Unable to rally the masses, revolutionary radicals turned to assassination – and made Alexander II their ultimate target Public thought in the Russian Empire was always inclined toward radicalism. Much like France, which had been shaken by revolutions since the late 18th century, Russia faced armed political violence for a prolonged period. In itself, there was nothing unique about the confrontation between the government and radicals. However, the activity, energy, ingenuity, and resilience of terrorist groups in Russia was unprecedented. Of course, Russian terrorists were not the first radicals in the world – consider the actions of Giuseppe Fieschi, who attempted to assassinate French King Louis Philippe I using a multi-barrel volley gun, or the Gunpowder Plot in Great Britain. However, in Russia, some underground movements persisted for decades, surviving various times and switching their political identity. Terrorists emerged in Russia during the era of Emperor Alexander II’s Great Reforms, and Alexander II himself fell prey to them. The entire history of the late Russian Empire unfolded in the shadow of the bomb. The revolutionary movement in Russia was multifaceted and complex, and terrorism was merely a part of it. The terrorists were, of course, revolutionaries; but revolutionaries weren’t always terrorists. For example, Vladimir Lenin viewed terrorism with skepticism. The phrase attributed to him, “We shall take a different path,” became cliché in the Russian language, but hardly anyone remembers the context in which it was originally spoken. Lenin’s main idea was that a small, underground organization would not succeed, unlike a mass-based insurgent movement. Read more Britain and Russia have been to war before. Ask the British fleet how that went Today, however, we will speak of those who intended to bring down the empire using only bombs and revolvers. The flip side of reforms The initial actions of the terrorist movement gave the impression of an uprising in a madhouse. Revolutionary terror in Russia emerged as an unexpected side effect of Alexander II’s Great Reforms. The Emperor had inherited the throne from his father – the hardline conservative Nicholas I, a man viewed as a martinet who tried to rule the country as if it were an infantry platoon. Convinced that Russia needed to be dragged out of its archaic state, Alexander launched sweeping reforms. From his accession to the throne in 1855 until his assassination in 1881, the new Emperor continuously introduced changes that transformed the face of Russia almost beyond recognition. The Emancipation Reform granted freedom to millions of serfs whose condition was not much better than slavery. While this was his most famous reform, it was far from the only one. He reformed everything from the judicial system and military to local self-government and the legal code. Several monarchs in Russian history are known as ‘the Great’, but only one – Alexander II – is known as ‘the Liberator’. From a broad perspective, the reforms were brilliant. But upon closer inspection, the situation was more complex. Alexander strove to cushion the inevitable shock experienced by a society undergoing such rapid change. While they were noble in intent, the reforms had many unpleasant side effects when put into practice. Czar Alexander II of Russia. © Hulton-Deutsch Collection / CORBIS / Corbis via Getty Images For instance, Alexander sought to mitigate the impact of the sudden financial ruin of the landed aristocracy, who could no longer rely on the forced labor of the peasantry. Even after gaining personal freedom, peasants were required to make ‘redemption payments’ to the state (in installments) for the land allotments they received; the state, in turn, compensated landowners for the loss of their serfs. This imposed a heavy additional tax burden on the peasantry; meanwhile, the aristocrats (many of whom were not the smartest individuals) often squandered the money received from the government. Moreover, the nobility retained the best land, though it was now cultivated by hired laborers and tenant farmers rather than serfs. Read more The ‘stab in the back’ that wasn’t: Why Stalin sent the Red Army into Poland Many of the social consequences of the reforms were unpleasant. For example, some impoverished nobles turned to crime. Cities saw a surge in prostitution driven by peasant women who had formerly been the mistresses of provincial landowners; this caught the police completely off guard. In short, even a reform as beneficial as the emancipation of the serfs had a wide range of unexpected consequences. Some viewed the reforms as too drastic, while others considered them insufficient. For a long time, Alexander left the structure of the highest government bodies untouched. He remained the absolute monarch, and his word was law. He didn’t introduce anything resembling a parliament, and there was no constitution. Freedom of the press was also severely restricted by censorship. It was only a matter of time before radicals emerged. Freaks against the Empire ‘Raznochintsy’ (people of miscellaneous ranks) were the primary social base of the revolutionary movement. These individuals were neither nobles, merchants, nor peasants; they made their own living and were not in state service. Usually, they were poor but rather well-educated – and often highly ambitious. A famous example is Rodion Raskolnikov from Dostoevsky’s novel ‘Crime and Punishment’. Another source of recruits for revolutionary circles was the impoverished nobility. Legitimate discussion groups were severely restricted at the time; consequently, would-be terrorists gathered at illicit meetings, lending their groups the aura of secret societies. Painting by Nikolay Karazin based on the novel ‘Crime and Punishment’ by Fyodor Dostoevsky. Some of these societies were quite harmless – essentially nothing more than ordinary, small discussion clubs. Others, however, embraced a bloodthirsty idealism. They championed utopian socialism as their social ideal, viewing mass uprisings as the means to achieve it. Yet they ran up against a dismal reality: Amid the emancipation from serfdom and rapid urban growth, the vast majority of Russian people were concerned with things like property, money, social standing, and in urban areas, education as a means of achieving social status. But then, in 1866, an event occurred that foreshadowed ominous and dark times. Read more From Phoenicians to Franco: Why are these African cities Spanish at all? Dmitry Karakozov was a typical young man of the reform era. Born into a family of the petty nobility, he lacked financial means; after completing two years of university, he was expelled from the law department for being unable to pay his tuition. He worked as a low-level clerk with no career prospects, and enjoyed attending meetings organized by his cousin, who founded an organization aptly called ‘Hell’. People of similar social standing gathered there to discuss the textbook demands of young Russian radicals: the need to build schools and hospitals, educate the peasantry, and… assassinate the Tsar. The last point was discussed very vigorously, but it was pure fantasy: The group fantasized about a clandestine terrorist organization with its own far-reaching intelligence network. Yet Karakozov turned out to be the only member of the group who took this ‘Dungeons & Emperors’ role-playing game seriously. At a certain point, he decided that there was no reason to wait any longer, bought a revolver, and set out to assassinate the emperor. Security measures at the time were archaic. Emperor Alexander often walked the streets of St. Petersburg without any security. One can still stroll through the Summer Garden where Karakozov fired his shot. The place hasn’t changed much. Karakozov fired at the emperor but missed and was seized on the spot. Alexander was utterly astonished and thought the man was simply insane. Karakozov was hanged. The police arrested the entire underground group. In theory, they were all fierce radicals, but when one person took their blather at face value, they were no more prepared for it than for an invasion by Martians. Some members of the group were exiled to Siberia. Furthermore, censors closed down the publications read by Karakozov, deeming them politically unreliable. Even fellow revolutionaries were unimpressed by Karakozov’s actions. As for the peasants, they didn’t get why anyone would champion their cause in this manner. Of course, land was important, and redemption payments were burdensome – but what did shooting the Tsar have to do with it? RT composite: Sergey Nechaev and Dmitry Karakozov. © Wikipedia / Public Domain However, others soon followed in Karakozov’s footsteps. While Karakozov was from the impoverished nobility, another terrorist, Sergey Nechaev, was from a very different background. He was born into a destitute family that sacrificed everything to ensure that he received an education. Nechaev was a course auditor at the university. But he wasn’t just preoccupied with taking lecture notes; he drafted a document that served as a sort of charter for the revolutionary sect. It demanded total self-abnegation and absolute fanaticism from the revolutionaries. Nechaev’s writings abound with terms such as ‘annihilation’ and ‘extermination’. He meticulously compiled a list of individuals who had to be killed for the triumph of revolutionary socialism – some of them right away, others later; his planning would have impressed even the likes of Arya Stark. While recruiting followers, Nechaev portrayed himself as the leader of a powerful underground movement, but this was a complete fabrication. He found a few people willing to listen to his misanthropic nonsense, but the organization was short-lived. When a student named Ivan Ivanov objected to one of Nechaev’s ‘brilliant’ ideas, Nechaev and a couple of friends lured him to a secluded spot and murdered him. Nechaev died in prison, and the story inspired Dostoevsky’s masterpiece, the novel ‘Demons’, which is based on the story of Nechaev and his group. Read more This is how we lose control of AI – one successful task at a time Aristocrats in the village Nechaev and Karakozov had quite a few followers. For the time being, they set aside the idea of assassinating the emperor. Instead, a new concept took hold within the circles of young radicals. Many of them were decent people who sincerely sympathized with the common folk – people who worked relentlessly yet lived in poverty. From the desire to help and a sense of guilt toward those less educated and more burdened by life’s hardships emerged the ‘Going to the People’ populist movement. Initially, the main idea was for the activists (propagandists) to move to rural areas disguised as peasants and agitate for a general uprising. Activists who attempted to spread the propaganda among urban workers (these were often peasants who had recently migrated to the cities) weren’t received well. However, they soon shifted to a more sensible approach: teaching workers literacy and skilled trades, and establishing mutual aid funds. In short, they ended up organizing a humanitarian initiative which had little to do with the revolution. The majority of the propagandists, however, headed for rural areas as planned; certain liberal-minded landowners allowed them to get started on their estates. It is surprising that Russian TV has never produced a series based on this story. Young nobles and ‘raznochintsy’ would try to pass themselves off as peasants, traveling to villages and fairs to agitate for an uprising. They usually wrote their own propaganda literature, attempting to mimic the style of folk tales. Initially, their strategy resembled network marketing: If each agitator could recruit three peasants per month, and each peasant could recruit three others, at that rate, a nationwide uprising could be launched within a couple of years.…