Despite considerable media attention paid to Vladimir Putin and Russia’s meddling in American and European politics, the centennial of the Russian Revolution has failed to register on the radar screen of American politics and culture. Academic historians, however, have addressed the Bolshevik anniversary with a number of scholarly volumes which shed some light on the Russian experience and should expand understanding of a nation and society with whom the United States has experienced an adversarial relationship since the 1917 Russian Revolution. A book which deserves more readership than it is likely to receive is a biography by Richard G. Robbins Jr., professor emeritus of history at the University of New Mexico, of a rather obscure but significant figure who bridged the gap between Imperial and Revolutionary Russia, Vladimir Fedorovich Dzhunkovsky.

As a member of the Russian nobility, Dzhunkovsky loyally served the Romanov royal family as a soldier and administrator, who was appointed Governor of Moscow and Assistant Minister of Internal Affairs for the security police. However, Robbins documents that Dzhunkovsky’s opposition to the influence of Grigorii Rasputin on the Russian court displeased the royal family and led Nicholas II to dismiss his loyal minister. After his administrative career was terminated, Dzhunkovsky served with distinction as a military commander during the First World War before the collapse of the Russian military plagued by political dissent and a lack of supplies.

Following the Revolution, Dzhunkovsky’s career as a supporter of the tsarist regime made him suspect, and he was arrested. Nevertheless, Dzhunkovsky was not executed and was able to secure his freedom during the 1920s and 1930s by cooperating with the Soviet authorities and providing information on his tenure as security chief and governor. In the final analysis, he was unable to escape the reach of Stalin’s terror, and Dzhunkovsky was again incarcerated and executed on February 26, 1938.

Relying upon Dzhunkovsky’s extensive memoirs focusing upon his administrative duties, Robbins relates this fascinating life in a deft fashion that will appeal to both scholars and more general readers, although for the uninitiated he might provide a little more background information on the administrative structure of Imperial Russia.

Robbins describes Dzhunkovsky as a “liberal conservative” who was devoted to order, the monarchy, and his Orthodox faith, but he was sympathetic to the plight of the Russian masses. He embraced reforms that would create a more modern, diverse Russian society with increasing commercial and bourgeois elements. Dzhunkovsky, however, believed that reforms and change should be introduced from above and guided by enlightened conservatives rather than revolutionaries. Reactionaries accused Dzhunkovsky of being a traitor to Imperial Russia, but Robbins argues that the nobleman remained true to his conservative principles while being open to dialogue and managed change, treating others with respect and demonstrating an intuitive grasp of what would later be described as “public relations.” Robbins writes, “With regard to workers, peasants, and common soldiers this took the form of patriarchal concern for their welfare; in the case of the more privileged and educated, he displayed it in his respect for the law and proper procedures and in the willingness to extend an open hand even to those with whom he might strongly disagree” (485).

While admiring Dzhunkovsky’s character, Robbins is certainly not uncritical in his evaluation of the nobleman. Robbins acknowledges that Dzhunkovsky seemed to embrace the anti-Semitism of his Russian social class. His courtship of a married woman, Nina Evreinova raised the prospect of scandal in his personal life, but the relationship did not culminate in happiness for Dzhunkovsky. He proposed marriage after the death of Nina’s husband, but she declined the offer, and Dzhunkovsky never married while growing increasingly dependent upon his sister Evdokiia in his old age. Another tragedy in his personal life was the assassination of Grand Duke Sergie Alexandrovich to whom he was devoted.

This act of violence against the royal family, however, did not turn Dzhunkovsky into a reactionary, and he continued to navigate a more moderate course as he assumed the governorship of Moscow province in 1906. He abhorred the chaos unleashed by the Revolution of 1905 and supported the efforts of the Minister of Internal Affairs Petr Arkadevich Stolypin to suppress dissent, while embracing the reforms introduced by the minister to improve the lot of the peasants. Dzhunkovsky sought to tame the growing radicalism of organizations for self-government in the countryside such as the zemstvos and insisted that representatives of the working class demonstrate proper respect for the monarchy. On the other hand, he encouraged social clubs for workers where fellowship and food were available, but vodka was forbidden. However, he eventually banned the discussion of politics and labor organization at government-sponsored activities. The condition of workers and peasants was to be improved from above and not through grass-roots organizing.

Dzhunkovsky was also in charge of the centennial celebrating the Battle of Borodino and the resistance to Napoleon. In appreciation of his work, Nicholas II rewarded the governor in 1913 with an appointment as Assistant Minister of Internal Affairs with responsibility for the security police. The Moscow governor accepted the promotion with the understanding that he would be able to pursue reform of the security services. For example, Dzhunkovsky sought to discontinue the use of government agent provocateurs among high school students and the military. He also wanted to end the surveillance of private letters by the security police, but he was unsuccessful in this endeavor.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of his career with the security forces was the handling of Roman Malinovsky, a government agent who infiltrated Lenin’s inner circle and was elected as a Bolshevik representative to the Duma or Russian parliament. Misreading the political situation, Dzhunkovsky also sought to reduce the size of the security forces, leading some to accuse him of treason and conspiracy—charges for which Robbins finds no evidence.

Dzhunkovsky’s endeavor to balance reform with order was evident in his mission to the Baku oilfields of Azerbaijan to mediate a strike. He refused to employ troops to suppress the striking workers, but he concluded that the oil companies should not increase wages over which they had already made concessions. Yet, he also ordered the companies to improve working and living conditions for the workers and their families. In addition, the minister earned the gratitude of the tsar for the security surrounding the tercentenary celebration of the Romanov dynasty. Seeking better public relations, Dzhunkovsky sought to downplay the security presence as he continued to believe in a mystic relationship between the Russian people and their tsar. Despite his service to the royal family, Dzhunkovsky was dismissed by Nicholas II after the minister attempted to warn the tsar about the negative influence of Rasputin upon the deteriorating political situation in Russia.

After he was sacked, Dzhunkovsky joined the war effort on Russia’s western front. Although the troops were initially suspicious of Dzhunkovsky, Robbins relates that he won them over through his courage, organizational skills, and the respect with which he treated all those under his command. Dzhunkovsky was saddened by the tsar’s abdication, but his patriotism was evident in his willingness to serve the new revolutionary government. Robbins credits Dzhunkovsky with maintaining a degree of order among his troops as the war wound down and Soviet soldiers gained more control over their daily lives. After the war, Dzhunkovsky was arrested but released from prison in 1923. He maintained a low profile and survived until 1938. Dzhunkovsky has little to say about these years in his memoirs, but Robbins speculates that he may have received protection from Soviet officials such as Viacheslave Menzhinsky in exchange for his willingness to cooperate with the security forces. However, like so many others he was unable to escape Stalin’s terror.

The life of Vladimir Dzhunkovsky is an amazing journey from Imperial Russia to the terror of Stalin that is well told by Robbins in a book that has the scope of a Tolstoy novel. Robbins employs the fascinating story of the rather obscure Dzhunkovsky to shed light upon modern Russian history and the legacy of autocracy which continues to cast a long shadow over both internal and international politics under the rule of Vladimir Putin. It is a history of which Americans should be aware as the specter of Russia increasingly dominates the national political scene. But Robbins concludes on an optimistic note, asserting that Dzhunkovsky’s life suggests the possibility of a more positive legacy for Russian life and politics: “that government existed for the people, not people for the government; that firm authority could be based on the rule of law, respectful of individual rights and receptive to public opinion” (489).