Paul Milyukov
Paul Milyukov was born in Moscow, Russia in 1859. He studied history at the University of Moscow and became involved in the student protest movement.
Milyukov wrote several history books including Studies in the History of Russian Culture. His friend, Ariadna Tyrkova, explained: "The Tsar’s Government regarded P.N. Milyukov with great suspicion, and he was forbidden to lecture or to reside in university towns. He himself gradually abandoned scientific research and gave himself up to politics, preferring to make history rather than to study it." An opponent of Russia's autocratic regime, his criticisms of Nicholas II resulted in him being sacked from the university and banished from Russia.
Milyukov moved to the United States where he taught at the University of Chicago. During the 1905 Revolution he returned to Russia and helped establish the Union of Liberation and the Union of Unions. This resulted in him being arrested and imprisoned. On his release Milyukov helped to form the Constitutional Democratic Party. Initially a harsh critic of the Duma he eventually agreed to stand for election. Milyukov was elected to the third and fourth Dumas and was a strong supporter of Russia's involvement in the First World War.
Ariadna Tyrkova, a member of the Cadets, argued: "A man of rare erudition and of an enormous power for work, Milyukov had numerous adherents and friends, but also not a few enemies. He was considered by many as a doctrinaire on account of the stubbornness of his political views, while his endeavours to effect a compromise for the sake of rallying larger circles to the opposition were blamed as opportunism. As a matter of fact almost identical accusations were showered upon him both from Right and Left. This may partly be explained by the fact that it is easier for Milyukov to grasp an idea than to deal with men, as he is not a good judge of either their psychology or their character."
In 1915 Milyukov began criticizing the war effort and questioned the competence of Nicholas II as the country's commander-in-chief. In one speech in the Duma, where he listed the failings of the government, asked if the explanation was stupidity or treason.
Milyukov supported the Provisional Government but strongly opposed the October Revolution. After the White Army failed to win the Civil War, Milyukov left Russia and spent his final years in France.
Paul Milyukov died in 1943.
Primary Sources
(1) Ariadna Tyrkova, From Liberty to Brest-Litovsk (1918)
All rejoiced at having got rid of mercenary, dishonest nonentities, like the Ministers Sukhomlinov or Protopopov, and were glad to see an irreproachably honest patriot, such as Prince G. Lvov always was and will be, placed at last at the head of the Russian Government. Among the members of the Government Paul Milyukov was the one who possessed the most strongly marked political individuality. He was a historian, and his works on the history of Russian culture are still looked upon as leading studies in the subject. But his academic career was soon ended. The Tsar’s Government regarded P.N. Milyukov with great suspicion, and he was forbidden to lecture or to reside in university towns. He himself gradually abandoned scientific research and gave himself up to politics, preferring to make history rather than to study it. Milyukov took an energetic part in the Constitutional movement, when it still bore a conspirative character (before the Treaty of Portsmouth), and after the first revolution in 1905 became one of the leaders of the newly formed Constitutional-Democratic (Cadet) party.
He became the leader of the opposition in the Third and Fourth Dumas, and his speeches caused far greater irritation in Government circles than did the sharper but narrowly Socialistic speeches of the extreme Left orators.
A man of rare erudition and of an enormous power for work, Milyukov had numerous adherents and friends, but also not a few enemies. He was considered by many as a doctrinaire on account of the stubbornness of his political views, while his endeavours to effect a compromise for the sake of rallying larger circles to the opposition were blamed as opportunism. As a matter of fact almost identical accusations were showered upon him both from Right and Left. This may partly be explained by the fact that it is easier for Milyukov to grasp an idea than to deal with men, as he is not a good judge of either their psychology or their character.
Not merely able but honest and courageous, he was one of the first who in the days of boundless revolutionary dreams and raptures uttered warnings against the dangers lurking on all sides, and even had the temerity to declare aloud that it would be better to settle on a constitutional monarchy, without being carried away by the idea of a republic which Russia as yet was incapable of realising.
These words, as well as his persistent and constant reminder that Russia would become free and powerful if only she, together with her Allies, succeeded in completely defeating Germany, gave Milyukov’s enemies the opportunity of raising a campaign against him from the very outset. He also added strength to the enemy’s position by emphasising in his statement of war aims that the possession of the Dardanelles was Russia’s vital need. This gave the Revolutionary Democracy occasion to clamour about Milyukov’s predatory aspirations and imperialism. During the Revolution all those to the right of him rather supported him. Those to the left feared or even hated him.