MEN HAVE FORGOTTEN GOD.
—Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
Russia may be unique among the empires and superpowers considered in this book. It doesn’t precisely follow the pattern suggested by Sir John Glubb, and over the centuries it has manifested itself in different ways, most notably in modern times as the Soviet Union, an empire of its own. The Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of failed socialism, failed Communism—and its accompanying atheism, with attempts to eradicate the Jewish and Christian faiths—and a failed policy of overreach in which it imposed itself by force and deceit on other nations. It was pushed into collapse, one might say, by the fervent opposition of US president Ronald Reagan and his massive defense buildup, which the Soviets could not match, and his coordinated opposition with British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and the fiercely anti-Communist Polish pope John Paul II. Soviet practices did bear some resemblance to that of other empires and great nations that are either no more or exist as mere shadows of their former selves.
CAMEO: Nicholas II
If there was ever a case of the wrong man leading a nation at the wrong time, Nicholas II was that man. He was as ready to be a leader of Russia as I am to be an astronaut. Neither his upbringing nor his attitude qualified him for the post. If he had been a worker seeking a job, any employer looking at his resume would have turned him down flat. But as England and other countries have experienced, succession doesn’t always bring the best people to the top.
While he received a military education, his preferences were more in line with those of other young Russians of his time. Nicholas loved physical exercise, but when it came to exercising his brain through intellectual pursuits, he was a couch potato.
Nicholas had great personal charm, which modern politicians desire, but surprisingly failed to use that trait to his benefit, shunning contact with his subjects in favor of spending time with his inner circle and family.
In 1894, he married Alexandra, who possessed the strength of character he lacked. Alexandra exercised an unusual amount of power over her husband, seeking the advice of spiritualists and faith healers, on whom he came to increasingly rely. The most famous among them was Rasputin, a self-described holy man, who came to acquire great power over them both.
Under the influence of Rasputin, Nicholas came to believe his authority was confirmed directly upon him by God, to whom he was solely responsible. (Sound familiar?)
As the Encyclopaedia Britannica notes, “His dedication to the dogma of autocracy was an inadequate substitute for a constructive policy, which alone could have prolonged the imperial regime.”1
His refusal to compromise (he was, after all, doing God’s bidding) brought on political and eventually social chaos. The Bolsheviks were gaining strength by appealing to the masses about income and political inequality.
On March 8, 1917, riots erupted in Petrograd (now Saint Petersburg). Nicholas ordered troops to restore order, but by then it was too late. The government resigned, and Nicholas was forced to renounce the throne—not in favor of his son, Alexis, but in favor of his brother Michael, who refused the crown.
Not long after that, the Bolsheviks seized power, murdering Nicholas and his family.
Would things have turned out differently had Nicholas II been a better leader? It is difficult to second-guess history, but clearly his incompetence hastened the rise of what became the Soviet Union, which, especially under Joseph Stalin, was responsible for the murder of tens of millions of Russians over its seven-decade existence.
THE AGES OF PIONEERS AND CONQUESTS
The Russian Empire is generally divided into two eras: from the end of the Great Northern War in 1721 and later the Communist Revolution in 1917. From 1650 onward, the medieval duchy of Muscovy, centered in the city of Moscow, grew and changed into what we now consider the country of Russia. Russia has always been a middle ground between Europe and Asia. Russia became Christian long before the Nordic nations did. However, at the same time, from 1250 until 1480, Russia remained a tribute-paying extension of the Mongol Empire. By the time Peter I (later known as Peter the Great) assumed power in 1682 (he was appointed ruler at the tender age of ten by a council of Russian nobles with his mother as regent), Russia had expanded its territory to the Baltic and Black Seas as well as to the Pacific Ocean.
Prior to Peter I (1672–1725), Russia was estranged from Europe and far inferior technically, administratively, and socially. However, Peter’s predecessors had managed to expand Russian control eastward to the Pacific. Think of it as the Wild, Wild East—vast but barely explored, other than sparsely populated areas of land.
As in America, this void caused people to migrate to empty spaces, where they settled and tried to build their lives. Thus for many years, there was widespread eastward movement within Russia. However, landlords in the west wished to maintain their labor source, and with the support of the tsar, they established a system of serfdom different from that in the rest of Europe and more aligned with American slavery. Serfs were bound to the land they were born on and could be sold without the land they were supposed to work. They could also be killed at will, and if they tried to escape, they could be arrested and returned to their owner.
Government
If you had to state the purpose of the American government, what would it be? Is it to take care of its citizens? Some people think so. These are folks who believe they are entitled to certain things, mostly the income others have earned and the taxes they have paid. Not always, but it seems increasingly so.
Yes, protecting the American people from enemies and keeping us safe is a primary function of government. And yet does this answer the question about the purpose of government, and if not, where do we look for an adequate and satisfying answer?
One can find the answer in the inspired words of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain and then labored over its several revisions in a small flat in Philadelphia.
After writing of how our rights are given to us by our Creator, Jefferson makes this strong point: “And to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men.”
To secure what rights? Why, the rights God has endowed in us.
Why is that necessary?
Because, as James Madison wrote, if men were angels, government would not be necessary. The fact that we are not angels suggests we must be prevented from submitting to our lower nature, which, if left uncontrolled, can lead to anarchy, and anarchy is the opposite of promoting the general welfare.
If we will not be controlled by God, then we must be controlled by the state, acting “under God.” That is what Paul says in Romans 13. The distinction is an important one because not all governments are under God. Perhaps none are. Not fully, or even mainly. Sixty million abortions (and counting) and the rest of the list of things God calls abominations seem to me to prove that America is not, and perhaps never has been, “under God.” More on that in the final chapter.
Increasingly, the United States seems bent on going its own way, the way other nations have gone. We say “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance (the phrase was added during the Eisenhower administration, during a period of fierce anti-Communism in response to that godless philosophy), but do we mean it in ways that are observable? Do we practice submission to God and his will, laws, and precepts, instituted for the good of individuals as well as of nations? It is increasingly difficult to discern.
Peter the Great was no fool. He knew of Western superiority, as he had spent a great deal of time in the German quarter of Moscow. He also had briefly lived in Holland and England. Between 1697 and 1698, he traveled through Europe, where he recruited a thousand experts to help modernize Russia. Peter’s main foreign enemy was Sweden, which controlled the Baltic States and thus what Russia prized more than almost anything: a warm-water port. A series of military conflicts ensued, culminating in the Great Northern War of 1700–1721. A long list of crushing defeats forced Peter to import officers and technicians for his army to give it a chance of defeating the Swedes, who at the time had the finest army in the world. That seems hard to imagine when one considers modern Sweden.
In 1708, during the Great Northern War, King Charles XII of Sweden invaded Russia, forcing Peter to do what Russia normally does in winter: retreat across the plains and wait for the cold and snow. As Napoleon and Hitler would later learn, you don’t mess with a Russian winter. The winter of 1708–1709 dramatically weakened the Swedish army, and they were crushed. Peter would go on to conquer the Baltic States, and once the Treaty of Nystad was signed in 1721, ending the Great Northern War, Russia was officially recognized as having control of the Baltic States. The empire was born.
THE AGE OF COMMERCE, AFFLUENCE, AND INTELLECT
I’ve combined these ages because Russia doesn’t have a significant period of intellect and commerce. When led by competent leaders like Peter and Catherine the Great (1729–1796), the empire modernized and grew in strength. The rest of the time, incompetent tsars squandered numerous opportunities to grow the country. Wars would be fought continually on the edge of the empire, against nearly every bordering nation, over access to the sea and to establish Russian influence over the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe.
This is not to say the Russian tsars failed to attempt to bring modernization to Russia. Catherine the Great practiced what has been called enlightened despotism. While Europe proper underwent the Age of Enlightenment, Russia absorbed European thought and culture.
No Europeans studied Russian thinkers at this time, but European thinkers were well known in Russia. While under Catherine the Great, the Russian Court conversed in French and read Voltaire, but no real progress was made in reforming serfdom in Russia. Thus a true age of commerce, affluence, and intellect never came to pass. Serfs who were determined to free themselves from conditions disturbingly similar to slavery did attempt to rebel. After all, they had no other way to try to better their lives. However, after the suppression of Pugachev’s Rebellion (1773–1775), the already miserable state of serfs in Russia declined further, and the government took measures even more severely oppressive.
Russian serfs were bought and sold by aristocrats, as were slaves in America. Serfs were bound to serve the local lord for life, unless they were sold. So were their children. Movement of serfs was restricted to prevent migration, and careful records were maintained to enforce this and to ensure that in the absence of an obvious mark (like skin color in America), serfs could be identified, so that no serf could improve his station.
The retention of serfdom severely hampered economic growth. Who would have guessed that a feudal system of economics would not work in the modern world? No amount of European culture, no number of visiting thinkers, scientists, or economists could bring about greatness to Russia as long as the serfs remained enslaved. Russia was ultimately a state in which the aristocracy accepted the authority of the monarchy and in exchange received complete authority over the serfs. The Russian state with serfdom was essentially a national slave state on a scale that vastly exceeded the scale of slavery in the American South. Even Russia’s defeat of Napoleon (1812), with considerable assistance from the harsh winter conditions, was only a temporary boost to Russian influence and power.
Despite its shortcomings, the Russian Empire produced great works of art and literature. Fine art in Russia dates back to the Stone Age. Google it and be amazed. However, the achievements of the educated upper classes did not reflect growth for the country as a whole. Failure of the government to provide economic reforms, and a growing trend of military defeats, including the disastrous Crimean War and World War I, led to the empire’s fall and the rise of the dark shadow of Communism, first in Russia and then as a primary political and economic export to other countries. A century of turmoil and war set up Russia for the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, which was quickly followed by the imposition of Communism on the nation.
Ultimately, however, Russia was held together by its army, and its expansion was led by the army. It was the army that insured the serfs were held in line, and the serfs provided the slave labor necessary to support the army. The tsars could then use the army to enforce their chosen foreign policy.
THE DECLINE
It was about the Soviet Empire that the great Russian novelist Alexandr Solzhenitsyn spoke in an address he gave on receiving the 1983 Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. I highly recommend you read the speech in its entirety; it can be found for free online.2
His address and a subsequent speech at Harvard could serve as editorials, even prophecies, for our time, if indeed modern editorialists thought about things higher than this earthly kingdom. The most profound sections of his speech stated and repeated a single theme: “If I were called upon to identify briefly the principal trait of the entire twentieth century, here too, I would be unable to find anything more precise and pithy than to repeat once again: Men have forgotten God.”3 The elites hated it, as did editorial writers at major newspapers, but Solzhenitsyn demonstrated that he saw, better than most Westerners, where the West was headed. It was Solzhenitsyn who exposed the Soviet gulags and eventually came to lecture the West, which he saw experiencing its own decline. The West treated him as a hero before his warnings. After those speeches, he was ignored, even rejected, by some of the same people who had once hailed his name and courage.
The Russian Empire, in its many incarnations and manifestations, is depressing, not only to those who read about it but even more so to those who had to endure it. During most of the existence of the Russian Empire, there were just two classes. If you were not part of the nobility, you were a serf, a virtual slave to the landowner to whom you were attached. This social and financial gap served as fuel for the Russian Revolution in the early twentieth century.
CAMEO: Catherine the Great (1729–1796)
Catherine the Great has always fascinated and delighted historians. Perhaps it is because she was a rare female leader in an era dominated by men.
Make no mistake, though. She was as strong and resolute as any man. She even orchestrated a coup against her husband, who had ascended to the throne barely six months earlier. Catherine expanded Russia’s borders and ruled for more than three decades in the late eighteenth century.
Catherine’s life was the stuff of the History and Playboy Channels. Her “love life” was more lust than love. In 1745, she married Russia’s grand duke Peter, who was regarded as immature and juvenile. He preferred toys and mistresses to Catherine, and she preferred books and reading to him, though she would quickly pile up her own list of lovers.
The website Biography.com picks up the story, which reads like a novel.
By the time Peter ascended to the throne, he was openly cruel to his wife and considered pushing her aside to allow his mistress to rule with him. A few days after his resignation, he was strangled while in the care of Catherine’s co-conspirators at Ropsha, one of Peter’s estates. The exact role the empress played in her husband’s death is unclear.
According to most accounts, Catherine had around 12 lovers during her life. She had a system for managing her affairs—often bestowing gifts, honors and titles on those she liked, in order to win their favor. At each relationship’s end, Catherine usually found a way to get her new paramour out of her hair. Gregory Potemkin, perhaps her most significant lover, spent many years as her favorite, and remained lifelong friends after their passions cooled.4
Like other rulers (see “Nicholas II”), Catherine believed in absolute rule, though she did make some attempts at political and social reforms. Again, Biography.com gives details.
She put together a document, known as the “Nakaz,” on how the country’s legal system should run, with a push for capital punishment and torture to be outlawed and calling for every man to be declared equal. Catherine had also sought to address the dire situation of country’s serfs, workers who were owned by landowners for life. The Senate protested any suggestion of changing the feudal system.
After finalizing the Nakaz, Catherine brought delegates together from different social and economic classes to form the Legislative Commission, which met for the first time in 1767. No laws came out of the commission, but it was the first time that Russians from across the empire had been able to express their thoughts about the country’s needs and problems. Ultimately, the Nakaz became more known for its ideas rather than its immediate influence.5
Perhaps more than any other Russian leader before or since (not counting the Communist takeover, in the twentieth century, of Eastern Europe, a region that was never part of Russia), Catherine expanded Russia’s borders, mostly by military adventures.
In November of 1796, Catherine suffered a stroke, and she died a day later. While many remember her, if they remember her at all, for her numerous affairs, she did achieve some formidable goals, such as reforming education and being a champion of the arts. The serfs, however, remained of little concern, and that festering boil would come back to torment Russia a century later, leading to the Bolshevik Revolution and the imposition of Communism on the country.
Biographies have been written about Catherine the Great, and they are as fascinating as she was.