Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:57:50.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“In Accord with State Interests and the People's Wishes“: The Technocratic Ideology of Imperial Russia's Resettlement Administration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Peter Holquist
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, Peter Holquist traces both the institutional culture and personnel of one key late-imperial era agency, the Resettlement Administration, based within the Main Administration of Land Management and Agriculture. Holquist examines the technocratic ethos of a close-knit set of officials within the Resettlement Administration's central office, a group who from 1906 to 1917 oversaw plans to develop the empire's peripheries as well as incorporate territories annexed during World War I. Crucial to all their plans was a commitment to the rational and scientific administration of the empire's people and resources under the aegis of the central state. This ethos informed policies during the last decade of the old regime and throughout World War I, and both this ethos and this cohort of officials influenced the state policy of Red and White governments during the civil war and laid the foundation for the Soviet state's colonization programs in the early 1920s.

Type
Forum: Colonialism and Technocracy at the end of the Tsarist Era
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 69 , Issue 1 , Spring 2010 , pp. 151 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I gratefully acknowledge the support of the following institutions in researching and writing this article: the National Council for Eurasian and East European Research; the Edwin C. and Elizabeth A. Whitehead Fellowship at the Institute for Advanced Study; the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, and the American Council of Learned Societies/ National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship. For constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper, I wish to thank Yanni Kotsonis, Eric Lohr, David Moon, Ekaterina Pravilova, Michael Reynolds, David Rich, Alfred Rieber Charles Steinwedel, and Willard Sunderland. David McDonald, who served as one of the anonymous readers, significantly improved the conceptual architecture. I am grateful as well to Slavic Revieiu's other reader, who corrected several points. All remaining errors are my own.

1. Rieber, Alfred, “Bureaucratic Politics in Imperial Russia,” Social Science History 2, no. 4 (Summer 1978): 399–413 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rieber, Alfred, “Interest-Group Politics in the Era of the Great Reforms,” in Eklof, Ben, Bushnell, John, and Zakharova, Larissa, eds., Russia's Great Reforms, 1855-1881 (Bloomington, 1994), 58–83 Google Scholar; Rieber, Alfred, “Patronage and Professionalism: The Witte System,” in Anan'ich, B. V., ed., Problemy vsemirnoi istorii: Sbornik statei v chest'Aleksandra AleksandrovichaFursenko (St. Petersburg, 2000), 286–98.Google Scholar See also Yaney, George, The Urge to Mobilize: Agrarian Reform in Russia, 1861-1930 (Urbana, 1982), 133–38Google Scholar; on “institutional culture” generally, see Isabel Hull, Absolute Destruction: Military Culture and the Practices of War in Imperial Germany (Ithaca, 2005), 93–98 Google Scholar

2. Rieber, , “Bureaucratic Politics,” 401, 402.Google Scholar

3. Rieber, , “Patronage and Professionalism,” 289–90.Google Scholar

4. Ibid., 291 Google Scholar; cf. Wortman, Richard, The Development of a Russian Legal Consciousness (Chicago, 1976), 134, on the emergence of a “moral identity” and professional agenda among Russia's jurists.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Anan'ich, B. V. and Ganelin, R. Sh., eds., Upravlencheskaia elita Rossiiskoi imperii: Istoriia ministerstv, 1802-1917 (St. Petersburg, 2007), 379–416.Google Scholar

6. Yaney, , Urge to Mobilize, 133-38, 228-29Google Scholar; Pallot, Judith, “The Stolypin Land Reform as ‘Administrative Utopia': Images of Peasantry in Nineteenth Century Russia,” in Palat, Madahavan K., ed., Social Identities in Revolutionary Russia (New York, 2001), 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Macey, David A.J., Government and Peasant in Russia, 1861-1906: The Prehistory of the Stolypin Reforms (DeKalb, 1987), 46–47 Google Scholar; also Stanziani, Alessandro, L'économie en revolution: Le cas nusse, 1870-1930 (Paris, 1998), pt. 1, “The Formation of a Technocracy.“Google Scholar

8. Rieber, , “Patronage and Professionalism,” 290 Google Scholar.

9. Yaney, , Urge to Mobilize, 134 (emphasis in die original)Google Scholar; also 6, 387-88.

10. Macey, , Government, and Peasant, 46, naming both explicitly; on Krivoshein, see 153-55Google Scholar; on Rittikh, , see 62–68 Google Scholar.

11. Gurko, V. I., Cherty i siluety proshlogo: Pravitel’stvo i obshchestvennost’ v tsarstvovanie Nikolaia II v izobrazhenii sovremennika (Moscow, 2000), 607-11Google Scholar; Krivoshein, Kirill A., A. V. Krivoshein: Ego znachenie v istorii Rossii nachala XX veka (Paris, 1973), 109, 148-50, 175, 222-24, 236Google Scholar.

12. Guins, George, “Professor and Government Official: Russia, China, and California” (University of California, Bancroft Library, Regional Oral History Office, Berkeley, 1966), 87, 111Google Scholar. See also Pallot, , “Stolypin Land Reform,” 123 Google Scholar.

13. Naumov, A. N., Iz ulselevshikh vospominanii, 1868-1917, 2 vols. (New York, 1955), 2:348 Google Scholar; see also Tatishchev, A. A., Zemli i liudi: V gushche pereselencheskogo dvizheniia (Moscow, 2001), 250.Google Scholar

14. Naumov, , Iz utselevshikh vospominanii, 2:379-80Google Scholar; on Glinka see also Tatishchev, , Zemli Hindi, 34–39, 349 Google Scholar.

15. Naumov, , Iz utselevshikh vospominanii, 2:379-80Google Scholar; see also Tatishchev, , who served as Chirkin's aide from 1915 to 1917: Zemli i liudi, 42-43, 225-26, 232Google Scholar.

16. Naumov, , Iz utselevshikh vospominanii, 2:389-90Google Scholar; also Tatishchev, , Zemli i liudi, 232-34, 294, 299Google Scholar.

17. Tatishchev, , Zemli i liudi, 31-32, 42-43Google Scholar.

18. Guins, , “Professor and Government Official,” 77 Google Scholar.

19. Tatishchev, , Zemli i liudi, 41.Google Scholar

20. All details taken from Tatishchev's memoir, Zemli i liudi; see also Guins's evaluation of Tatishchev: “Professor and Government Official,” 89.Google Scholar

21. Tatishchev, , Zemli i liudi, 34 Google Scholar.

22. Tatishchev, A., “Zemleotvodnoe delo po doneseniiam zaveduiushchikh pereselencheskim delom v raionakh,” Voprosy kolonizalsii [henceforth VK], 1907, no. 1: 236-53Google Scholar; Tatishchev, A., “Obshchie itogi pereselencheskoi kampanii 1907 goda,” VK, 1907, no. 2: 369-89Google Scholar.

23. Guins, , “Professor and Government Official,” 89 Google Scholar.

24. Guins, , “Professor and Government Official.“Google Scholar

25. Gins, G., “Sovremennoe vodnoe khoziaistvoTurkestanai neobkhodimost'vodnogo zakona,” VK, 1910, no. 6: 46–103 Google Scholar; Gins, G., “Deistvuiushchee vodnoe pravo Turkestana i budushchii vodnyi zakon,” VK, 1910, no. 7: 140–206 Google Scholar; Gins, G., “Gidrotekhnicheskie raboty Pereselencheskogo upravleniia,” VK, 1911, no. 8: 178–209 Google Scholar; Gins, G., “Usloviia orosheniia i eksplotatsii chastnymi predprinimateliami svobodnykh zemel'Turkestana i Zakavkaz'ia,” VK, 1911, no. 8: 249-60Google Scholar; Gins, G., “Osnovnye nachala proekta vodnogo zakona dlia Turkestana,” VK, 1911, no. 9: 128-69Google Scholar.

26. Guins, , “Professor and Government Official,” 98 Google Scholar.

27. Gins, , “Pereselenie i kolonizatsiia,” VK, 1913, no. 12: 73–132 and 1913, no. 13: 39-99Google Scholar; see also Guins, , “Professor and Government Official,” 91 Google Scholar.

28. On how contemporaries distinguished between these two terms, see Sunderland, Willard, Taming the Wild Field: Colonization and. Empire on the Russian. Steppe (Ithaca, 2004), 194-96Google Scholar, and Hirsch, Francine, Stale of Nations: Ethnographic Knowledge and the Making of the Soviet Union (Ithaca, 2005), 87–92 Google Scholar; for a programmatic statement, see Gins, , “Pereselenie i kolonizatsiia“; and lamzin, I. L. and Voshchinin, V. P., Uchenie o kolonizatsii i pereseleniiakh: Posobie dlia vysshei shkoly (Moscow-Leningrad, 1926), 3–5.Google Scholar (Both lamzin and Voshchinin were colleagues of Gins in the Resettlement Administration prior to 1914.)

29. Sunderland, , Taming the Wild Field, 185-92Google Scholar; also Holquist, Peter, “To Count, To Extract, To Exterminate: Population Statistics and Population Politics in Late Imperial and Soviet Russia,” in Suny, Ronald Grigor and Martin, Terry, eds., A State of Nations: Empire and Nation-Making in the Age of Lenin and Stalin (Oxford, 2001), 111 - 44, esp. 120-22.Google Scholar

30. Stolypin gave a notable 1907 speech to the Duma on “Velikaia Rossiia“; picking up on this term, Struve devoted an article to the idea: ‘Velikaia Rossiia,” Russkaia mysi 29, no. 1 (1908): 143-57. See also the Riabushinskii circle's journal Velikaia Rossiia (1910- 1911). Seeley, John Robert had coined the concept of “Greater Britain” in The Expansion of England (London, 1883)Google Scholar. On Seeley and “Greater Britain,” see Bell, Duncan, The Idea of Greater Britain: Empire and the Future of World Order, 1860-1900 (Princeton, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31. Sunderland, , Taming the Wild Field, 194 and 179-80Google Scholar.

32. On the technocratic ethos, see Maier's, Charles S. classic “Between Taylorism and Technocracy: European Ideologies and the Vision of Industrial Productivity in the 1920s,” Journal of Contemporary Historyb, no. 2 (1970): 27–63 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; more recently. Scott, James C., Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to improve the Human Condition Have Failed (New Haven, 1998)Google Scholar. For the case in Russian history, see Yaney, , Urge to Mobilize; Stanziani, L'économie en revolution;and Yanni Kotsonis, Making Peasants Bacltivards: Agricultural Cooperatives and the Agrarian Question in Russia, 1861-1914 (New York, 1999)Google Scholar.

33. Pallot, , “Stolypin Land Reform,” 121-22Google Scholar. Pallot's monograph details how peasant reactions subtly modified the actual implementadon of the reform: Pallot, Judith, Land Reform in Russia, 1906-1917: Peasant Responses to Stolypin's Project of Rural Transformation (Oxford, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34. Guins, , “Professor and Government Official,” 83 Google Scholar.

35. Ibid., 87 Google Scholar.

36. Tatishchev, , Zemli i liudi, 48 Google Scholar.

37. Yaney, , Urge to Mobilize, 3 Google Scholar; Pallot, , “Stolypin Land Reform,” 120 Google Scholar; Macey, David, “Reflections on Peasant Adaptation in Rural Russia at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century: The Stolypin Agrarian Reforms,” Journal of Peasant Studies 31, nos. 3 - 4(2004): 400-26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38. Pipes, Richard, The Russian Revolution (New York, 1991), 173-75Google Scholar; Williams, Stephen F., Liberal Reform in an Illiberal Regime: The Creation of Private Property in Russia (Stanford, 2006)Google Scholar.

39. Kotsonis, , Making Peasants, 54–55, 76 Google Scholar. See also Pallot, , “Stolypin Land Reform,” 115 Google Scholar and Korelin, V., “Stolypinskaia agrarnaia reforma v aspekte zemel'noi sobstvennosti,” in Aiatskov, D. F., ed., Sobstvennost’ na zemliu v Rossii: Istroiia i sovremennost’ (Moscow, 2002), esp. 277, 287 Google Scholar.

40. Macey, , Government and Peasant, 243 Google Scholar; Kotsonis, , Making Peasants, chap. 4, esp. 54–55, 71–76 Google Scholar; see also Rieber, , “Patronage and Professionalism,” 290 Google Scholar.

41. Macey, , “Reflections on Peasant Adaptation,” 150 Google Scholar; Kotsonis, , Making Peasants, 48–52, 58, 116—19, 146Google Scholar; Stanziani, , L'économie en revolution, 120-23Google Scholar.

42. Macey, , “Reflections on Peasant Adaptation,” 160-61Google Scholar.

43. Tatishchev, , Zemli i liudi, 129 Google Scholar. Tatishchev's full expression in Russian is:

44. Sunderland, Taming the Wild Field, 183-84Google Scholar.

45. Gavrilova, N., Pereselencheskoe delo v Turkestanskom krae (Oblasti Syr-Dar'inskaia, Samarkandskaia, iFerganskaia): Otchetpo sluzhebnoi poezdke v Turkestan osen'iu 1910 goda chinovnika osobykh poruchenii pri Pereselencheskom upravlenii N. Gavrilova (St. Petersburg, 1910), 186 Google Scholar; Tatishchev, , Zemli i liudi, 186 Google Scholar.

46. Pravilova, Ekaterina, “Les res publicae russes: Discours stir la propriété publique à la fin de l'empire,” Annates HSS 64, no. 3 (May-June 2009): 579–609, esp. 592-93Google Scholar. Pravilova's focus in her discussion here is Guins's draft for a water law. For similar views by David Samsonovich Fleksor, the government's chief hydrotechnician, see Kotsonis, Making Peasants, 121 (private property should be subordinated to the general good)Google Scholar.

47. Pahlen, Constantine, Mission to Turkestan: Being the Memoirs of Count K. K. Pahlen, 1908-1909, ed. Pierce, Richard A., trans. Couriss, N.J. (Oxford, 1964)Google Scholar. This memoir recapitulates views found in Palen's multivolume report of his 1908-1909 senatorial inquest in Turkestan:Google Scholar see Konstantin Palen, Olchel po revizii Turkestanskogo kraia, proizvedennoi po Vysochaishemu poveleniiu, 18 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1910), volume entitled Pereselencheskoedelo v Turliestane. On Palen and his report, the foundation for much current scholarly work on Turkestan, see Brower, Daniel, Turkestan and the Fate ojthe Russian Empire (New York, 2003), 103-6, 143-44Google Scholar, and Abashin, S. N. et al., eds., Tsenlral'naia Aziia v sostave Rossiiskoi imperii (Moscow, 2008), 123-25Google Scholar.

48. Tatishchev, , Zemli i liudi, 53–54 Google Scholar.

49. E.g., Chirkin, G., Potozheniepereselencheskogo dela v Semirech'e: Zapiska komandirovannogo v Semirechenskuiu oblast’ letom 1908 g. revizora zemleustroistva C. E Chirkina (St. Petersburg, 1908), plus three articles in VK.Google Scholar Gavrilov, in addition to Pereselencheskoe delo v Turkestanskom krae (1910), also penned an article for VK. In 1910-1911, Gins published five articles on Turkestan in VK.

50. On this viceregal mindset, see Khalid, Adeeb, The Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform: Jadidism in Central Asia (Berkeley, 1998), 50-61 Google Scholar.

51. Pahlen, , Mission to Turkestan, 196 Google Scholar; similarly, Pahlen, , Pereselencheskoe deb, 24, 37-38, 42, 406, 426Google Scholar.

52. Pahlen, , Mission to Turkestan, 191 Google Scholar; he also describes this system in his 1910 report: Palen, , Pereselencheskoe delo, 31–42 Google Scholar. For the Resettlement Administration's defense of its approach, see Fleksor, D., Pereselencheskoe delo v 1908godu (St. Petersburg, 1908), 26–27 Google Scholar.

53. Palen, , Pereselencheskoe delo, 42 Google Scholar; also Pahlen, , Mission to Turkestan, 181 Google Scholar.

54. Sunderland, Taming the Wild Field, chap. 4Google Scholar.

55. Gins, , “Pereselenie i kolonizatsiia,” no. 13: 40–41, 47-48Google Scholar.

56. Ibid., no. 13: 48–49 Google Scholar; Fleksor describes the model in his 1908 report: Pereselencheskoe delo, 28.

57. Sahadeo, Jeff, “Progress or Peril? Migrants and Locals in Russian Tashkent, 1906-14,” in Breyfogle, Nicholas B., Schrader, Abby, and Sunderland, Willard, eds., Peopling the Russia Periphery: Borderland Colonization in Eurasian History (London, 2007), 153-54Google Scholar; Brower, Turkestan, 131-51Google Scholar.

58. Pahlen, , Mission to Turkestan, 196 Google Scholar.

59. Gins, , “Pereselenie i kolonizatsiia,” no. 13: 50–51 Google Scholar; also Fleksor, , Pereselencheskoedelo, 41, for SiberiaGoogle Scholar; and Tatishchev, , Zemli i liudi, 70–71, describing the views of his predecessor as director of the resettlement office for the Maritime ProvinceGoogle Scholar.

60. Gavrilov, , Pereselencheskoe delo v Turkestanskom krae, 52, 54, 333-34Google Scholar.

61. Fleksor, , Pereselencheskoe delo, 55, 86Google Scholar.

62. Yaney, , Urge to Mobilize, 136 and 388Google Scholar.

63. Palen, , Pereselencheskoe delo, 49 Google Scholar; Palen's report at several points charges that the Resettlement Administration's commitment to norms is “inconsistent with existing law” (38, 41)Google Scholar; see also Pahlen, , Mission to Turkestan, 191 Google Scholar.

64. Gavrilov, , Pereselencheskoe delo v Turkestanskom krae, 331 Google Scholar; Chirkin, G., “Neobkhodimost’ peresmotra Stepnogo Polozheniia,” VK, 1913, no. 12: 65–72 Google Scholar.

65. For a general overview, see Anan'ich, Boris et al., Krizis samodeiihaviia, 1895-1917 (Leningrad, 1984), 421-22, 426, 428, 446, 528Google Scholar; Kotsonis, , Making Peasants, 62–68 Google Scholar.

66. See Holquist, Peter, Making War, Forging Revolution: Russia's Continuum of Crisis (Cambridge, Mass., 2002), 18–20, 33-34Google Scholar; and Yaney, , Urge to Mobilize, 135, 405, 417, 426, 433, 436Google Scholar.

67. Tatishchev, , Zemli i liudi, 198-99, 233Google Scholar. On the drop in funding for the Resettlement Administration during World War I (by 1916 it had dropped by 30 percent), see Willard Sunderland's article in this issue.

68. Minutes of Secret Council of Ministers meeting, 1 August 1914, Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv, St. Petersburg (RGIA), f. 1276 (Sovet ministrov), op. 10, d. 800, 11. 2-3Google Scholar ; Galperina, B. D., ed., Sovet ministrov rossiiskoi imperii v gody pervoi mirovoi voiny: BumagiA. N. lakhontova (St. Petersburg, 1999), 26–27 (30July 1914) and 30, 367n55 (both 1 August 1914)Google Scholar. See Holquist, , Making War, 16–21, esp. 19Google Scholar; Matsuzato, Kimitaka, “Obshchestvennaia ssypka i voenno-prodovol'stvennaia sistema,” Acta Slavica Iaponica 15 (1997): 17–47 Google Scholar.

69. Bukshpan, Iakov, Voenno-khoziaistvennaia politika: Formy i organy regulirovaniia khoziaistva za vremia mirovoi voiny, 1914-1918 (Moscow-Leningrad, 1929), 377 Google Scholar; Naumov, , Iz lUselevshikh vospominanii, 2:388 Google Scholar.

70. Tatishchev, , Zemli i liudi, 232 Google Scholar; Naumov, , Iz utselevshikh vospominanii, 2:389-90.Google Scholar

71. Guins, , “Professor and Government Official,” 125-26Google Scholar.

72. Holquist, , Making War, 31–36.Google Scholar

73. Tatishchev, , Zemli i liudi, 225-32, 241Google Scholar; Naumov, , Iz utselevshikh vospominanii, 2:379-80Google Scholar.

74. See the excellent treatment in Lohr, Eric, Nationalizing the Russian Empire: The Campaign against Enemy Aliens during World War I (Cambridge, Mass., 2003), 84–120 Google Scholar.

75. Tatishchev, , Zemli i liudi, 42 Google Scholar; Tatishchev expressed his own frustrations with the conservative gentry in Tula (96). Minister of Agriculture Naumov recalled his exasperation with the petty and selfish wartime demands of landowners and sugar manufacturersGoogle Scholar. See Naumov, , Iz utselevshikh vospominanii, 2:392-93Google Scholar.

76. Galperina, , ed., Sovet ministrov, 151 (4 April 1915)Google Scholar.

77. Naumov, , Iz utselevshikh vospominanii, 2:463—64Google Scholar.

78. Siegel, Jennifer, Endgame: Britain, Russia and theFinal Struggle for Central Asia (New York, 2002), 119 Google Scholar.

79. Report of the Director of Resettlement in the Syr-Dar'ia region A. Sakharov to Turkestan Governor-General Kuropatkin, 3 October 1916, RGIA, f. 391 (Pereselencheskoe upravlenie MZ), op. 6 (1916-1918), d. 706,11. 27-29Google Scholar. See also the “Draft of instructions for the resettlement officials dispatched to regions of Persia being settled by Russian settlers,” 2 April 1914, Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi voenno-istoricheskii arkhiv, Moscow (RGVIA), f. 400 (Glavnyi shtab Voennogo ministerstva), op. 1, d. 4341,11. 1-6.Google Scholar

80. RGIA, f. 391, op. 6, d. 387,11. 1-9.Google Scholar

81. Tatishchev, , Zemliiliudi, 190-93Google Scholar.

82. Ibid., 152-53Google Scholar.

83. “The Resettlement cause in Astrabad province in 1915,” RGIA, f. 391, op. 6, d. 706,11. 1–10 Google Scholar. See also “On Russian settlements in Astrabad province in Persia,” RGVIA, f. 400, op. 1, d. 4507Google Scholar. V. P. Voshchinin, “Sovremennye zadachi Rossii na severe Persii,” VK, 1915, no. 17: 26-51, decries the chaos and confusion in the region's civil legislation in general and land legislation in particular (41-43), and argues that the war provides an opportunity to achieve Russia's goals in northern Persia (50).

84. Report of the Director of Resettlement in the Syr-Dar'ia region A. Sakharov to Turkestan Governor-General Kuropatkin, 9 December 1916, RGIA, f. 391, op. 6, d. 706, 11. 15–20 Google Scholar.

85. Yaney, , Urge to Mobilize, 136 Google Scholar.

86. Sakharov to Kuropatkin, 9 December 1916, RGIA, f. 391, op. 6, d. 706,1. 16Google Scholar.

87. Ibid., 1. 17.Google Scholar

88. Ibid., 1. 18Google Scholar. Sakharov's arguments are the same as those made by GUZZ prior to the war in regard to water rights in Turkestan, where Gins argued that retaining the regulation of water in Turkestan on the basis of private property would impede the realization of the government's projects. See Pravilova, , “Les res publicae russes,” 592 Google Scholar.

89. Sakharov to Kuropatkin, 9 December 1916, RGIA, f. 391, op. 6, d. 706,11. 18–19 Google Scholar.

90. Tsyss, Colonel, “Po voprosu o skupke armianami zemel’ v prilegaiushchikh k Kavkazu chastei Persii i Turtsii” [n.d.: ca. May 1916?], Sakartvelos sakhelmtsipo saistorio arkivi (SSSA, Georgian National Historical Archive, Tbilisi), f. 13 (Kantseliariia namestnika na Kavkaze), op. 27s., d. 4353,11.1-5Google Scholar. Despite the title—and Tsyss's undisguised anti- Armenian bias—he was concerned about speculators generally, not just Armenians.

91. In a resolution on the document, Kuropatkin indicated his approval of these measures. RGIA, f. 391, op. 6, d. 706, 1. 15Google Scholar. He then directed his commanders to implement them: Turkestan Governor-General Kuropatkin to Commander of the Giurgen Detachment General A. S. Madritov, 31 December 1916, ibid., 11. 21-22Google Scholar.

92. Director of Resettlement in the Syr-Dar'ia region A. Sakharov to G. F. Chirkin, 4 January 1917, ibid., 11. 11-14Google Scholar.

93. Ibid., 1. 14.Google Scholar

94. Kuropatkin to General Madritov, 4 March 1917: Piaskovskii, A. V., ed., Vosstanie 1916 goda v srednei Azii i Kazakhstane: Sbornik dokumentov (Moscow, 1960), 713-14Google Scholar.

95. Naumov to Viceroy for the Caucasus Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, 6 March 1916, SSSA, f. 13, op. 15, d. 2690, 1.1Google Scholar, and to Foreign Minister Sazonov, 12 March 1916, Arkhiv vneshnei politiki Rossiiskoi imperii (Moscow), f. 151, op. 482 (Politarkhiv), d. 3486, 11. 2-3Google Scholar.

96. Lenskii, N., “Samovol'nye pereselentsy i pereselencheskoe zakonodatel'stvo,” VK, 1914, no. 14: 96–120 Google Scholar; Lenskii, N., “Dal'nevostochnyi konflikt i zadachi russkoi politiki,” VK, 1915, no. 17: 52–76 Google Scholar.

97. Lenskii, N. A., O pravovom polozhenii zemlevladeniia v Turetskoi Armenii: Zapiska chinovnika osobykh poruchenii pri Pereselencheskom Upravlenii Ministerstva Zemledeliia, privatdotsenta Imperatorskogo Petrogradskogo Universiteta N. A. Lenskogo (Petrograd, 1916), 22–23 Google Scholar.

98. He recounts his tour in Tatishchev, Zemli i liudi, 235-40Google Scholar. He compiled three reports in mid-May: RGIA, f. 391, op. 6, d. 305,11. 41-45ob.; 11. 46-49Google Scholar; and RGIA, f. 391, op. 6, d. 77,11. 1-15Google Scholar. Tatishchev to P. P. Nikolenko, 27 October 1916, RGIA, f. 391, op. 6, d. 305,11. 164-166ob.Google Scholar; he repeated these arguments in all his reports: ibid., 11. 41 ob.; RGIA, f. 391, op. 6, d. 77,1.4ob.Google Scholar

99. Tatishchev to Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, 9 May 1916, RGIA, f. 391, op. 6, d. 305, 1. 42ob. (emphasis in the original)Google Scholar.

100. Tatishchev to Nikolenko, 27 October 1916, ibid., 11. 164-66ob.Google Scholar; Tatishchev to Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, 9 May 1916, ibid., 11. 13-14Google Scholar.

101. Tatishchev to Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich, 9 May 1916, ibid., 1. 44ob. (emphasis in the original)Google Scholar.

102. Journal of the Special Conference for discussing Tatishchev's report, 17 May 1916, SSSA, f. 13, op. 15, d. 2690,11. 9-12.Google Scholar

103. Nachtigal, Reinhard, Die Murmanbahn: Die Verkehrsanbindung eines kriegswichtigen Hafens und das ArbeitspotentialderKriegsgefangenen (Grunbach, Germany, 2001), 124-25.Google Scholar

104. Rosenberg, William, “Social Mediation and State (Re-)Constructions,” SocialHistory 19, no. 2 (May 1994): 168-88, esp. 178-80, 187-88Google Scholar; “age of specialists” is Stanziani's term: L'économie en revolution, chap. 8Google Scholar.

105. Guins, , “Professor and Government Official,” vii, 139-40, 146Google Scholar. It is likely he published the notes for the course a year later: Gins, G. K., Prodovol'stvennoe zakonodatel'stvo: Organizatsiia narodnogo khoziaistva vo vremia voiny (Omsk, 1918)Google Scholar.

106. On Guins's conservative tendencies and his suspicion of the revolution, see Guins, “Professor and Government Official,” 143 Google Scholar; on his skepticism regarding planning, see Gins, , Prodovol'stvennoe zakonodatel'stvo, ii, 53 Google Scholar.

107. Gins, , Prodovol'stvennoe zakonodatel'stvo, 5, 57Google Scholar.

108. Tatishchev, , Zemli i liudi, 242 Google Scholar; Naumov, , Iz utselevshikh vospominanii, 2:389-90Google Scholar.

109. Order of the Chairman ofthe State Duma, 1 March 1917, hvestiiapo prodovol'stvennomudelu, no. 1 (32) (May 1917): 2 Google Scholar; and Bukshpan, , Voenno-khoziaistvennaiapolitika, 508 Google Scholar.

110. Holquist, , Making War, 104–5Google Scholar.

111. Letter of appointment to commission on the colonization fund, 26 July 1917, Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv ekonomiki, Moscow (RGAE), f. 478 (Narodnyi komissariat zemledeliia RSFSR), op. 6, d. 1335, 1. 8Google Scholar; letter of appointment to commission on the upcoming agrarian reform, 8July 1917, ibid., 1. 10Google Scholar.

112. “Tasks of the Commission for Issues of Resettlement and Colonization,” ca. August 1917, ibid., 11. 76-78Google Scholar. These 1917 commissions contain a familiar list of names among their members: Chirkin, Tatishchev, Lenskii, Fleksor, and Vladimir Voshchinin.Google Scholar

113. “The Resettlement Question in the Ministry of Agriculture” (n.d. [1917]), ibid., 11. 124-25Google Scholar.

114. Chirkin at the 22 August 1917 meeting of the Commission on Issues of Resettlement and Colonization, ibid., 1. 148; similarly at the 22 September meeting, ibid., 1. 166Google Scholar.

115. Kol'tsev, A. V., Sozdanie i deiatel'nost’ Komissii po izucheniiu estestvennykh proizvoditel'nykh sit Rossii, 1915-1930 (St. Petersburg, 1999)Google Scholar; Kojevnikov, Alexei, “The Great War, the Russian Civil War, and the Invention of Big Science,” Sciencein Context\b, no. 2 (2002): 239-75Google ScholarPubMed.

116. Principles for resettlement work, 22 September 1917 meeting of commission on issues of resettlement and colonization, RGAE, f. 478, op. 6, d. 1335, 1. 170 (emphasis in the original)Google Scholar.

117. Rosenberg, William, Liberals in the Russian Revolution: The Constitutional Democratic Party, 1917-1921 (Princeton, 1974), 444 Google Scholar; Kenez, Peter, Civil WarinSouthRussia, 1919-1920: The Defeat of the Whites (Berkeley, 1977), 270-73Google Scholar; Treadgold, Donald W., “The Ideology of the White Movement: Wrangel's ‘Leftist Policy from Rightist Hands,'” in McLean, Hugh, Malia, Martin E., and Fischer, George, eds., Russian Thought and Politics (Cambridge, Mass., 1957), 489 Google Scholar. Treadgold sees Krivoshein as a reformer; Rosenberg and Kenez view him as a more conservative figure. I incline more toward Treadgold's view.

118. Rosenberg, , Liberals, 424 nil Google Scholar.

119. Kenez, , Civil War, 271, 279-87Google Scholar; Treadgold, “Ideology,” 490 Google Scholar.

120. Tatishchev, , Zemli i liudi, 349-51Google Scholar.

121. Decree cited in Kenez, Civil War, 281-82Google Scholar.

122. Tatishchev, Zemli i liudi, 272-76Google Scholar.

123. Heinzen, James W., Inventing a Soviet Countryside: State Power and the Transformation of Rural Russia, 1917-1929 (Pittsburgh, 2004), 32–33 Google Scholar; for the “subculture of expertise” found in the imperial Ministry of Agriculture before 1917, see 18, 41-46.

124. See the following files of the Soviet Commissariat of Agriculture's “Resettlement Administration,” containing correspondence from late 1916 through late 1918: RGAE, f. 478, op. 6, dd. 1331,1332,1335, 1363,1406Google Scholar.

125. E.g., Circular from the Resettlement Administration to district and regional Soviets of Asiatic Russia, 15 June 1918, RGAE, f. 478, op. 6, d. 1415,1. 123Google Scholar.

126. Minutes of 2 May 1918 session, RGAE, f. 478, op. 6, d. 1402,11. 79-84Google Scholar.

127. Ocherkipo istorii kolonizatsii severa (Peterburg [sic], 1922), 1:5 Google Scholar. The core principles of this program are found in Spravochnoe biuro po peveseleniiu v Sibir', “Doklad ob organizatsii kolonizatsionnykh rabot v severnykh guberniiakh Evropeiskoi Rossii” [January 1919], RGAE, f. 478, op. 6, d. 1402,11. 7-25Google Scholar.

128. “Doklad ob organizatsii,” RGAE, f. 478, op. 6, d. 1402,11. 7-9, 10-11.Google Scholar

129. Baron, Nick, Soviet Karelia: Politics, Planning and Terror in Stalin's Russia, 1920- 1939 (New York, 2007), 76–77 Google Scholar. Chirkin wrote extensively about how Soviet power could settle the north: Chirkin, G. F., Kolonizatsiia severa i puti soobshcheniia (Petrograd, 1919)Google Scholar; Chirkin, G. F., Puti razvitiia Marmana: Posle poezdhi na Murman glavnogo nachal'nika putei soobshcheniia I. N. Borisova (Petrograd, 1922)Google Scholar; Chirkin, G. F., “Istoriko-ekonomicheskie predposylki kolonizatsii severa,” in Ocherkipo istorii kolonizatsii severa, 1:7–26 Google Scholar; Chirkin, G. F., Priroda i liudi: Sovetskaia Kanada—Murmanskii krai (Leningrad, 1929)Google Scholar.

130. “Proektiruemye zheleznye dorogi i ikh kolonizatsionnoe znachenie,” VK, 1910, no. 6: 27–45 Google Scholar; “Kolonizatsionnoe i narodno-khoziaistvennoe znachenie proektiruemoi Iuzhno-sibirskoi magistrali,” VK, 1913, no. 13: 100–128 Google Scholar; “Znachenie dlia Rossii Mongol'- skogo rynka: K voprosu o sooruzhenii Mongol'skoi zheleznoi dorogi,” VK, 1915, no. 17: 77–84 Google Scholar.

131. Baron, , Soviet Karelia, 77–78 Google Scholar.

132. On Voshchinin's service before 1917, see Tatishchev, Zemli i liudi, 226, 232, 287.Google Scholar

133. In the imperial era, Voshchinin was the author of Pereselencheskii vopros v Gosudarstvennoi Dume IH-ogo sozyva (St. Petersburg, 1912)Google Scholar; Na sibirskom prostore: Kartiny pereseleniia (St. Petersburg, 1912)Google Scholar; Ocherki novogo Turkeslana: Svet i teni russkoi kolonizatsii (St. Petersburg, 1914)Google Scholar; and the following articles: “K zakonoproektu o prodazhe pereselencheskikh uchastkov,” VK, 1913, no. 13:176-82Google Scholar; “Sovremennye zadachi Rossii na severe Persii,” VK, 1915, no. 17: 26–51 Google Scholar; and a hagiographic article on colonization efforts during Krivoshein's tenure as minister: “Kolonizatsionnoe delo pri A. V. Krivosheine,” VK, 1916, no. 18: 1–24 Google Scholar.

134. Voshchinin, V. P., “Immediate reforms in the area of the resettlement,” RGAE, f. 478, op. 6, cl. 1404, 11. 2-3.Google Scholar For changing Soviet definitions of “colonization,” see also Hirsch, , State of Nations, 87–92 Google Scholar.

135. Minutes of meeting of delegates of representatives of the Resettlement Administration, 6June 1918, RGAE, f. 478, op. 6, d. 1415,1. 127 (emphasis in the original)Google Scholar. This idea is developed in Iamzin and Voshchinin's 1926 textbook, Uchenie o kolonizatsii i pereseleniiakh, pt. 1, chap. 1 and pt. 2, chap. 1Google Scholar.

136. Hirsch, , State of Nations, 87 Google Scholar.

137. Iamzin and Voshchinin, Uchenie o kolonizatsii ipereseleniiakh. Iamzin also authored a series of articles on the goals of Soviet colonization: Iamzin, I. L., “Sovetskaia Rossiia i otstalye narodnosti,” Zhizn’ natsional'nostei, no. 30 (128) (23 December 1921): 1 Google Scholar; Iamzin, I. L., “Kolonizatsiia v usloviiakh Sovetskoi Rossii,” Zhizn’ natsional'nostei, no. 2 (131) (17 January 1922): 1 Google Scholar; Iamzin, I. L., “Natsional'nye interesy i voprosy kolonizatsii,” Zhizn’ natsional'nostei, no. 16(151) (31 July 1922): 3 Google Scholar.

138. Hirsch, , State of Nations, 88ral00Google Scholar.

139. Iamzin, and Voshchinin, , Uchenie o kolonizatsii i pereseleniiakh, 5, 144 Google Scholar; for other favorable descriptions of the prerevolutionary Resettlement Administration's activities see also 68.

140. In 1933, Voshchinin would found and chair the Murmansk filial of the Geografoekonomicheskii nauchno-issledovatel'skii institut (GENII, Geographic-Economic Re search Institute) and edit the geographical dictionary of the Kola Peninsula that appeared in 1939. In 1948 he would receive a prize for his role in editing the Geograficheskii slovar’ Murmanskoi oblasti.Google Scholar

141. Rieber, , “Patronage and Professionalism,” 289-91Google Scholar.

142. For analogous arguments in the Russian case, see Yaney, Urge to Mobilize; Stanziani, L'économie en revolution; Engelstein, Laura, “Combined Underdevelopment: Discipline and the Law in Imperial and Soviet Russia,” American Historical Review 98, no. 2 (April 1993): 338-53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kojevnikov, , “Great War“; Alain Blum and Martine Mespoullet, “Le Passé au service du present: L'administration statistique de l'État soviétique entre 1918 et 1930,” Cahiers du monderusse 44, no. 2-3 (April-September 2003): 343-68, esp. 343-48Google Scholar; Kotsonis, Yanni, “'No Place to Go': Taxation and State Transformation in Late Imperial and Early Soviet Russia,” Journal of Modern History 76, no. 3 (September 2004): 531-77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hirsch, State of Nations; Google Scholar and Cadiot, Juliette, Le Laboratoire impérial: Russie-URSS, 1860-1940 (Paris, 2007)Google Scholar.

143. Naumov, , Iz utselivshikh vospominanii, 2:380.Google Scholar

144. Kotsonis, Yanni, “'Face-to-Face': The State, the Individual, and the Citizen in Russian Taxation, 1863-1917,” Slavic Review 63, no. 2 (Summer 2004): 246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

145. Tocqueville, Alexis de, The Old Regime and the French Revolution, trans. Gilbert, Stuart (1856; New York, 1983), 209 Google Scholar.