by Norman Stone
2V. S. Dyakin: Burzhuaziya i tsarizm v gody pervoy mirovoy voyni (Moscow 1967) is an essential modern source; cf. K. N. Tarnovski: Formirovaniye gos. monopol. kapitala v Rossii (Moscow 1957) p. 40; A. L. Sidorov: Istoricheskiye predposylki Vel. Okt. Sots. Revolyutsii (Moscow 1970); in English, particularly G. Katkov: February 1917 (London 1967) and Bernard Pares: The Fall of the Russian Monarchy (London 1939), which is perhaps more important as a document of the liberals’ view than as a history-book.
3S.M. 1915/485 of 16th and 19th June shows issue of subsidies to State factories in the Urals, and cf. Sidorov’s article: ‘Stroitelstvo kazennykh voyennykh zavodov’ in Istoricheskiye Zapiski 54 (1955) p. 156–69.
4S.M. 1915/864 of 3rd November shows Polivanov’s figures; cf. Istoriya Organizatsii… Vankova pp. 6–7; Sidorov: Ek. Pol. p. 36f.
5G. Hardach : Der Erste Weltkrieg pp. 120ff. for useful comparisons.
6S. A. Zalesski: ‘Mobilizatsiya gornozavodskoy promyshlennosti na Urale’ in Istoricheskie Zapiski 65 (1959) pp. 80–118 esp. p. 105.
7‘Osobaya rasporyaditelnaya komissiya’: Sidorov: Ek. Pol. p. 36f.
8K. F. Shatsillo : ‘Delo Polkovnika Myasoyedova’ in Voprosi Istorii 1967/4; A. Tarsaidze: Chetyre mifa (New York 1969); B. Buchinski in Voyennaya Byl (Paris) 1964 No. 67; Lemke p. 190; Katkov, passim.
9For the connection of industrialists’ and politicians’ agitation: Sidorov: Ek. Pol. is a basic account, and Tarnovski pp. 43f. is acute. T. D. Krupina: ‘Politicheski krizis 1915 goda i Osoboye Soveshchaniye po Oborone’ in Istoricheskiye Zapiski 83 (1969) pp. 58–75 is a very thorough survey, and Dyakin pp. 218f. adds some points. Of contemporary records, Sukhomlinov’s ‘Dnevnik’ I p. 232 and Padeniye tsarskogo rezhima vol. 5 pp. 248ff. contain (vast) speeches by Guchkov and Rodzyanko. Goremykin’s reaction—to make Sukhomlinov’s trial a ‘mise-en-scène’ under an occtogenarian general-appears in ed. Cherniavski: Prologue pp. 29–31.
10RAOAZ: SM. 1915/145 of 22nd February and 645 of 24th August; Krupina pp. 60ff; Manikovski vol. 3 p. 160f; Sidorov(ed.) : Ob osobennostyakh imperializma v Rossii (Moscow 1963) contains a useful work by Shatsillo pp. 215–33 ‘Iz istorii politiki tsarskogo pravitelstva’ cf. his contribution on ship-building in a further collection edited by Sidorov: Pervaya mirovaya voyna (Moscow 1968) pp. 192–210; Sidorov: Ek. Pol. pp. 55ff. 126. There is not much on this in M. Mitelman and others: Istoriya Putilovskogo Zavoda (3 vols. Moscow 1939).
11On these problems generally, the latest work is René Girault: Emprunts russes et investissements français en Russie (Paris 1973), with a useful bibiliography. On the inter-connections, v. a brilliant essay by Sidorov: ‘V. I. Lenin o russkom voyenno-feodalnom imperializme’ in his Ob osobennostyakh pp. 11–52.
12Sidorov: Ek. Pol. p. 345; I. Mayevski: Ekonomika pp. 101f.; Dyakin p. 91f.
13Two articles by A. P. Pogrebinski: ‘K istorii soyuzov zemstv i gor’ and ‘Voyennopromyshlenniye komitety’ in Istoricheskiye Zapiski Nos. 12 and 11 (1941) pp. 39–60 and 161–200. Tarnovski contests some of the views expressed here–v. his work on ‘Komitet metallov’ in Istoricheskiye Zapiski 56 (1957) pp. 80–143. Sidorov, by implication (Ek. Pol. pp. 191ff.) shares Pogrebinski’s view.
14Istoriya Organizatsii… Vankova pp. 160ff; but p. 156f. explains that in Kiev the local committee worked well for Vankov. It built its own factory in Konotop for 6” bombs, controlled 56 factories overall and was master-minded by Tereshchenko, who arranged for the committee’s factories to make their own plant.
15V. N. Ipatieff: The Life of a Chemist (Stanford 1946) p. 209. This is about the only work in English or French that discusses the technical side of the war-economy in detail.
16Dyakin pp. 92, 126, 174–5, 183 and 190 is particularly revealing. In the end, the government could manoeuvre to split the industrial opposition, in which context the fall of Polivanov, the rise of Stürmer and, in the end, of Protopopov should apparently be read. In 1916, the Congress of Representatives of Industry (Soviet Syezdov) formally cut its links with the central war-industries committee.
17Mayevski p. 291; Zalyubovski p. 16 and Blair’s despatch No. 94 of 4th March 1916 (WO. 106/1016) discuss committee-representatives in New York (Astrov) and London (Baehr), who made a nuisance of themselves; SM. 1915/199 (October) shows dealings in foreign exchange; Bruce Lockhart’s despatches to Buchanan of 5th January and 14th February 1917 (FO. 371/2995) for a favourable view of the committees: Sidorov: Ek Pol. pp. 201–2 and 288–9 for their rôle in foreign trade.
18R. Claus: Die Kriegswirtschaft Russlands (Bonn 1922) p. 72. Claus, who served with the German Wirtschaftsstab in exploited Russia in 1918, knew the Russian economy better than any other foreign observer. His work is based on close study of valuable contemporary accounts, such as those of Prokopovitch, Katzenellenbaum, Grinevetski, Dementiev; and he was shown a number of government studies, including the memoranda of Litvinov-Falinski.
19G. I. Shigalin: Voyennaya ekonomiya v pervuyu mirovuyu voynu (Moscow 1956) p. 143f. On the Special Councils: Yeroshkin p. 300ff. for their institutional position; S. V. Voronkova: ‘Obzor materialov Osobogo Soveshchaniya po Oborone’ in Istorya SSSR. 1971/3; Sidorov: Ek. Pol. p. 105ff; Tarnovski: Formirovaniye p. 90ff,; Manikovski: vol. 3 passim.; interesting—and highly critical—reports from British Vice-Consuls who observed the plenipotentiaries on the spot: eg. Blakey (Kharkov) to Picton Bagge (Odessa) 23rd December 1916 in FO. 371/2995 to the effect that the plenipotentiary assembled ‘an enormous mass of statistical data’ but was ‘incapable of being any actual assistance’. Both Sidorov and Tarnovski, the best-qualified commentators, none the less take a positive view of the system.
.20Tarnovski pp. 57, 88, 109f.—the essential work; on other questions: V. Ya. Laverychev : ‘O gosudarstvennoy regulirovanii ekonomiki’ in Sidorov (ed.) Pervaya mirovaya voyna pp. 50–62 on textiles; M. Ya. Gefter: ‘Toplivo-neftyanoy golod’ in Istoricheskiye Zapiski 83 (1969) pp. 76–122; P. B. Volobuyev: ‘Produgol’ in Ibid. 57(1957) pp. 107–44; Pogrebinski: ‘Prodameta’ in Voprosi Istorii 1958/10; Zalesski p. 106f.
21Tarnovski: Formirovaniye pp. 72, 88, 114f.
22G. Strumilin: Izbranniye proizvedeniya (5 vols. Moscow 1963f.) vol. 1 (‘Statistika i ekonomiya’); cf. I. F. Gindin: ‘Moskovskiye banki in Istoricheskiye Zapiski 58 (1957) pp. 38–106; Sidorov: Ek. Pol. p. 404f and Fin. pol. p. 178ff.; L. Ya. Shepelev: Aktsionerniye kompanii v Rossii (Leningrad 1973) pp. 294–337; T. M. Kitanina: Voyenno-inflyatsionniye kontserny (Stakheyev) p.95 shows how profits on cotton went to industrial investment.
23Strumilin op. cit. p. 186.
24Tarnovski p. 101.
25Shepelev: ‘Fondovaya birzha’ in Istoricheskiye Zapiski 84 (1969) pp. 121–63, esp. p. 127.
26Ibid. p. 162–3; cf. Strumilin op. cit. p. 360f.
27Ibid. pp. 349–51; Sidorov: Ek. pol. p. 343.
28Ibid. p. 350.
29N. Ya. Vorobiev: Vestnik Statistiki vol. 14 (1923). The share taken by ‘defence’ rose, by 1916, to almost four-fifths of this output. It is curious that, none the less, the quantity, as distinct from the share, of this output which went to non-defence areas remained the same as before the war.
30Sidorov: Ek. Pol. p. 345; cf. Shigalin p. 144, using figures from the 1918 survey which, as Sidorov suggests, maydu Monde Russe well have under-stated output.
31Sidorov: Ek. Pol. p. 364.
32Mayevski p. 109 and 251–5.
33Litvinov-Falinski’s memorandum : prilozheniye 2 in Manikovski vol. 3 pp. 243–52cf. M.—L. Lavigne: ‘Le Plan de M. Rjabušinskij’ in Cahiers du Monde Russe et Soviétique V/I (1964) pp. 90–107 cf. Dokumenty po istorii SSSR. VI (1959) pp. 610–40.
34Sidorov: Ek. Pol. pp. 359f.
35N. Kozlov: Ocherk snabzheniya russkoy armii voyenno-tekhnicheskim imuschestvom (Moscow 1926) pp. 35f, 57f, 95f. By June 1916, 30,000 tons of barbed wire were produced, monthly—characteristically, with too few drums to wrap it round, so that it had to mov e by cart. S. V. Voronkova: ‘Stroitelstvo avtomobilnikh zavodov’ in Istoricheskiye Zapiski
78 (1965) pp. 147–69 recounts progress, with much scepticism; Ipatieff none the less reveals, at length, the great progress made in chemical matters; and a highly favourable impression of the whole war-economy is given in the official Kratky otchet o deyatelnosti voyennogo ministerstva za 1916 god (Archive of Grand Duke Nicholas, v. Golovin-Archive in the Hoover Institution, Stanford).
36Sidorov: Ek. Pol. p. 121ff, 313–4 and 316; Barsukov: Russkaya artilleriya vol. 1 p. 248–9 and 280, cf. 192–5, 198, 323f; Tarnovski p. 207f.
37Manikovski vol. 3 p. 170ff.; Langlois Rapport No. 8 (March 1917) Note 4 on Pyot’s work; Tarnovski pp. 53, 232; N. A. Ivanova: ‘Prinuditelniye obyedinyeniya’ in Sidorov (ed.): Ob osobennostyakh pp. 234–49; Sidorov: Ek. Pol. p. 117f.; and the not wholly revealing official work, Istoriya Organizatsii… Vankova discuss the Vankov organisation in detail. The organisation took 144,000 tons of steel and made 18 million shells from spring 1915 onwards. The bulk of production was in Moscow and the south, but half of Vankov’s fuzes came from one factory in Petrograd—the highly-efficient ‘Russki Renault’, with a French management and a well-knit network of subcontractors. The rôle of private entrepreneurs in war-work is shown in Kitanina op. cit. and Ipatiev: Rabota khimicheskoy promyshlennosti na oboronu (Petrograd 1920) and (with L.F. Fokin) Khimicheski komitet pri GAU (Petrograd 1921).
38These details come from Manikovski vol. 3 prilozheniye 6; cf. pp. 204–230 passim., and vol. 1 p. 34f. for output of rifles, which in 1916 covered 80% of demand. Langlois’s Rapport No. 8 (March 1917) p. 80ff., tableaux 1–3, and, with less conviction, Blair’s despatch No. 4 of 28th July 1916(WO. 106/1061) give good details.
CHAPTER TEN
1Lemke p. 161; Manikovski vol. 1 passim; Sbornik (Nastupleniye) p. 33ff.
2p. A. Zayonchkovski: Voyenniye reformy p. 66f. and Sidorov: Fin. Pol. p. 65.
3A.M. Anfimov: Russkaya derevnya v gody pervoy mirovoy voyni (Moscow 1962) p. 198.
4A. V. Fedorov: ‘Vsesoslovnaya voinskaya povinnost’ in Istoricheskiye Zapiski 46 (1954) pp. 182–97. cf. P. A. Zayonchkovski: Samoderzhaviye i armiya p. 114ff. 48% of those mustered were exempted by reason of “famil-status”, another 17% on physical grounds
5Figures for losses and conscription may be obtained from the following: P. N. Simanski : Razvitiye (1938); Kersnovski vol. 4 p. 870ff.; Rossiya v mirovoy voyne (1925); various articles in Voyennoye delo, particularly 1918 No.17 pp. 19–20 (‘kolichestvo russkikh soldat–uchastnikov voyni’) and 1919 No. 15–16, where losses are discussed by N. Krzhivitski. Latterly, N. M. Gavrilov and V. V. Kutuzov have discussed ‘Istoshcheniye lyudskikh rezervov russkoy armii v 1917 godu’ in (ed.) A. L. Sidorov: Pervaya mirovaya voyna (Moscow 1968) pp. 145–67. Cf. their article on casualties in Istoriya SSSR 1964/2. A highly useful summary of the whole problem as to figures—where the ones used by previous writers come under severely damaging attack—is D. V. Verzhkhovski and V. F. Lyakhov: ‘Nekotoriye tsifry’ in Voyenno-istoricheski zhurnal 1964/7. I have also used (a) a source of some value in the Golovin-Archive at the Hoover Institution, the Kratky otchet o deyatelnosti voyennogo ministerstva za 1916 (where losses for 1916 are reckoned at 2,800,000 men, and for the whole war up till 1917 at 6,500,000); (b) despatches of Blair’s, particularly No. 8 of 14th August 1916 (WO. 106.1014) where he reviewed possibilities of exploiting the opolcheniye, and his communication to Buchanan, sent on by Buchanan on 17th February 1915, in FO. 371.2447; (c) minutes of the Council of Ministers, where conscription was regularly discussed—SM. 1914 No. 398 (19th and 23rd December, with ukaz of 24th December calling up the class of 1915) and 1915 Nos. 50 (class of 1916, 26th January) 514 (class of 1917, 30th June) and 849 (class of 1918, 27th October). Educational deferments were discussed in 1914 No. 196 and 1915 Nos. 196 443 and 913.
6C. J. Smith: The Russian Struggle for Power (New York 1952) and particularly A. Dallin and M. Abrash (ed.) : Russian Secret Diplomacy (New York 1962).
7W. Winkler: Die Einkommensverschiebungen in Oesterreich (Vienna 1930) p.122f.
8F. Fischer: Griff nach der Weltmacht (1967 ed. Düsseldorf) p. 482. A thorough, though inconclusive, review of the whole problem is J. Kocka: Klassengesellschaft im Krieg (Göttingen 1973).
9N. Valentinov: Snosheniya p. 80f. and his article: ‘Russkiye voyska vo Frantsii i Salonikakh’ in Voyenno-istoricheski sbornik (Moscow) No. 4 (1921) pp. 3–22 cf. Yu. A. Pisarev: ‘Russkiye voyska na salonikskom fronte’ in Istoricheskiye Zapiski 79 pp. 109–38. It was French politicians, rather than soldiers, who wanted to have Russian forces in France. There are some documents in Sbornik (Nastupleniye) on inter-allied relations at this time (Alexeyev: ‘Worse than they now are, they cannot get’: No.1 p. 33ff. cf. Zhilinski’s comment that ‘Here there are no secrets, and you have to be thankful if things don’t reach the newsaer-headlines’).
10Flot v mirovoy voyne vol 2, passim; Lemke p. 192.
11Lemke p. 284–5.
12Lemke pp. 299ff. extensively covers this battle; there is not much in Strategicheski ocherk V (ed. Klembovski) and VI (ed. Zayonchkovski), but they have at least overall strategic material. There is a useful article on it by ‘byvshi nashtayuz’ (= Klembovski) in Voyennoye delo 1919/4 p. 192ff. and cf. Oesterreich-Ungarns letzter Krieg vol. 4, pp .3 -30.
13Lemke p. 509f., 644; Kersnovski vol. 4 pp. 770, 880.
14Laguiche’s report of 6th June 1916, No. 8326, Carton 77 EMA.
15Neznamov: ‘Dva proryva’ in Voyenno-istoricheski sbornik 1921/4 pp. 105–31, cf. his work in Voyennoye delo 1918 Nos. 8 and 9, covering similar details.
16Β. V. Kirey: Artilleriya ataki i oborony (ed. Burov, Moscow 1926) pp. 6f.
17On this subject, esp. Lemke pp. 152, 329, 666, 777; Blair’s despatch No. 86 of 6th December 1915, WO. 106.1008 p. 1–3; Langlois’s rapports, especially Nos. 6 and 7 (June and October 1916); Frantz: Russland auf dem Weg, especially the Tagebuch des Grossfürsten Andrej Wladimirowitsch, p. 141 (on Guliewicz and Bezobrazov); Kondzerovski pp. 38–9 and 53.
18Reichsarchiv: Der Weltkrieg vol. 10 pp. 424ff. covers this battle, and reckons that there were 11 infantry divisions in line, with nine in reserve, on the Russian side against five and three, respectively, on the German. The essential book on the Russian side is N Podorozhny: Narochskaya operatsiya (Moscow 1938); French pressure appears in Sbornik (Nastupleniye) Nos. 2 and 4 of 18th and 22nd February 1916.
19Lemke p. 617.
20Ibid, pp. 685ff. quotes a long report in causes of failure, from which I take these details. Dug-outs were deliberately kept a full mile from the front.
21Lemke loc. cit. and Barsukov: Russkaya artilleriya prilozheniye 4 pp. 208–14, which is a Stavka document ‘po povodu deystviy russkoy artillerii’, showing that Pleshkov’s group had 72 light and 156 medium or heavy guns, Masalski’s group having 54 light and only 12 medium (48-line howitzers) of them.
22Lyakhov and Verzhkhovski: Pervaya mirovaya voyna (Moscow 1964) p.178; cf. Alexeyev’s account of the battle to Zhilinski, Sbornik (Nastupleniye) No. 12 of 29th April 1916.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
1Lemke p. 348ff. for literature on the Strypa offensive.
2Ibid. pp. 170, 187, 655, 685 and Rostunov: Brusilov p.133.
3Lemke p. 636ff.; cf. Blair’s despatch No. 2 of 1st June 1916 (WO. 106.1019) p. 10.
4Klembovski; Strat. ocherk vol. 5 p. 27; cf. Zayonchkovski: Strat. ocherk vol. 6 p. 20ff. and Rostunov p. 112. The essential work on Brusilov’s offensive is RKKA: Sbornikdokumentov mirovoy voyni na russkom fronte. Nastupleniye yugozapadnogo fronta (Moscow 1940) which contains the documents of armies and front command for the offensive up to Baranovitchi. Beyond this, there is a considerable volume of literature, of which there is a list in the bibliography of Rostunov: Brusilov. Of these works, the most useful prove to be: A. Bazarevski: Nastupatelnaya operatsiya 9. armii (Moscow 1937); P. B. Cherkasov (ed.) Mirovaya voyna. Lutski proryv (Moscow 1924) which discusses the rôle of the other three armies. On the Central Powers’ side, Oesterreich-Ungarns letzter Krieg vol. 4 and Reichsarchiv: Der Weltkrieg vol. 10 p. 4
50ff. are the main accounts. In English, there is nothing beyond a few remarks by Knox (With the Russian Army vol. 2 passim.) and Brusilov: A Soldier’s Notebook (London 1929). For the meeting of commanders: Sbornik (Nastupleniye) Nos. 12 (Alexeyev’s figures for Zhilinski, 29th April) 19–20 and 24 (Alexeyev s report to the Tsar); cf. appendices 3 and 5 of Klembovski: Strategicheski ocherk vol. 5.
5Zayonchkovski: Strat. ocherk vol. 6 p. 8; on methods: Sbornik (Nastupleniye) Nos. 29, 32, 36, 45, 48; Cherkasov p. 198ff. for XI Army; D. Nadezhny: Boy 10. pekh. div. pod Lutskom (Moscow 1925); A. Redkin–Rymashevski: 32. korpus (Moscow 1926).
6Figures for strength: Sbornik (Nastupleniye) p. 19ff. and prilozheniya on supply and shell, cf. Cherkasov p. 16f.
7Zayonchkovski: Strat. ocherk vol. 6 p. 25.
8Nachlass Pflanzer-Baltin (B/50: Tagebuch, Mappe 13 for 5th June 1916) but cf. Sbornik (Nastupleniye) Nos. 73–4 pp. 165–9 for an exchange of 3rd May (old style) between Lechitski and Klembovski.
9E. v. Falkenhayn: Die Oberste Heeresleitung vol. 2 pp. 216f.; cf. Berndt’s manuscript of 29th September 1929: ‘Betrachtungen über die Schlacht von Olyka—Luck 1916’ (Kriegsarchiv, manuscript collection) p. 8.
10The details following are taken from Kriegsarchiv documents: Neue Feldakten, 4. Op. Armeekommando, Fasz. 166 Tagebücher 10–11 (1916–17): No. 10 concerns this period, and I have quoted Op. Nr. 824 (14th April) p. 126, 887 (22nd April), p. 140, 888 (23rd April) pp. 141–2, 1013 (2nd May) p.178, 1045–6 (12th and 13th May) pp. 190–1, 893 (15th May) p.196–7, 1083 (16th May) p. 200 the Oberkommando order (No. 147) on p. 200, and Szúrmay’s report of 2nd June on Russian desertions p. 238. The diary of 10 Corps is also useful (4 Tagebücher 1916–17, of which No. 9 pp. 1094ff. and 1125—15th April and 15th May are pertinent, on losses from sickness etc.). On munitions: for IV. Army, Fasz.154–6 and 199–200 (Munitionsstände 24th August 1915 to 2nd September 1916 and Tagesrapporte der Munitionsfassungsstelle Luck); for VII Army, 7. Op. Armeekommando Art. Referat. Op. Sammelnummer 1200–1600.
