The Tsar’s Secret Police

By Emma Westport On Feb 23 2012, 1:59 am

A 1912 Sample of Information from the Moscow Okhrana

Like other countries, Russia had a normal police force, uniformed men who patrolled the streets and handled crimes.  But, according to Orlando Figes, “No other country in the world had two kinds of police—one to protect the interest of the state, the other to protect its people.”  

The Okhrana, the Tsar’s secret police, were charged with protecting the state or, more specifically, the autocracy.  Its agents were divided into the three groups.

‘Outside agents,’ or detectives, were the backbone of the Okhrana.  In hiring for this job, single men were preferred because of the danger involved.  Detectives normally worked alone with little to no back up.  Hours were long and irregular and these men had to think on their feet.     Women and certain racial or ethnic minorities were excluded from this work.  

‘Outside agents’ were expected to know everything about their city–when factories started work, what shops were open and when, bus routes, train schedules–all of this was committed to memory.  If one of these agents went down an alley, he knew every way possible way to get out. 

Carefully trained,  the ‘outside agent’ was taught to look passed things like hair color, glasses, or beards and focus on things that didn’t change.  He studied a suspect’s height, the shape of a jaw or even the size and condition of the suspect’s hands.  He was also taught never to make eye contact with the suspect.  If, by accident, he did, he was expected to remove themselves from the case.  No ‘outside agent’ ever referred to his suspect by name. 

These men followed their quarry with a remarkable and stubborn.  Special offices near the railways stood ready to issue them tickets and cash if their suspect suddenly left town.  The Okhrana also maintained locations throughout the city where an agent could duck in and disguise himself, coming out as a news vendor, a student or shop keeper.  Stables and cabs were always available and agents routinely dressed as cabbies to keep tabs on suspect and foreigners. 

‘Inside agents’ were men and women who belonged to various student groups, workers unions or terrorist cells.  They either volunteered to be informers or were recruited by the the Okhrana.  Danger and stress limited their work life with few lasting more than two years.  Controlling officers monitored the ‘inside agents’ and were supposed to pull them out at the first sign they’d crack.

Protecting the identity of these ‘inside agents’ was critical.  The Okhrana used code names and, in this case, the name chosen could not reflect anything about the person’s appearance, profession or character.  Names were changed regularly and only the chiefs of the departments were allowed to know to whom these names referred.  

The need for secrecy was real.  In 1876, on the mere suspicion of dealing with the police, a young man, N.E. Gorinovich, was beaten with a club, his face disfigured, his eyes blinded by sulfuric acid.  If someone was known to be cooperating with the police, the usual punishment was death. 

While the police valued ‘inside agents,’ they were also wary of them.  Anyone who changed sides once might well do it again and, in fact, many informers did.  In 1883, Sergei Degaev saved himself from ‘revolutionary justice’ by killing the officer who recruited him.  In 1911, Dmitri Bogrov, a long time police informant, shot and killed Russia’s Prime Minister, P. A. Stolypin, in front of the Tsar and his two oldest daughters.   

The Okhrana’s ‘technical staff’ archived and correlated the information supplied by the  various agents.  They also broke codes, faked documents and censored books and newspapers.  They were responsibile for staying abreast of any changes in technology that could be of use to terrorists, including changes in the use of explosives.   These were the people who read mail, monitored telegrams and tapped phones.

For obvious reasons, the Okhrana was well hated.  One of the first institutions targeted by revolutionaries, it ceased to exist after February 1917.

(Sources include A People’s Tragedy by Orlando Figes,  Thou Shalt Kill:  Revolutionary Terrorism in Russia 1894-1917 by Anna Geifman, and Fontanka 16: The Tsar’sSecret Police by Charles Ruud and Sergei A Stepanov.  Picture is from Wikimedia.)

11 Responses to “The Tsar’s Secret Police”

1. Ally Broadfield says:

   February 23, 2012 at 2:57 pm

   How ironic since 1905-1917 is the only time Russia was considered to be “uncensored.” It’s not surprising they failed in their Herculean task of protecting the autocracy.
   • Emma says:

     February 23, 2012 at 4:27 pm

     Censorship did continue though. There’s an interesting book called ‘Honeymooning In Russia,’ published in 1911. The author writes about her husband throwing down a newspaper he’d bought because the articles were smeared over with thick black ink–what the Russian’s called “black caviar.” She also talks about how odd it was that they got the same cabby ever time they went out (the driver was a police agent) and how her husband was arrested and put in jail for taking a photo even though he had a permit.

     Americans had difficulty travelling in Russia because of the police and theidiotic rules. There were also serious disputes over passports and over citizenship issues for those who had left Russia and become U.S. citizens but were now returning home. A number of prominent business people were arrested and it definitely affected relations between the two countries.

     What troubled me more, though, with respect to protecting the autocracy, was a reverse form of censorship. To assure the Imperial Couple all was well, the police pretended to be loyal peasant subjects and wrote letters praising the Tsar and Tsarina. These were then passed on to Nicholas and Alexandra. Alexandra definitely read and relied on them as proof of ‘the people’s’ support. Talk about living in a bubble.

     You’re right, though. The Okhrana was never big enough or strong enough to control the entire country. The everyday police force was weaker still. And, for all the bad things the Okhrana did, the Soviets made them look like pikers.
2. Denise Pattison says:

   February 23, 2012 at 6:41 pm

   They ended up not doing a very good job of protection for the Tsar and his family, huh?

   The people in power, whether royals or not, don’t learn that the little guys don’t like to be stepped on. Revolution is in the air when the little guys decide they’ve had enough. All it takes is one strong visionary leader.

   The Okhrana set the ground work for the Soviets, I think. They learned what the Okhrana didn’t do well and what was done exceptionally well and then they combined the knowledge but, again, they ignored what the little guy wanted out of life.
   • Emma says:

     February 23, 2012 at 8:01 pm

     I think you’re right. Especially about the Okhrana laying the ground work for the Soviets. The revolutionary movement and, certainly, the Bolsheviks, were shaped by the fight against the Okhrana. The Okhrana was the enemy but, in fighting against an enemy, you often become what you think you are fighting against. The Bolsheviks, and later the Soviet Government, adopted the Okhrana’s tactics, lost sight of their own goals, and simply took the tactics to a whole new level. Those who disagreed–’former persons,’ liberals, Menshiviks, conservatives, religous, whatever–were annihiliated. Many of the victims of the Soviet government were, at one time or another, victims of the Okhrana.
3. Sherry Isaacs says:

   February 24, 2012 at 4:19 pm

   I am so glad I stumbled upon this site. My ancestry is Russian, and I have always been fascinated and have wanted to understand more of my history. Consider yourself bookmarked.
4. Emma says:

   February 24, 2012 at 10:29 pm

   Always glad to meet another Russian history person!
   • Emma says:

     February 24, 2012 at 10:55 pm

     Sherry, if you haven’t already, you might want to check out http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/
     It’s a gold mine on Russian history, especially the late imperial period.
5. LRHunter says:

   February 25, 2012 at 4:26 am

   This is just fascinating.

   I’m not a fan of dictatorships, kingdoms, and the like, but I wonder how well the royal family could possibly govern the country if they didn’t know what was really going on?

   From here 2012 USA, it looks as if nobody has had an easy time of it in recent Russian history. Well, Putin, I guess.
   • Emma says:

     February 25, 2012 at 4:58 pm

     The answer to your question is not well at all. Nicholas was not the sharpest crayon in the box. At 23, his father dismissed him as “nothing but a boy whose judgments are utterly childish.” His education was not the best–his parents made some bad decisions in that regard–and even he knew he was not ready to rule Russia. As Tsar, he busied himself with jobs better done by a secretary or assistant instead of actually making decisions. He was weak-willed and abhorred conflict. His ministers knew he would agree or, at least, not object to anything they said in their meetings with him. But then he’d reverse his decisions or ignore them if anyone, including Alexandra, thought he should.

     Alexandra was not much better. She saw the world in black and white, literally in terms of friends and enemies, the enemies being anyone who challenged her view of the world. She does have to take responsibility for much of what went wrong, especially at the end, when she was all but governing Russia and pretty much driving it into the ground with bad decisions.

     Of course, the war pushed everything over the edge and it did not help that Alexandra, who was never liked, was German. Russia’s war effort fell apart and, fairly or not, she took a lot of the blame. Deaths were in the millions. Soldiers marched unarmed into battle picking up weapons from the men who fell dead in front of them. So many men were mobilized and lost that, in the country, there were no men to plow the fields or plant and harvest crops. In the cities, prices skyrocketed. The bad thing is, in an autocracy, guess who gets the blame? Miliukov, a liberal member of the Duma, gave a speech listing everytthing the autocracy had done wrong, all the bad decisions that had damaged Russia’s efforts against Germany, and demanded to know “Is this stupidity or is it treason?” The crowd roared, assuming it was treason. Today, most historians would say “stupidity.”
6. Caroline Clemmons says:

   February 27, 2012 at 5:46 am

   It is so sad to know the children of this cocooned couple were murdered for their parents’ weaknesses. I do realize they would have grown up to be the same type persons, but it’s still a shame. War always wipes out the innocent as well as the guilty.
   • Emma says:

     February 27, 2012 at 4:14 pm

     You’re right. Couldn’t have said it better.