ABSTRACT
Until now there is a clear uncertainty among historians on the issue of what the 1905 revolution represents for non-Russian nationalities of the Russian empire. This is quite understandable bearing in mind that the revolution was more thoroughly studied from the perspective of imperial centres where it after all originated, while peripheries were left largely for historians of nation-states which formed as a result of war and revolution after 1918.1 No wonder, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, many of the latter came to see the revolution of 1905 as a great manifestation, if not outright victory, of nationalist politics, while neglecting its social aspects. Some even suggested that the 1905 revolution in the periphery was nothing less than the springtime of the people of Russia.2 Thus by the summer of 1905, when central Russia was relatively peaceful, the revolutionary momentum was carried by the western and southern peripheries.3 Yet, if the general revolution, as we know well, failed largely due to the lack of unity among various social groups, could the same be said about the nationalist revolution taking place in the periphery?
