The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Provocation on service of secret police



yu.F. Ovchenko

PROVOCATION ON SERVICE of SECRET POLICE

In the last dates of April, 1909 at Special presence of the Ruling Senate the next case was heard. At first sight, anything special in it was not. From the moment of establishment in 18 72 g. Special presence for narrowing of cases of high treasons and illegal communities of such affairs there were hundreds. But for the first time for all history of existence of this body for "revolutionary" activity on a dock the representative of the higher police authority got. The retired director of the department of police Alexey Aleksandrovich Lopukhin was him.

He was accused that, knowing about terrorist activity of revolutionary socialists, he came to them into contact and gave official secret that "the head of the Fighting organization of Social Revolutionaries Evno Azef reports for money of the Russian state police data on criminal plans of this community".1

It is difficult to believe that the former prosecutor, and then the director of the department of police could take a similar step without the reasons, strong on that. They, probably, should be looked for not in "irritation of the deceived person" as B. Nikolayevsky considered, and in the activity of "Ivan Ivanovich", "Thick", Raskin. Or rather, the person disappearing under these pseudonyms - Azef.

Explaining the act to court, Lopukhin said that he "acted this way in pursuance of a debt of each person not to cover with silence the most mean of crimes which are among made by Azef".

Lopukhin defined the position to Azef in a conversation with the chief S. - the St. Petersburg security office the general

A.V. Gerasimov who met Lopukhin to save from exposure of the former agent. "All life of this person, - Lopukhin said, - a continuous lie and treachery. Revolyutsionerov Azef betrayed to us, and us - to revolutionaries. It is already time to put an end of this criminal

double game".

The gendarme general A.I. Spiridovich saw "employee provoker" in Azef. He wrote in the memoirs: "Azef is the unscrupulous and self-interested egoist working for advantage sometimes of the government, sometimes revolutions; changing to both one, and other party depending on the moment and personal advantage; acting not only as the informer of the government, but also as the provoker in the valid value of this word,

is personally making crimes and giving out from then

6

partially to the government of self-interest for the sake of".

The chairman of the board of ministers and Minister of Internal Affairs P.A. Stolypin, responding to the requests of the State Duma on business

Azef, noted that that "the same police officer, as well as

7

many others".

The reputation of the provoker strongly was fixed in the revolutionary environment for Azef. This point of view is shared by the vast majority of experts. On Azef's protection the American researcher A. Geyfman who considered Azef "The ordinary agent of police".8 acted

To shed light on "dark as night" Azef and to it similar, it is necessary to understand what is "provocation" and what its role and the place in investigation and search operations of secret police.

At the end of XIX - the beginning of the 20th centuries search process in the Russian Empire only developed. There was no uniform and accurate definition of political search process and understanding the place of its components. In terminology of security guards "the political search" was understood as secret-service work. But in process of accumulation of expeditious experience this concept extended.

At a meeting on streamlining of search and inquiry in December, 1880 the prosecutor S. - the St. Petersburg trial chamber

V.K. Plehve noted that he is necessary for carrying out search systematic, well thought over and strictly implemented action plan. 9 Thus, Plehve saw in search not just collecting data through a confidential agency and fillers, and saw in it the system of the systematic actions directed to detection of political crimes.

The chief of the Moscow security office N.S. Berdyaev included primary investigative actions (search, arrest, detention, dredging, etc.), inquiry, observation and supervision of the general police in the concept "search". Reporting to Department of police on a situation in secret police, he wrote that secret-service observation is conducted in Moscow in three ways. Thanks to a confidential agency, the secret police revealed revolutionaries and their circles. For the most active members of the organization the external observation which result were searches and arrests was established. In the presence of physical evidence business was transferred to the Provincial Gendarme Management (PGM) and if they were not, then inquiry on the basis of "The provision on protection" was made therefore administrative expulsion followed, public or secret supervision, and then was observed revolutionaries through local police.10

In 1902 the manager of Special department of Department of police L.A. Ratayev, analyzing a condition of political search in the empire, noted that in fight against revolutionary movement the main attention was paid to the organization of political search, that is for work of an internal and external agency. He considered that before bringing secret-service work to perfection, it is necessary to realize accurately its data.11

Estimating a condition of political search at empires during revolution of 1905, the gendarme colonel Uranov determined political search as the detection system by a confidential agency of the revolutionary organizations, their disclosure

activity, structure and communications, check and development of the received data by external observation, and after sufficient illumination of revolutionary groups - their elimination which success is estimated by results of detection of physical evidence and to detention of the main figures.12

Thus, "political search" was understood by security guards and as search process, and as secret-service development.

The initial stage of search - "identification of enemies of the tsar and the fatherland" - was carried out at the expense of a broad informative base of administrative agencies and officials who were obliged to supply police with the information. It were the anonymous and obvious donositel, house owners leasing apartments, the general police and other sources which informed secret police on a situation on their site.

However the secret police sought to adjust a systematic flow of information in this connection resorted to the help of informers.

This category of persons "lit" moods of the certain circles and population groups which are not forming illegal political societies. They were hired from janitors, hotel staff, restaurants, officials, the intellectuals and similar by it categories of the population. Informers periodically informed search bodies for various questions, receiving rewards from time to time.

Direct development were conducted by "confidential employees", working directly in "the studied environment".

In the revolutionary environment all confidential agency contemptuously was called provokers. This definition became widespread at the beginning of the 1880th of connection with Degayev's business.

There are all bases to claim that the similar opinion of revolutionaries carried under itself the political background.

Estimating activity of a confidential agency as provocation, revolutionaries did not seek to understand in effect a question. The reasons for that were opened in the speech in the State Duma on February 11, 1909 by P.A. Stolypin. "First, - he said, - almost each revolutionary who was caught in criminal actions, usually says that the person who on it informed itself provoked it to crime, and, secondly, provocation in itself is the act so criminal that for revolution not bezvygodno, in terms of public assessment to bring under this concept of action of each person adjoining to police".13

Security guards qualified activity of the agency a little in a different way. They attached the greatest significance to "confidential employees". This definition was meant "as an agency of internal observation in general". But sometimes the paid agent who was in the revolutionary environment was so designated. By means of such agents the secret police got into "the area of intellectual life of the suspected persons, accepting a mask of sympathy and agreement of opinion to them". 14

In "The instruction on the organization and maintaining an internal agency" the following definitions were given: "the faces which are consisting members of criminal communities and being a constant part of such agency are called agents & #34; internal наблюдения" or & #34; confidential сотрудниками"". "Persons who though do not enter into the criminal organizations, but adjoin to them constantly promote search business, executing various instructions and delivering for development material on activity of the party, unlike the first, carry the name & #34; auxiliary агентов"".15

Through auxiliary agents informers the karatelnorozyskny bodies exercised "supervision of a condition of minds".

"Shtuchnik" were a kind of "auxiliary" agents informers. They rendered to secret police one-time services. The confidential employees standing out of work treated them. The chief of the Moscow secret police S.V. Zubatov did not trust this category of agents and, teaching the subordinates, said: "& #34; Штучников" you drive away, these are not workers, these are selling skins. It is impossible to work with them". 16

The category of "the agents who are not credible" was formed of the confidential employees and informers who lost trust of secret police. "Blackmailers" and "provokers" treated them. Security guards considered "blackmailers" the agents supplying the fictional information for the purpose of receiving a reward, and "provokers" were meant as the employees making unforeseen an act task without permission and the consent of secret police.

P.A. Stolypin emphasized that the government "considers the provoker such person who assumes a crime initiative, involving in this crime of the third parties who chose this path on motivation of the agent provoker". 17

In participation in work of the revolutionary organizations not from state, and from "personal" motives the secret police saw provocation. Such agents were expelled from secret police, and their names were reported to search bodies.

Qualification of the concepts "provoker" and "provocation" in essence began after the February revolution of 1917 when before the new government there was a question of responsibility of officials of the toppled regime for crimes on service.

In materials of the Special commission for inspection of activity of the former Department of police and institutions subordinated to it in time from 1905 to 1917 at the Ministry of Justice of Provisional government: active, being in the revolutionary environment, - "provokers" (on terminology of security guards - "confidential employees"), and passive - "informers", auxiliary agents (here opinions of the commission and security guards coincided). The lawyers and historians who were taking part in the commissions on inspection of activity of officials of autocracy agreed that

this definition quite indistinct also does not reflect a true picture of activity of the agent.

So, M.A. Osorgin noted that the term "provoker" and "provocation" is not always true. Many agents were not engaged in instigation, and were ordinary informers. S. Chlenov taking active part in development of archives of political police was forced to recognize uncertainty of qualification of the concept "provocation".

With establishment of the power of Bolsheviks, by April, 1918, the Special commission on disclosure of agents of security offices was created. It was headed by the revolutionary populist N.S. Tyutchev. In the conditions of "red terror" the commission worked taking into account the interests of Cheka, revealing "enemies of revolution". Therefore, solving practical problems, members of the commission not especially thought of theoretical questions.

In modern legal literature the provoker is understood as the police agent who the actions induces, incites the developed persons to actions, unprofitable for them, for the purpose of their exposure and arrest (it is independent - for personal or state reasons). 18

This formulation gives uniform approach and assessment of activity of retaliatory and search bodies of the past and the present, allows to understand the nature of secret-service work.

In practice of fight against revolutionary movement the Russian police practiced two methods: suppression and prevention of political crimes.

The first was that the police allowed the organization to rally and then liquidated it to give to prosecutor's office the organization with big, whenever possible, proofs of guilt. The second consisted in systematic blows to revolutionary figures to prevent work, not to allow to rally, fail them in the opinion of their companions as figures not secret that led to removal them from work and

19

etc. 19

As the general Spiridovich noted, the first method was more effective by results, the second - is more correct in essence.

For realization of these methods smart combinations of various operational and tactical receptions were used. It were round-ups (general searches and arrests), collecting data, catching "on the live bait", leaving on "distributing", "support", a compromise, blackmail, bribery, provocation, forgery, falsification, etc.

And still the greatest indignation of revolutionaries and the public was caused by provocation. Depending on the purposes of search, a condition of revolutionary movement, tactics of party or organization, a political situation in the country, personal qualities of security guards and existence of technical means provocation took more or less important place in search activity.

In the 1880th the secret-service working methods of confidential police were put poorly. The main place under the authority of search was allocated to inquiry.

At a December meeting of 1880 after streamlining of inquiry and search the St. Petersburg city's mayor general Fedorov noted that search, that is secret-service observation, is necessary accessory of inquiry, and the last does not matter without search. According to the general, the detective part giving agents for production of searches is the necessary tool in hands of the person making inquiry, agents in itself have no purpose and bring benefit only at the direction them to activity by inquiry.20

In "Instruction C. - to the St. Petersburg provincial gendarme management and the city's mayor" the Minister of Internal Affairs count M.T. Loris-Melikov noted that "confidential researches have to be made in parallel with inquiries and to serve the last in disclosure of crimes as the major help". 21

Backwardness of secret-service activity did it by an auxiliary link in disclosure of crimes. Such provision of inquiry and search conducted to the fact that quite often wrote in resolutions on arrest: "To arrest until clarification of the reasons of arrest". Means, "arrested not because any evidence is gathered and to collect these

proofs". 22

Shortcomings of secret-service development were compensated to

for the account of strengthening of police surveillance, mass informing, round-ups and perlustration of correspondence.

Thanks to mass searches and arrests the police sought to collect necessary physical evidence. But revolutionaries studied conspiracy, and the police needed to improve means and methods of search constantly. During round-ups, people, far from policy, often were caught in a police net, but after acquaintance to law enforcement authorities the average citizens for a long time had at heart heavy deposit.

The narodovolets who regarded as of paramount importance the activity individual terror were the main revolutionary force of the 1880th.

Being afraid of political murders and also merge of narodovolchesky terror to mass national disorders, the government reduced terms of disclosure of crimes that inevitably led to provocation of crimes for their prevention.

With Alexander III's accession in Russia there came the reaction period. To replace "the paradoxical dictator" M.T. Loris-Melikov "liar pasha" N.P. Ignatyev came that meant change of policy guidelines, implementation of a course on "firmness of autocracy".

At Ignatyev "The provision on measures to protection of the state order and public tranquility" approved by the tsar on August 14, 1881 was developed and introduced in life

On the basis of Article 21 "Regulations on Protection" the police and gendarmerie had an opportunity to make detention on the basis of one suspicion. So, harmless term

"suspicion" the law covered these agencies and allowed to deal shortly with the suspect administratively, that is, without representing proofs.

The same law expanded the rights of retaliatory and search bodies in production of investigative actions in offices, factories and the plants at any time.

To Article 21 it was specified in explanation: if making inquiry doubted on the basis of what act to excite inquiry (as Article 1035 of Paragraph 1-16 of the Charter of Criminal Proceedings or under the law on August 14, 1881), then was recognized as expedient to begin inquiry on the basis of Article 21 "Regulations on Protection". The prevalence of administrative punishment over judicial was an indicator of an arbitrariness and the integral component of reaction.

However will incorrectly speak about universal planting of provocation. It was important to police to reveal true enemies of autocracy and after it, by means of provocation, to stop or prevent their actions.

In historical literature there is an opinion that in 1883 the chief S. - the St. Petersburg security office the lieutenant colonel G.P. Sudeykin made the largest provocation known as "degayevshchina". There is a basis to doubt a little it and to try to specify an event in far 1883

On December 20, 1882 Sergey Petrovich Degayev, the member of the military center of "National Will", was arrested. He is often accused of cowardice, unscrupulousness, attributing it various defects.23 Exactly thanks to these qualities of Sudeykin Degayev could enlist him. In fact true motive of cooperation of Degayev with secret police was arrest of his wife who was arrested along with it and for fear or confusion told police everything that knew. Probably, after the short-term date which provided to Sudeykin's spouses Degayev decided to save the wife. It had a choice: to neglect personal feelings and sufferings of darling for the sake of members on parties and the ideas or to offer them for the sake of family happiness.

Having become the confidential employee, Degayev achieved release of the wife, but it did not mean release her from a sharp-sighted eye of Sudeykin. Degayev needed to gain his trust, and already then to try to find freedom. He began "to hand over" the adherents. In four months of the work Degayev gave the Military center of National Will party and local military groups. 200 officers and dozens of civilian party members were arrested, including Vera Figner is the last member of Executive committee. At the price of treachery Degayev had an opportunity to leave with the wife to Paris, allegedly for clarification of plans of the Russian emigration. When the wife appeared out of "striking distances" of Sudeykin, at Degayev, obviously, there was one more plan - to get rid of the security guard. For this purpose Degayev "revealed" in deeds before the foreign representative of Executive committee L.A. Tikhomirov. Members of Executive committee

considered possible to keep life to Degayev in case he saves revolutionaries famous to Sudeykin and will organize his murder. Having left the hostage the wife, Degayev came back to St. Petersburg. Its relations with Sudeykin were quite ambiguous. Probably, Degayev had no time for the end is confident in success of the invention and looked for ways to retreat. Having got up courage, Degayev enticed on December 16, 1883 to himself on Sudeykin's apartment where he was killed by narodovolets N.P. Starodvorsky (later that looked for contact with police) and V.P. Konoshevich.24 After this with assistance of narodovolets Degayev disappeared abroad.

In order that both police, and revolutionaries were interested in it, Degayev had to present plans of opponents in light, favorable to himself. He told Sudeykin about ominous plans of revolutionaries for preparation of acts of terrorism, and that is about intentions of the security guard to create a terrorist underground led by Degayev. It was necessary for Sudeykin allegedly in order that by means of terrorists to strike blows to the government, and then through secret police to eliminate murderers. Thus, Sudeykin intended to bring in obedience the government terror, and terrorists - secret police.25

Only without knowing and without understanding work of secret police, it is possible to believe in reality of the similar plan. Most likely, Sudeykin could offer the first part of this plan as it was interested in that in the center of the organization there was his agent. To offer Degayev the second part of the plan to Sudeykin there was no sense because that already was in hands of the gendarme and the similar offer, get it to the prosecutor or to the higher administration, could cost to Sudeykin much. Besides to make long-term plans of work with the agent moreover little-known, hardly reasonably.

Most likely, Degayev for intimidation composed what could not be checked, but was quite plausible and was of interest to opponents. Results of activity of Sudeykin and his ominous plans in Degayev's interpretation provoked his murder that, certainly, was favorable to Degayev as the main source of its troubles was eliminated. So, at the price of double treachery and murder Degayev bought freedom. In his behavior a certain logic is traced, but hardly it was up to the end deliberate plan of actions. Most likely, Degayev proceeded from real circumstances and used them in process of opportunities. Therefore "degayevshchina" cannot be considered as "police provocation" because Degayev provoked narodovolets to Sudeykin's murder on a personal initiative, betraying both parties. In fact, "degayevshchina" is "large-scale treachery" with elements of personal provocative activity of Degayev.

And if Sudeykin did not manage to use the provocative plan, then his colleagues did not waste in vain time. L. Menshikov who was well knowing working methods of secret police

noted that there were several categories of agents provokers. To 26 K them agents propagandists, agents-tipografshchiki, agents-terrorists and agents expropriators belonged.

Around them revolutionaries were grouped, creating necessary proofs at will of police that allowed to deal shortly with them in any order.

To find the press was a dream of "a blue uniform", from the young lieutenant to the gray-haired general. Similar "elimination" increased the importance of the security guard. "Elimination with printing house" is a gift for a holiday, the highest rank, a new award... Therefore to open secret printing house, gendarmes began "to open" them on public money.

Menshikov remembered that security guards and gendarmes to the same extent promoted statement of the technical revolutionary enterprises. But at security guards it was expressed in more latent, disguised forms, than at gendarmes. At the first printing houses were put from "permission" of confidential employees, and at gendarmes almost always with "direct participation of the agent". It sometimes led to scandals, and the Department of police strongly recommended local bodies to organize work so that the greatest awareness of an agency was surely combined with its smallest active participation in the legal enterprises.27

For identification of plans of revolutionaries the agent had to "be put" in the forefront for obtaining the most valuable information. It is especially brightly looked through in activity of agents-terrorists and expropriators. They not only "established" malefactors, but also pushed them to the necessary course, that is tried to transfer actions of political character to the category of criminal.

By the end of the 1890th. The department of police generally finished from the remains of narodovolchesky circles and concentrated the attention on "the terrible and powerful social democratic organization which flooded with a wide revolutionary wave all Russia".28

Feature of this period was the fact that the social democratic movement already merged with the worker. In these conditions also tactics of secret police changed.

For identification of social democratic activists Zubatov used method of "catching on the live bait". It was that in a working environment the agency which waited for the propagandist was spread. On a meeting there was an activist who sought to explain problems of revolutionary fight. Agents asked the propagandist questions, showed "consciousness" and thus became "support" of revolutionaries in a working environment.

In addition Zubatov did not allow to rally the revolutionary organization. He carried out six large elimination of social democrats only to 18 99 g. Any attempts of restoration came to an end with a failure. A.I. Ulyanova wrote: "Fear of a provokatorstvo forced to stand apart often, and the aspiration to association came across often circles which as moles,

zalazal persistently to the earth, refusing the idea of association. We learned about many circles only after their failures".29

For creation of the atmosphere of "disorder and swaying" Zubatov skillfully spread rumors about provocation. At the same time he "set up" the workers who visited its "office". For this purpose from the secret sums of secret police he gave the released worker money, allegedly for the working days lost during arrest. On pleasures the workers went to tavern that, naturally, caused suspicion in their companions and brought split in a working environment.

Zubatov used provocation too, but it had such distinguished appearance that remained almost unnoticed and did not accept often such obviously criminal and even scandalous character, as at his pupils and followers.30

The general Spiridovich noted that at Zubatov and the prosecutor

31

Lopukhin treated provocation strictly.

Developing materials of police reform of 1902, Zubatov brought in "The set of rules developed in development of the current year approved by mister Minister of Internal Affairs on August 12 & #34; Regulations on chiefs search отделений"" point on provocation. It said: "Provocation in the sense of instigation or motivation of other persons to fulfillment of crimes and creation, thus, of affairs cannot be admissible. Therefore, for example, employees should not decline persons, not involved in the revolutionary organizations, to fulfillment of any criminal acts or give them illegal instructions. But, on the other hand, employees should not refuse acceptance on themselves executions of such instructions from the persons who are already taking part in the revolutionary organizations if only

32

they can promote this way the search purposes". 32

The Minister of Internal Affairs V.K. Plehve approaching more utilitarianly questions of search deleted this point. And it had on that bases.

At the end of 1901 - the beginning of 1902 from regional associations and the separate narodovolchesky organizations there was a party of Social Revolutionaries. The department of police noted that "social democrats acting through RSDRP with its committee abroad and local in Russia, and party body "Spark" received acting through the theoretical opponents, revolutionary socialists, large

33

force promoting achievement of revolutionary tasks by them". 33

Carrying on traditions of narodovolets, Social Revolutionaries declared themselves murder of the Minister of Internal Affairs D.S. Sipyagin.

For fight against the accruing revolutionary movement of V.K. Plehve undertook police reform, having covered the country with network of security offices. Besides strengthening and expansion of police force process of a research of crimes became simpler. Data of external observation began to be used as a proof, and in 1904 the law allowing to attract fillers as witnesses was adopted.

In the conditions of the approaching revolution the autocracy went on the way of expansion and strengthening of police force, simplification of search and investigative actions, prevalence

administrative punishment over judicial and open suppression of mass actions by means of troops. The general A.N. Kuropatkin with bitterness noted: "It is necessary to turn also army instead of protection of external limits on protection of internal tranquility - to turn into constabulary force".34

Revolution of 1905 caused confusion in supreme authority that immediately affected activity of police. From January, 1905 to June, 1907 five directors of the department of police were replaced. And in the circular of December 23, 1905 the Minister of Internal Affairs P.N. Durnovo noted that "many gendarme managements almost absolutely, kind of themselves, abolished and ceased to be engaged in the business assigned to them", and "the railway police almost everywhere appeared not at height of the tasks lying on them: it not only did not manage to foresee strikes of the railroads, but at their emergence everywhere disappeared and did not render any counteraction

3 5

to strikers".

Cases of evasion of police from service by "disease" became more frequent. Among officials rumors about abolition of Department of police spread. The management of Department of police had to make special explanation where it was said that the state security agencies will always take place in the state irrespective of its system.

Crisis of police affected activity of a confidential agency. The general Spiridovich noted that agents "were always kind of the mood thermometer: the government gets the best - they are vigorous and resolute, revolution - they as common as dirt slightly begins to overcome, speak vaguely, think of departure, in general begin to be unsteady".36

In the conditions of revolution the direct suppression of national performances became the main means of fight of autocracy. In the circular of November 30, 1905 the Minister of Internal Affairs demanded any special inquiries and interrogations not to make, and to be limited to the protocol in which it was necessary to specify the reasons of arrest and short data certifying guilt. The instruction said: "In case of need most decisively to disperse protesters by force, with the use,

37

according to the law if it is necessary, weapon".

A component of government terror was provocation of political crimes as in these conditions for autocracy both the presents, and potential enemies of a political regime were dangerous.

Defeat of revolution created conditions for further strengthening of police force. Court-martials gave way to criminal proceedings. But after the Manifesto on October 17, 1905 in Russia there came "the parliamentarism era". On the arena of political struggle the mass of parties moved forward that created new conditions for work of police. The secret police became not only body of prevention and control of offenses, but also the full participant of political process, the conductor of a political policy of autocracy. To replace separate

to actions as it was earlier, large-scale operations on a legal basis come. In these conditions the respect for legal norms was a guarantor of political stability, and the deviation from a letter of the law led to aggravation of a situation in the country. Therefore "The instruction on the organization and conducting internal (secret-service) observation" recommended "to remember firmly the knowing search that & #34; сотрудничество" separates very thin line which is very easy for passing. They have to know that in ability not to pass this line and art of conducting successful political search consists".

But it did not mean at all that provoking was not used by secret police for identification of plans of radical parties, creation of missing proofs at elimination, carrying out ideological diversion for split of party ranks, etc. Here provocation acted as operational and tactical reception, but not a method of work of political police.

Throughout all the existence the autocracy looked for a social and political support in a people at large. And the nobility remained its main support. Development of capitalism led to emergence of new social groups that forced autocracy to look for and create new combinations for strengthening of the positions. During the post-reform period the creation of the zemstvo introducing the system of curia on the basis of property qualification was such step. Reform contributed to the development of social and political and economic life, sending it to the course, necessary for autocracy. With emergence of working classes and the bourgeoisies there was a question of their situation in society.

The first who tried to turn working class into working estate, using for this purpose an arsenal of political, ideological, social and economic means, there was Zubatov. He tried to create the "trade" (professional) unions for protection of needs of workers, used economism for split of revolutionary movement, under its observation there took place the Zionist congress in Russia, and there was a Poaley-Tsion party, on the basis of sermons of the priest Gapon the procession was prepared for the Winter Palace.

In Zubatov's activity search of political forms of support of autocracy is felt. But they could make only temporary success as in Russia the process of social stratification sharply accelerated that did not give the chance to create the social monarchy without necessary legal base. Probably, Zubatov well understood it, using all means, available to it. The manifesto put on October 17 political aspect in the forefront. Giving an assessment to a political situation on the eve of the third of June revolution, Zubatov wrote the prince Meshchersky that in a victory of left - rescue of autocracy. The victory of left will save the autocratic power from "embraces of the social and gloomy Union of the Russian people which is able to bring personally royal persons under a browning or a bomb". Balance of public forces gives autocracy a free hand, gives it the chance to become out of and above the people, that is to create such situation when

the autocracy becomes "the social monarchy and at the same time democratic". The autocracy has to be on "the ridge equally effective", that is use all parties "for obtaining harmony". It will save both from revolution, and from reaction and also guarantees "the forward course of the country under own hegemony of the monarchy".38

But for the solution of this problem the autocracy needed to order social structure, to go on the way of creation of civil society. But the autocracy persistently held the nobility that did not allow it to become "above class" and "nadsoslovny". In such conditions the political police in the activity came across socio-political contradictions. Means of their permission the management of secret police saw in strengthening of the retaliatory and search device. In the circular of January 8, 1907 it was said that for strengthening of activity of the authorities knowing search on cases of high treasons it is recognized necessary essentially to change setting of political investigation and to create several central search institutions in the empire, having provided them "concentration in the hands of data of secret-service and external observation on large administrative regions and management of local institutions", and the Department of police remained "the uniting and directing center". 39

Introduction of regional security offices decentralized the system of political search, having strengthened it on places. But regional secret polices from the coordinating center turned into inspection that became an essential hindrance in operational work. In 1913 - 1914 regional secret polices all were almost abolished, and usual security offices were a part of GZhU as search department.

The political police concentrated the main attention in the work on political parties where through a party agency carried out necessary to?

Gerald Godfrey Preston
Other scientific works: