Towards the Flame

Dominic Lieven has produced a very deep analysis of the actions and opinions of the (so called) elites in Tsarist Russia in the decades leading up to and including The Great War. Lieven interspersing of his opinions also makes fascinating reading.

I base the following opinion on my own recent research into general Russian history, along with Lieven's analysis and opinions in Towards The Flame. Lieven's commentary on the opinion makers in Russian newspapers of the day, of the thoughts of the aristocratic classes and the actions of the various governments under Tsar Nicolaus I, what has stood out to me can be defined by Tsar Nicolaus II's doctrine, that of Autocracy, Nationality and Orthodoxy.

Lieven uses different terminology than that of Autocracy, Nationality and Orthodoxy. Security, Interest and Identity is his maxim. In my opinion, both are one and the same thing. They are intertwined and still are the values today, seemingly. The Russian people will accept autocracy on the condition it is stable, that the majority of people are generally safe and fed, but if not? The autocracy changes hands. Interest/ Nationality added to Orthodoxy/Identity are a heady mix that has seems very ingrained in Russian DNA, DNA that sees non Slavs as possible enemies to the point of paranoia, with the people themselves seeing their leader as a bulwark against those not of their identity. In a recent review on another Russian history book I received a very good comment by a GR friend who stated “Russian society more bends toward community values like Asian societies than Western individualism. Family ties are very important to Russians. Traditions go deep into history when two-three generations of peasants lived under one roof. In the Western world, you choose a president as one of yours. In Russia, the tsar or ruler was always somebody above ordinary people; a fatherly figure, and fathers, like in many patriarchal societies, have always extracted great power over family, they could grant privileges or punish without mercy. Tsars were called Tsar-Father. The more strict ‘father,' the more people believe in his power.” Therefore, Autocracy, Nationality and Orthodoxy is a top to bottom doctrine.

From all strata of Russian society Lieven gives a compelling discussion on Autocracy, Nationality and Orthodoxy / Security, Interest and Identity, being the essence of Russia. Even when he reaches the breakdown of Aristocratic control late into The Great War, this ingrained doctrine replaced the vacuum, examples being the Communist Revolution. Later regimes such as that of Stalin and even as of now, Putin can be considered to be filling the vacuum.

This may seem a long way from the mention in the subheading of Empire, but from the early days of the Rus the growth of the Empire came from the autocracy of the rulers/Tsars and even after their demise just about all leaders since the end of the civil wars of the 1920s. The need to protect the people from outside influence against non-Slav nationalities and non-Orthodox Christianity has played heavily in Russian history. What Towards The Flame discusses is that as multi-ethnic empires of Europe became dysfunctional, Nationalism took root. In terms of a catalyst that started The Great War, due to Russian instincts towards Nationality and Orthodoxy / Interest and Identity there could be no other outcome than defence of Serbia, a bastion of Serb Orthodoxy, at the start of the Great War. Naturally, fear of other events such as the rise of Germany was very much in the mind of the elites. Add to that the fact that the home of Slavic Orthodox Christianity, Constantinople, was held by the Ottoman Empire and that empire also controlled the Straits of Bosphorus led to much angst. Lieven makes the point that we can hardly accuse Russia of those times of being particularly expansionist in terms of the straits, they were more than aware of historical colonial expansion by Europe and beyond and were very aware of then “imperial” control that assisted various ”empires” trade such as the Suez Canal under the British and the Panama under the US. There was a belief in “balance of power” and hardly an unusual trait viz a viz great powers.

There is obviously a lot more to this book than my thoughts mooted above. It is very deeply researched, with a useful set of maps, the many pictures in the general text finely placed, has outstanding footnotes that make the lack of a bibliography a nothing for any reader to concern themselves with. This is not an easy read in terms of narrative. The names and events, along with the various debates, are dense and very easy to get lost in. I found I had to reread various passages.
Lieven is also very gentle in his criticism of Tsar Nicolaus II, but even he had to admit to his shortcomings late into the book as the situation got out of control.

The Balkans and Ukraine are a presence. The Afterword makes interesting reading and shows how fast a history such as this can make a point that seems relevant at the time but could soon become redundant, and I quote the following; “Unlike Nicolaus II Vladimir Putin does not rule over a vast multinational empire inhabited by semi-literate peasants. Ukraine was, is, and always will be important to Russia, but extrapolating from 1914 and imagining that Russia will once again be a great empire if it reabsorbs the east Ukraine rust belt is moonshine. Ukraine is no longer at the heart of European geopolitics, and Europe is no longer at the centre of the world” I am not sure that I think that the Russian people from top-down think this as present circumstances indicate Autocracy, Nationality and Orthodoxy is very much to the forefront even if subconsciously. Leading up to The Great War the Austro-Hungarian Empire was in the fore when it came to Ukrainian nationalism, the Russians were aware of that then, and they see NATO/EU as just another replacement of a previous rival empire.

If I have a criticism it is that Lieven tends to use the “it was not inevitable” opinion on events that do in fact happen, the fall into chaos in Ukraine at the end of the Great War, for example. I tend to not like saying that a historical event was “not inevitable” when in fact it actually happened.

Recommended to only those with a genuine interest in the subject.