Later on inRussia, Wallace elaborates on his understanding of the revolutionary

movement. His thoughts on Russian class consciousness would seem to preclude any serious

move towards socialism. He writes that if the word Sosloviya [estates] be taken to mean an

organised political unit with . . . a clearly conceived political aim. . . then it could be assumed

that Russia has no such thing.19

He later on elaborates this point, saying that those class hatreds

which appear so conspicuously in the history of Western Europe are completely absent in

Russian society20 and that in Russia at the present day there is very little caste spirit or caste

prejudice . . .21 A socio-political landscape like the one Wallace describes would be very

unlikely to erupt in a socialist (much less communist) revolution, and if one takes Wallaces

premises at face value, his prediction for the future of the aristocracy seems quite logical. He

says that they will assimilate with the other classes . . . and that new aristocrats can no longer

be created.22

Wallace sees the transition to democracy as a slow and generally peaceful process, during

which the aristocracy will gradually fade from existence. Wallace does briefly mention the

Russian socialist movement, and rightly points out that Marx has shown that capitalism, though

evil in itself, is a necessary stage in economic and social progress.23

Wallace thus characterises


6/17


the revolutionary movement as being largely made up of democrats of one stripe or another, and

mostly dismisses the socialist wing. While he is correct about Marxs views on capitalism, he

uses this admission of necessity as a means of dismissing the socialists entirely. According to

Wallace, the social changes24 are all heading towards a liberal democracy, and all that is up for

debate is the exact form that it will take, and when the transition will occur.

The source of Wallaces error does not lie in the rise of communismper se,but instead

comes from the individualistic philosophies which justify a democratic state, and how the

Russian manifestation of those philosophies referred to as lichnost had declined during the

period from the first editions publication to the second (1877-1912), in reversal of a process that

had begun with Peter the Greats reforms.25

Prior to 1877 edition, Russia had generally followed

the sort of pattern that Wallace desired, by transitioning from (if I can be permitted to speak so

broadly) a collectivist state towards an individualist one a process that culminated in the

emancipation of the serfs in 1861. In order to understand Wallaces perspective on Russian

history, it is therefore necessary to examine Russias social development in the period prior to

Russias publication. Historian Steven L. Hoch describes serfdom as a highly integrated social

system . . .26

which was far more socially oppressive than economically onerous.27

Hoch says

that the communal system (the mir) contributed to collectivism, arguing that it played a central

role in maintaining patriarchal authority.28

Also fitting in with Wallaces characterisation of

Russias social relations is the behaviour of the nobility, who in 1861 despite showing no

disposition at all to parting with their privileges . . . [acted like] no other elite in modern times

[and] renounced bondage so readily.29

A final point in Wallaces favour is that, according to

historian David Moon, the inadequacies of the transition brought up by the intelligentsia were

largely ignored by the nobility, and unheard of by the peasants.30

One can look upon these


7/17


movements towards a democratic government as a manifestation oflichnost a term which one

could translate variously, as personality, or individual, or even selfhood.31

The scholar Derek Offord says that prior to Peter the Greats reforms Russia lacked that

sense of worth of the human personality . . . inherited by the west from the Roman world . . .32

Offord supports this claim by pointing out that it is only in the nineteenth century . . . that the

concept oflichnostassumes a position of central importance in Russian thought, and points to

Peters table of ranks as an early manifestation of an individualistic ethic.33

Offord then says that,

since the enlightenment era, individualistic philosophies had been a key feature of Western

European thought.

34

Russia, then, had already spent decades importing individualistic

philosophies from Western Europe prior to Wallaces writing.

The long process towards social individualism, though strong at the time of the first

edition, had already begun reversing itself by the publication of the second. By the turn of the

century, collectivist philosophies would prove more attractive and productive ideologies than

lichnost. . . with its puzzling elusiveness and instability.35 Collectivist ideologies would prove

particularly appetising to members of the intelligentsia, as well as those sectors of the

population who were engaged in engineering social change36

that is, the sector of the

population most likely to join the revolutionary movement. The shift against lichnosttook on

real strength after Alexander III took power in 1881, four years afterRussias first edition.

Alexander III made many attempts to reverse Peters great reforms which had made Russia

more culturally similar to Europe37

and succeeded in returning an element of gentry control

over the peasant commune by tweaking the rules for electing officials to city government to

give the property owners more leverage.38 Meanwhile, an increase in education among the

population lead to conflicts between different ideological groups, causing a philosophical


8/17


deadlock where no single ideology could dominate.39

The intellectual class was growing, but it

has already been established that this class was of the kind particularly sympathetic to collectivist

thought. So, at a macroscopic level, there had already been some shifts away from Western-style

democracy. However, these shifts were also mixed with a rise in education (always a useful

component of a democratic government) as well as a widespread adoption of utilitarianism40

a

philosophy popular in England among Russian intellectuals.41

The more fundamental shift was

occurring in the underground revolutionary movement, which was experiencing a rise in the

popularity of socialist cliques with the Bolshevik party not least among them.42

Though socialism and Marxism do not always mean the same thing, Marx and

Engelss The Communist Manifesto was influential enough that a discussion on socialist thought

would be incomplete without mentioning it. Despite what Wallace said about Russian class

consciousness, Marx argued that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class

struggles.43

An additional conflict between Marxs goals and Wallaces projection for Russian

society is Marxs rejection of the slow-and-gradual approach, saying instead that the immediate

aim of the Communists is . . . [the] overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, [and] conquest of

political power by the proletariat.44

Of course, what strikes hardest against Wallace is Marxs

desire for the abolition of bourgeois individuality . . . and his belief that the bourgeoisie only

speak of freedom for themselves, in the form of free trade and the free market.45

Marxism, then,

is antithetical to the lasses faire capitalism that was popular in England, and which Wallace

considered the ideal against which one should judge Russia. Had Wallace believed that a Marxist

philosophy was gaining popularity, he would certainly not have been as optimistic as he was

when he wrote Our Russian Ally.


9/17


As influential as Marx was, it is the work of Vladimir Lenin which carries the most

weight in a discussion of Russian socialism. Lenin had been active in the revolutionary

movement in one form or another since the mid-1880s, when he had confessed to his fellow

students that he planned to work for the revolutionary movement full-time in 1887.46 During

this early period Lenin read Marxs Das Capitaland joined an illegal Marxist discussion

circle.47

After the failure of the 1905 revolution, Lenin devoted himself to his studies, and

eventually published a major volume of his work in 1909 at the same time establishing himself

as the intellectual leader of the Bolshevik party.48

Though Lenin was not yet the party leader, he

was influential enough that he was able to claim control during the aftermath of 1917.

49

His

actions during the October revolution are, obviously, outside the scope of this essay, so it is to

his 1902 workWhat is to be Done? that we turn. Though Lenin speaks frequently of social-

democrats, he is very clearly a Marxist, and has several problems with the free-market ideals

that Wallace would have liked to see take hold. Freedom is a great word, Lenin wrote, but the

most rapacious wars were waged under the banner of free trade; the workers were robbed under

the banner of free labour . . . The cry Long live freedom of criticism . . . calls vividly to mind

the fable of the empty barrel.50

The term freedom of criticism is the subject of his books first

chapter, and on it he blames many kinds of ideological problems. Under freedom of criticism,

he says that many of socialisms core tenants were abandoned, including the theory of class

struggle and the difference between socialism and liberalism.51 Lenins philosophy was in tune

with Marxist communism, and advocated the restriction of the ability to criticise the party. His

philosophy is highly incompatible with lichnost, and it is almost exactly the opposite of what

Wallace had envisioned for Russias future. During the period between Wallaces editions, Lenin

and his ideals gained increasing prominence in the revolutionary movement, and were part of an


10/17


overall trend towards the popularisation of collectivist ideologies. While it would be asking too

much for Wallace to predict the 1917 revolution, his characterisation of the revolutionary

movement is still too far from the genuine truth. Wallace was objectively and provably wrong.

All that remains is to ask why.

The main sources of Wallaces error likely lie in, first, the minimal access that he had to

the revolutionary movement, second, his personal biases and tendency to over-generalise, and

third, the increasing popularity of individualistic philosophies amongst the Orthodox church,

which had the ear of much of the Russian population but which the socialists largely rejected.

The first reason is relatively straightforward, Hughes has established that while Wallace did

have some contacts with the revolutionaries it was rare for British researchers to have more

than a superficial look at the radical wing of the revolutionary movement, but it was by

comparison rather easier for the [British] Embassy staff to cultivate links with the respectable

opposition parties . . .52

Wallace was therefore subject to sampling issues while surveying the

revolutionary movement, as only the more moderate groups would be willing to speak with him.

Wallaces relationship with the Embassy leads to the second issue his personal and

professional biases. Wallace makes no secret that he is a great Slavophile, admitting as much

when he wrote that I am often reproached by my Russian friends with taking too favourable a

view of the Duma and of many other things in Russia.53

Wallace genuinely appreciated Russian

culture, and he wanted to spread this appreciation amongst the rest of British society. However,

his approval of Russian political culture came from comparing it positively to Britain, leading to

a tendency to make Russia seem like a proto-European society whenever possible. Exacerbating

this tilt is Wallaces tendency to over-generalise. Wallace makes several broad statements, like

saying, for example, that unlike the English, who crawl cautiously along the rugged path to


11/17


progress . . . the Russian dashes boldly into the unknown,54

or that Russians are rarely in a

hurry, and like to have frequent opportunities of eating and drinking.55

It is unthinkable that

such statements could apply universally to a population as large as Russias, but Wallace makes

them unselfconsciously. The coexistence of these two traits makes Wallaces tilt towards

promoting Russias Europeanization quite predictable. Aiding this personal bias are Wallaces

professional ones. Hughes makes it clear that Wallace had done diplomatic work for the British

Embassy in Russia, and that he did so when the priority of British diplomats in Petersburg was

to maintain and strengthen England and Russias alliance.56, 57

Wallaces connections with the

diplomatic realm were both the result of, and a boon to, his reportage on Russian culture, and he

would have had several material benefits in keeping Russias portrayal as positive as possible. It

is no accident that his essay in defence of Russia was written by specific request, rather than his

own volition,58

boosting Russia had become an important part of his job.

A final reason for Wallaces error may come from a misunderstanding of the role of the

Orthodox Church, which had begun moving towards more individualistic ideologies, but which

also had very little effect on the socialist revolutionaries. Wallace describes the Orthodox Church

as being deeply intertwined with the state,59

which would give it far reaching influence over the

population. According to religious historian Vera Shevzov, said church had been making some

slow, but prominent movements towards lichnostand its associated ideals. Shevzov writes that

growing literacy and a significant increase in the availability of devotional literature fostered

some degree of spiritual independence, which culminated in the 1905 freedom of conscious

laws.60

This devotional literature, she says, was very often oriented to the individual.61

The

mainstream of Russias religious community was therefore becoming noticeably more

individualistic, and a cursory glance would have made a conclusion like Wallaces very easy to


12/17


come to. However, there is strong evidence that the revolutionaries were largely secular. In his

autobiography, the activist Semn Kanatchikov writes of his first meeting with a socialist

revolutionary, saying that he is nervous around the man because he is an atheist and he might be

able to shake my faith as well.62 This group, then, would have been largely unaffected by most

changes in Russias religious culture. That Wallace didnt pick up on this distinction is likely due

to his minimal contact with the revolutionary movement.

That WallacesRussia failed to notice many of the ideological changes in Russias

revolutionary movement is clear, and that those changes are due to the interconnection between

Wallaces personal biases and his professional ones is even clearer. Wallace missed the ebbing

tide oflichnostamong the revolutionaries, and missed also the rise of the socialist movement.

These errors were because of his own enthusiasm and desire to see Russia become more

European, as well as his connection with British diplomacy. Wallace also missed the subtleties of

Russias religious culture. Having said that, these problems do not renderRussia useless, nor do

they condemn the work to being a mere historical curiosity. So long as one keeps Wallaces

faults in mind, the work remains a remarkable achievement in cultural reportage. The point of

this essay was not simply to wield the power of hindsight and modern historical research in

knocking down a turn-of-the-century writer, but instead to rescue Wallace from obscurity by

saving it from the broad brush of bias by instead pointing out, clearly and specifically, what

Wallace did wrong so that a reader can understand the flaws and benefit from his work in spite of

them. Hindsight should not be a tool for condemningRussia, but for improving it. So long as

Wallaces flaws are kept specifically in mind, his work remains an authoritative study of Russia

at the turn of the century.


13/17


Notes

1. Fear or hatred of Russian people, culture, or government. May also extend to otherobjects or institutions that are related to Russia in some way.

2. Donald Mackenzie Wallace,Russia, London: Cassell and Company, 1912, v.3.

Donald Mackenzie Wallace,Russia, vi.4. Marxism refers to the philosophies of economy and government as professed by KarlMarx 1818-1883. It follows an interpretation of socialism that sees the advancement of

human history as a struggle between social classes. It also sees the economic system ofcapitalism as a fundamentDonald Mackenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally, oppressive

system, and seeks to overthrow it and install some form of communism in its place. Formore information on Marxism, see An Introduction to Marxismby Emile Burns.

5. A person who loves or appreciates Slavic culture and traditions. Can often be understoodin opposition to Russophobia.

6. Death of Sir D.M. Wallace, The Times, January 11, 1919.7. Death of Sir D.M. Wallace, The Times, January 11, 1919.8.

Cyril E. Black, Introduction, inRussia: On the Eve of War and Revolution, by DonaldMackenzie Wallace, New York: Vintage Books, 1961, x.

9. Donald Mackenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally, inNew York Times Current History ofthe European War1.6 (1915): 840.

10.Michael Hughes, The English Slavophile: W.J. Birkbeck and Russia, in SEER 82.3(2004): 680.

11.Michael Hughes, The English Slavophile: W.J. Birkbeck and Russia, 682.12.Donald Mackenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally, 840.13.Donald Mackenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally, 841.14.Cyril E. Black, Introduction, x.15.Donald Mackenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally, 843.16.Donald Mackenzie Wallace,Russia, vii.17.Donald Mackenzie Wallace,Russia, vi.18.Vera Fingers autobiographyMemoires of a Revolutionistprovides a detailed description

of the interior workings of the revolutionary movement, particularly its liberal wing. Thisbook contains the letter, which calls for numerous individual freedoms, freedom of

speech among them.19.Donald Mackenzie Wallace,Russia, 366.20.Donald Mackenzie Wallace,Russia, 368-9.21.Donald Mackenzie Wallace,Russia, 369.22.Donald Mackenzie Wallace,Russia, 321.23.Donald Mackenzie Wallace,Russia, 675.24.The social changes that lead up to the 1917 revolution are many and complex. To speak

very generDonald Mackenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally,, there had been a general

trend towards Europeanization ever since Peter the Great, but that trend had been arrestedby the last few Tsars, who were generDonald Mackenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally,

conservative. Meanwhile, industrialization began to ferment worker discontent, whichlead many to join the socialist movement. For a full and proper description, seeRussia in

the Age of Modernisation and Revolution, 1881-1917by Hans Rogger.


14/17


25.The Tsar Peter 1672-1725 was an admirer of European culture, and instituted manyreforms meant to bring Russia closer to what he saw to the west. Of particular note is his

lauded Table of Ranks, which proscribed a hierarchy of ranks based on merit by which aperson could ascend through government service to eventuDonald Mackenzie Wallace,

Our Russian Ally, become a member of the nobility. While entry level positions were

not open to everyone, it was still a highly individualistic enterprise unlike what hadhappened in Russia at any time before. For a full description of Peters reforms, seeJames Cracrafts The Revolution of Peter the Great.

26.Steven L. Hoch, Serfdom and Social Control in Russia, Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1986, 14.

27.Steven L. Hoch, Serfdom and Social Control in Russia, 187.28.Steven L. Hoch, Serfdom and Social Control in Russia, 133.29.Daniel Field, The End of Serfdom: Nobility and Bureaucracy in Russia, 1855-1861.

Cambridge: Harvard University press, 1976 102.

30.David Moon, TheAbolition of Serfdom in Russia. London: Longman, 2001, 86-7.31.Derek Offord, Lichnost: Notions of Individual Identity, in ConstructingRussian

Culture in the Age of Revolution: 1881-1940, edited by Catriona Kelly and DavidShepherd, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, 13.

32.Derek Offord, Lichnost: Notions of Individual Identity, 13.33.Derek Offord, Lichnost: Notions of Individual Identity, 14.34.Derek Offord, Lichnost: Notions of Individual Identity, 16.35.Catriona Kelly and Vadim Volkov, Obschestvennost, Sobornost: Collective

Identities, edited by Catriona Kelly and David Shepherd, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1998, 27.

36.Catriona Kelly and Vadim Volkov, Obschestvennost, Sobornost: CollectiveIdentities,27.

37.Louise McReynolds and Cathy Popkin, The Objective Eye and the Common Good, inConstructingRussian Culture in the Age of Revolution: 1881-1940, edited by

Catriona Kelly and David Shepherd, 57-105, Oxford: Oxford University Press,1998, 58.

38.Louise McReynolds and Cathy Popkin, The Objective Eye and the Common Good, 58.39.Louise McReynolds and Cathy Popkin, The Objective Eye and the Common Good, 60.40.A moral philosophy arguing that the value of any object or action should be determined

by its usefulness and its ability to contribute to human society. A very popular philosophy

in Britain during the nineteenth century. For more information, see ClassicalUtilitarianism from Hume to Millby F. Rosen.

41.Louise McReynolds and Cathy Popkin, The Objective Eye and the Common Good, 82.42.There were a number of political parties and subgroups in Russias opposition movement

prior to the revolution. The two primary parties being the Bolsheviks majority and theMensheviks minority. The two groups split over a dispute over party organization, and

their names refer to their sizes relative to the communist party as a whole. TheBolsheviks would eventuDonald Mackenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally, take full

power after the revolution. For a full description, see Comrades!: a History of WorldCommunism by Robert Service.

43.Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, Translated by SamuelMoore, Edited by Gareth Stedman Jones, London: Penguin Classics, 2002, 219.


15/17


44.Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto 234.45.Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto 237.46.Christopher Hill, Lenin and the Russian Revolution, London: The English Universities

Press, 1947, 37.

47.Christopher Hill, Lenin and the Russian Revolution, 37.48.

Christopher Hill,

Lenin and the Russian Revolution, 41.49.Christopher Hill, Lenin and the Russian Revolution, 42.

50.Vladimir Lenin, What is to be Done?: BurningQuestions of Our Movement, Moscow:Progress Publishers, 1967, 43.

51.Vladimir Lenin, What is to be Done?: BurningQuestions of Our Movement, 41.52.Michael Hughes, British Diplomats in Russia on the Eve of War and Revolution, in

European History Quarterly 24 (1994) 350.

53.Donald Mackenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally, 844.54.Donald Mackenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally, 84255.Donald Mackenzie Wallace,Russia, 1.56.Michael Hughes, British Diplomats in Russia on the Eve of War and Revolution, 35057.

For an entertaining and informative description of the inner workings of Russias pre-revolution diplomacy, see chapter three of Michael Ignatieffs The Russian Album.

58.Donald Mackenzie Wallace, Our Russian Ally, 840,59.Donald Mackenzie Wallace,Russia, 294-7.60.Vera Shevzov,Russian Orthodoxy on the Eve of Revolution, Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2004, 5.

61.Vera Shevzov,Russian Orthodoxy on the Eve of Revolution, 8.62.Semn Ivanovich Kanatchikov, A Radical Worker in Tsarist Russia, translated by

Reginald E. Zelnick, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1986, 27.


16/17


Works Cited

Burns, Emile. An Introduction to Marxism. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1962.

Cracraft, James. The Revolutions of Peter the Great. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,

2003.

Field, Daniel. The End of Serfdom: Nobility and Bureaucracy in Russia, 1855-1861. Cambridge:

Harvard University press, 1976.

Finger, Vera.Memoires of a Revolutionist. New York: International Publishers Co. Inc., 1927.

Hill, Christopher. Lenin and the Russian Revolution. London: The English Universities Press,1947.

Hoch, Steven L. Serfdom and Social Control in Russia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1986.

Hughes, Michael. British Diplomats in Russia on the Eve of War and Revolution.EuropeanHistory Quarterly 24 (1994): 341-366.

Hughes, Michael. The English Slavophile: W.J. Birkbeck and Russia. SEER 82.3 (2004):

680-706.

Ignatieff, Michael. The Russian Album. New York: Viking, 1987.

Kanatchikov, Semn Ivanovich. A Radical Worker in Tsarist Russia. Translated by Reginald E.Zelnick. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1986.

Kelly, Catriona, and Volkov, Vadim. Obschestvennost, Sobornost: Collective Identities. In

ConstructingRussian Culture in the Age of Revolution: 1881-1940. Edited by CatrionaKelly and David Shepherd, 26-27. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Lenin, Vladimir. What is to be Done?: BurningQuestions of Our Movement. Moscow:

Progress Publishers, 1967.

Marx, Karl, and Engels, Friedrich. The Communist Manifesto. Translated by Samuel Moore.Edited by Gareth Stedman Jones. London: Penguin Classics, 2002.

McReynolds, Louise, and Popkin, Cathy. The Objective Eye and the Common Good. In

ConstructingRussian Culture in the Age of Revolution: 1881-1940. Edited by CatrionaKelly and David Shepherd, 57-105. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Moon, David. The Abolition of Serfdom in Russia. London: Longman, 2001.


17/17


N.A. Death of Sir D.M. Wallace. The Times. January 11, 1919. Accessed March 12, 2011.http://infotrac.galegroup.com.proxy.library.brocku.ca/itw/infomark/13/185/109623007w1

6/purl=rc1_TTDA_0_CS100863019&dyn=3!xrn_2_0_CS100863019&hst_1?sw_aep=st46245

Offord, Derek. L

ichnost: Notions of Individual Identity. In ConstructingRussian Culture inthe Age of Revolution: 1881-1940. Edited by Catriona Kelly and David Shepherd, 13-25.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Rogger, Hans.Russia in theAge of Modernisation and Revolution, 1881-1917. New York:

Longman, 1983.

Rosen, F. Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. New York: Routledge, 2003.

Service, Robert. Comrades!: A history of World Communism. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress, 2007.

Shevzov, Vera.Russian Orthodoxy on the Eve of Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

2004.

Wallace, Donald Mackenzie. Our Russian Ally.New York Times Current History of theEuropean War1.6 (1915): 840-849.

Wallace, Donald Mackenzie.Russia. London: Cassell and Company, 1912.

Wallace, Donald Mackenzie.Russia: On the Eve of War and Revolution. Edited by Cyril E.

Black. New York: Vintage Books, 1961.

Wallace Russia and Revolution

Documents

Transcript of Wallace Russia and Revolution