The Eastern Front 1914-1917 (61 page)

⁷
‘Osobaya rasporyaditelnaya komissiya’: Sidorov:
Ek. Pol
. p. 36f.

⁸
K. 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.

⁹
For 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.

¹⁰
RAOAZ
: 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).

¹¹
On 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.

¹²
Sidorov:
Ek. Pol.
p. 345; I. Mayevski:
Ekonomika
pp. 101f.; Dyakin p. 91f.

¹³
Two 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.

¹⁴
Istoriya 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.

¹⁵
V. 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.

¹⁶
Dyakin 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.

¹⁷
Mayevski 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.

¹⁸
R. 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.

¹⁹
G. 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.

.
²⁰
Tarnovski 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.

²¹
Tarnovski:
Formirovaniye
pp. 72, 88, 114f.

²²
G. 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.

²³
Strumilin op. cit. p. 186.

²⁴
Tarnovski p. 101.

²⁵
Shepelev: ‘Fondovaya birzha’ in
Istoricheskiye Zapiski
84 (1969) pp. 121–63, esp. p. 127.

²⁶
Ibid. p. 162–3; cf. Strumilin op. cit. p. 360f.

²⁷
Ibid. pp. 349–51; Sidorov:
Ek. pol
. p. 343.

²⁸
Ibid. p. 350.

²⁹
N. 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.

³⁰
Sidorov: 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.

³¹
Sidorov:
Ek. Pol
. p. 364.

³²
Mayevski p. 109 and 251–5.

³³
Litvinov-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.

³⁴
Sidorov:
Ek. Pol
. pp. 359f.

³⁵
N. 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).

³⁶
Sidorov:
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.

³⁷
Manikovski 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).

³⁸
These 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

¹
Lemke p. 161; Manikovski vol. 1 passim;
Sbornik
(Nastupleniye) p. 33ff.

²
p. A. Zayonchkovski:
Voyenniye reformy
p. 66f. and Sidorov:
Fin. Pol
. p. 65.

³
A.M. Anfimov:
Russkaya derevnya v gody pervoy mirovoy voyni
(Moscow 1962) p. 198.

⁴
A. 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

⁵
Figures 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.